Support us
About
Resourses
Research
Autism through talent
Who Gets to Tell the Story of Autism?
Written by EVOAUTISM Foundation
Temple Grandin speaking at TED 2010
Much of what the public knows about autism comes from people observing it from the outside. What is harder to access is what autistic people know from living it.
An autistic person can explain why a room felt unbearable, what a teacher or doctor misread, how a fixation turned into a career, which kind of help actually worked, or why something that looked strange from the outside made complete sense from the inside. Public storytelling is one of the few places that knowledge gets recorded.
An autistic person can explain why a room felt unbearable, what a teacher or doctor misread, how a fixation turned into a career, which kind of help actually worked, or why something that looked strange from the outside made complete sense from the inside. Public storytelling is one of the few places that knowledge gets recorded.
Conceptual interpretation by EVOAUTISM Foundation based on Catala, A., Faucher, L. & Poirier, P. (2021), “Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: a relational account of epistemic agency,” Synthese.
Who is treated as a source of knowledge?
IIn 2007, philosopher Miranda Fricker published Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing [1], describing situations where someone is doubted specifically in their role as a person who knows something about themselves. One kind, testimonial injustice, happens when prejudice makes people trust a speaker's account less than they should. Another happens when the language available to describe an experience simply isn't there yet.
Researchers Amandine Catala, Luc Faucher and Pierre Poirier applied this framework to autism [2], comparing first-person and third-person accounts and arguing that assumptions about autistic communication can affect whether autistic people are treated as reliable narrators of their own lives.
That's a different problem than inaccurate representation. A photo can be respectful, a biography can get every fact right, a study can describe a behavior with precision - and the person described can still have almost no say in what it's taken to mean.
Public storytelling raises a separate question: who explains what the experience actually was?
Researchers Amandine Catala, Luc Faucher and Pierre Poirier applied this framework to autism [2], comparing first-person and third-person accounts and arguing that assumptions about autistic communication can affect whether autistic people are treated as reliable narrators of their own lives.
That's a different problem than inaccurate representation. A photo can be respectful, a biography can get every fact right, a study can describe a behavior with precision - and the person described can still have almost no say in what it's taken to mean.
Public storytelling raises a separate question: who explains what the experience actually was?
Siena Castellon - founder of Neurodiversity Celebration Week - with her book
A 2026 study by Aino-Mari Uisma, Tuija Virkki and Minna Ylilahti [3] looked at how autistic young adults experience healthcare. Several described being misunderstood, dismissed or reinterpreted by professionals expecting something different from what they saw. In participants' accounts, a narrow idea of what autism "should" look like seemed to make it harder for clinicians to recognize experiences that didn't fit - and easier to question the patient's own account instead.
The same pattern runs through public culture. Films, news coverage, exhibitions, books and social media feed examples into the public idea of autism, and over time those examples decide what looks familiar. One personal story won't fix that. A wide range of autistic stories can loosen it.
The same pattern runs through public culture. Films, news coverage, exhibitions, books and social media feed examples into the public idea of autism, and over time those examples decide what looks familiar. One personal story won't fix that. A wide range of autistic stories can loosen it.
Public understanding also depends on what people have learned to recognize as autism. When that picture is narrow, people whose lives don't fit it can end up explaining themselves repeatedly, or find their own account carries less weight than an observer's expectation. Autism representation decides which experiences feel familiar enough to be recognized, and which don't.
That shows up most clearly when autistic people describe something that doesn't match what someone else expected autism to look like.
That shows up most clearly when autistic people describe something that doesn't match what someone else expected autism to look like.
Why autism representation is becoming too narrow?
Mean empathic accuracy by narrator type for happiness and sadness. Note. Higher scores indicate closer agreement between observers’ ratings of emotional intensity and narrators’ own ratings. Differences between autistic and non-autistic narrators were statistically significant for both happiness and sadness.
There's a second reason first-person accounts matter, separate from stereotypes.
The double empathy problem, developed in autism research over roughly the last decade, challenges the assumption that miscommunication between autistic and non-autistic people comes from a deficit on one side. It proposes instead that two people with different ways of processing social information can read each other wrong, in both directions.
A study published in Autism [4] tested this. Eighty-one non-autistic adults watched autistic and non-autistic people describe real emotional experiences from their own lives, and were less accurate at naming what the autistic narrators actually felt, particularly happiness and sadness.
That complicates a common assumption: hearing someone's story doesn't, by itself, produce accurate understanding. A first-person account can add context that observation alone tends to miss. Someone can look disengaged while feeling fully present. A pause can be language processing, not hesitation. An interest that looks repetitive from outside can carry years of study, pleasure or professional skill for the person living it. The story is what makes that context visible.
The double empathy problem, developed in autism research over roughly the last decade, challenges the assumption that miscommunication between autistic and non-autistic people comes from a deficit on one side. It proposes instead that two people with different ways of processing social information can read each other wrong, in both directions.
