Challenging Ableist Language in Autism Research

This case study explores a debate in autism research concerning the impact of language on inclusivity, accuracy, and respect for neurodivergent people. Some people, such as Singer et al. (2022), call for researchers to have the freedom to use a broad “semantic toolbox” when describing autism, including terms that have historically been criticised as pathologising or ableist. Their position argues against restricting scientific vocabulary in the name of inclusion, suggesting such limitations could hinder research progress.

In response, several scholars and autistic advocates—including Natri et al. (2023) and Collis (2023)—challenged this framing. They emphasised that language is never neutral: it shapes how autistic people are perceived and treated, both in research and in society. These authors argue that terms like “suffers from autism” or “at risk of autism” reinforce deficit-based views and perpetuate stigma. From their perspective, inclusive and identity-affirming language is not a constraint on research, but a vital component of ethical, accurate, and accessible scholarship.

These exchanges exemplify the need to actively identify points of bias in research language and to build accessibility into both research processes and communication. Inclusive terminology—especially when co-produced with autistic people—can reduce harm, foster trust, and ensure that autistic voices are meaningfully represented. This case highlights how shifts in language practice are central to broader goals of inclusive research.

A Full Semantic Toolbox is Essential for Autism Research by Singer et al. (2022)

Anti-ableist Language is Compatible with High-Quality Research by Natri et al. (2023)

A Response to Singer et al. by Collis (2023)

Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers by Bottema-Beutel et al. (2021)