Person-oriented ethics for autism research: Creating best practices through engagement with autism and autistic communities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research ethics is an important part of any study. Ethics goes beyond ethics committee approval and consent documents. It addresses broader issues of respect, inclusion, and empowerment in the everyday context of research. This article focuses on everyday aspects of research ethics for studies involving autistic participants. It draws on a review of the literature and a process of ethical deliberation involving a task force of researchers, professionals, autistic self-advocates, and parents. These methods led to the creation of suggestions for researchers. This article describes the community engagement process, briefly presents the task force suggestions, and provides more detailed discussion of select items for illustration. Suggestions are organized around five “person-oriented research ethics” guideposts: (1) individualization (e.g. providing individualized support for participants), (2) acknowledgment of lived world (e.g. acknowledging barriers to care that impact research ethics), (3) empowerment in decision-making (e.g. creating accessible consent processes that address specific communication needs), (4) respect for holistic personhood (e.g. addressing sensory and processing needs and strengths), and (5) focus on researcher–participant relationships (e.g. involving autistic people in ways other than research participants, including but not limited to via participatory research). This project highlights the value of researcher–community partnerships in discussions about research ethics. Lay abstract Research ethics means issues that concern the welfare and wellbeing of people who take part in research. It is important in all scientific studies. Ethics helps people who do research treat people who take part in research fairly and with respect. This article is about day-to-day ethics when autistic people take part in research. We present tips for researchers who want to do this type of study. We used two methods to create these tips. First, we wanted to know what other people said about this topic. We used a literature review to find out. Second, we wanted to know what autistic people, parents, and professionals thought, and had a working group meet to discuss it. The working group provided advice that researchers could consider around day-to-day ethics in research. This article talks about these methods and advice. The advice fits into five big groups: Tailor the research process for the unique needs of each person. Think about the world in which people who take part in research live. Make it easier for people to make their own choices. Value what people who take part in research have to share and consider their needs and strengths. Think about how researchers and people who take part in research work together. This project shows why it is useful for researchers and communities to talk about research ethics together.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,361 | 0,235 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,029 | 0,080 |
| Communication savante | 0,024 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,056 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».