A study published in Autism [4] tested this. Eighty-one non-autistic adults watched autistic and non-autistic people describe real emotional experiences from their own lives, and were less accurate at naming what the autistic narrators actually felt, particularly happiness and sadness.
That complicates a common assumption: hearing someone's story doesn't, by itself, produce accurate understanding. A first-person account can add context that observation alone tends to miss. Someone can look disengaged while feeling fully present. A pause can be language processing, not hesitation. An interest that looks repetitive from outside can carry years of study, pleasure or professional skill for the person living it. The story is what makes that context visible.
Why autistic experience cannot be read from behaviour alone
What first-person autistic
stories add
Research and public education are treating this distinction, between being described and describing yourself, as worth building programs around.
One example is an autism-focused Human Library project in Hong Kong [5]. The format treats people as "human books": visitors sit down and talk with them directly instead of reading about them. Autistic participants helped develop the program and then took part as the human books themselves, talking with readers about their own lives.
Surveys before and after the sessions found lower reported stigma around autism and more favorable attitudes toward neurodiversity. Interview responses suggested that some readers reconsidered assumptions they had brought with them. It was a pilot study, so it cannot tell us whether those changes lasted. People who choose to attend an event like this may also arrive with more interest in autism than the general public. Still, the autistic participants were involved in both the design of the program and the conversations that visitors experienced.
One example is an autism-focused Human Library project in Hong Kong [5]. The format treats people as "human books": visitors sit down and talk with them directly instead of reading about them. Autistic participants helped develop the program and then took part as the human books themselves, talking with readers about their own lives.
Surveys before and after the sessions found lower reported stigma around autism and more favorable attitudes toward neurodiversity. Interview responses suggested that some readers reconsidered assumptions they had brought with them. It was a pilot study, so it cannot tell us whether those changes lasted. People who choose to attend an event like this may also arrive with more interest in autism than the general public. Still, the autistic participants were involved in both the design of the program and the conversations that visitors experienced.
A 2021 study by Desiree Jones, Kilee DeBrabander and Noah Sasson tested a different approach [6]. The researchers assigned 238 non-autistic adults to an autism acceptance training, a general mental health training or a no-training control group. The 25-minute autism training combined factual information with first-person accounts of autistic experience. An autistic adult contributed to the original training module, which was later revised with input from an autistic-led advocacy group.
Human Library at Chinese University of Hong Kong
After the autism training, participants reported less stigma and greater interest in interacting with autistic people. They were more willing to spend time with an autistic person or start a conversation with one. They also had higher expectations of autistic people's abilities in activities and work than participants who completed the general mental health training.
On the Social Distance Scale, where lower scores indicate lower reported stigma, the autism acceptance group had a mean score of 8.79. The mental health group scored 10.54 and the no-training group 10.18. The differences between the autism training group and both comparison groups were statistically significant.
The study also found a clear limit. The training changed explicit responses, but it did not significantly change implicit bias.
Researchers used an Implicit Association Test to measure how quickly participants associated autism-related labels with pleasant or unpleasant attributes. Mean D-scores were 0.21 in the autism acceptance group, 0.33 in the mental health group and 0.29 in the control group. The difference between the three groups was not statistically significant.
On the Social Distance Scale, where lower scores indicate lower reported stigma, the autism acceptance group had a mean score of 8.79. The mental health group scored 10.54 and the no-training group 10.18. The differences between the autism training group and both comparison groups were statistically significant.
The study also found a clear limit. The training changed explicit responses, but it did not significantly change implicit bias.
Researchers used an Implicit Association Test to measure how quickly participants associated autism-related labels with pleasant or unpleasant attributes. Mean D-scores were 0.21 in the autism acceptance group, 0.33 in the mental health group and 0.29 in the control group. The difference between the three groups was not statistically significant.
Reported autism stigma after training. Mean Social Distance Scale scores were lower after autism acceptance training than after mental health training or no training. Lower scores indicate lower reported stigma. Data: Jones, DeBrabander & Sasson (2021).
There was another detail worth noting. The autism training did not significantly change several immediate judgments of the autistic adults shown in the study, including ratings of likeability, trustworthiness, dominance and awkwardness. Yet participants who had completed the training expressed greater interest in spending time with them and starting a conversation.
That distinction is useful for thinking about public storytelling. A short encounter may change what someone consciously believes, what they expect autistic people to be capable of, and whether they say they would interact with them. Automatic associations appear harder to shift.
That distinction is useful for thinking about public storytelling. A short encounter may change what someone consciously believes, what they expect autistic people to be capable of, and whether they say they would interact with them. Automatic associations appear harder to shift.
Implicit bias after training. Mean Implicit Association Test D-scores did not differ significantly between the autism acceptance, mental health and no-training groups. Higher positive scores indicate a stronger automatic association between autism-related labels and unpleasant attributes. Data: Jones, DeBrabander & Sasson (2021).
When autistic stories enter the public record
A related project exists in disability history. The Disability Visibility Project partnered with StoryCorps [7] to record oral histories from disabled people, some of which have gone into the American Folklife Center archive at the Library of Congress - where a personal account stops being a one-time interview and becomes part of a public record, in the person's own words, alongside policy documents and diagnostic descriptions.
Autism research has been asking a version of the same question about who sets the agenda. In 2014, Elizabeth Pellicano, Adam Dinsmore and Tony Charman compared UK autism research funding [8] with the priorities of autistic adults, families, practitioners and researchers, and found the two didn't line up. Community members wanted more attention on services, everyday support, and how autistic people think and learn - areas funding wasn't tracking. The authors called for a stronger role for autistic people in setting research priorities, deciding what gets studied rather than only taking part in studies designed by others.
The same distinction applies to autism storytelling. Someone can take part in a project by agreeing to be interviewed or photographed. Authorship goes further: correcting how something is described, explaining what it meant, deciding what stays private, having a say in how the finished piece looks. For an institution, that changes the participant's role - from subject of the work to someone who helped make it.
Autism research has been asking a version of the same question about who sets the agenda. In 2014, Elizabeth Pellicano, Adam Dinsmore and Tony Charman compared UK autism research funding [8] with the priorities of autistic adults, families, practitioners and researchers, and found the two didn't line up. Community members wanted more attention on services, everyday support, and how autistic people think and learn - areas funding wasn't tracking. The authors called for a stronger role for autistic people in setting research priorities, deciding what gets studied rather than only taking part in studies designed by others.
The same distinction applies to autism storytelling. Someone can take part in a project by agreeing to be interviewed or photographed. Authorship goes further: correcting how something is described, explaining what it meant, deciding what stays private, having a say in how the finished piece looks. For an institution, that changes the participant's role - from subject of the work to someone who helped make it.
One story cannot represent autism
There's a risk built into any project made of individual stories: one visible person can end up standing in for a much larger group.
An autistic scientist can't explain autism as a category. Neither can an artist, athlete, student, entrepreneur, nonspeaking adult or child - each of them can explain a life. That matters especially when autism representation leans on unusual achievement: those stories widen what people expect from autistic adults, but a collection of only exceptional success builds its own narrow picture. The opposite failure exists too - when autism shows up mostly through crisis, support needs get mistaken for someone's whole identity.
A useful archive needs contradiction in it. Some autistic people become highly independent; others need significant support for life. Some build a career around one early interest; others change direction repeatedly. A person can be strong in one area and struggle badly in another. None of that is a flaw in the record - it's what the record is supposed to hold.
An autistic scientist can't explain autism as a category. Neither can an artist, athlete, student, entrepreneur, nonspeaking adult or child - each of them can explain a life. That matters especially when autism representation leans on unusual achievement: those stories widen what people expect from autistic adults, but a collection of only exceptional success builds its own narrow picture. The opposite failure exists too - when autism shows up mostly through crisis, support needs get mistaken for someone's whole identity.
A useful archive needs contradiction in it. Some autistic people become highly independent; others need significant support for life. Some build a career around one early interest; others change direction repeatedly. A person can be strong in one area and struggle badly in another. None of that is a flaw in the record - it's what the record is supposed to hold.
Why EVOAUTISM created Public Stories
This is the reasoning behind Public Stories at EVOAUTISM Foundation, an ongoing collection of autistic stories and individual trajectories across art, science, sport and public life.
Achievement shows up in many of these stories, but it isn't the point of the project. We're interested in the path: what was hard early on, what people got wrong, which interests stuck, what kind of support actually helped, how the work developed, what's still difficult now. Wherever we can, the person featured reviews how their own story is written before it's published.
Public Stories isn't a list of role models. A child's intense interest doesn't predict a career. One person's path doesn't give another person a formula. The same support can produce different outcomes in different lives. What a growing collection offers instead is range - enough different trajectories that a parent, teacher or mentor might notice something in a young person they'd otherwise miss, or that an institution's assumptions about ability get harder to hold onto unchanged.
That's also why the project shows people with different professions, support needs and backgrounds. A collection built from one kind of person repeats the same narrow autism representation it's trying to work against. Readers interested in the broader argument can also read our earlier piece on how socially engaged art changes what people notice about autism.
The Public Stories section on the EVOAUTISM Foundation website
A larger public record of autistic lives
Public storytelling changes who is actually present in the material people learn about autism from. Clinical definitions still matter. Research still matters. Families and professionals hold real knowledge too. First-person accounts and autistic lived experience add something none of those can - knowledge that only comes from having lived it.
When enough different autistic lives are on the record, autism representation gets harder to compress into one personality, one level of ability or one expected future. A single story can't define autism - a growing collection can show how much the word actually contains.
When enough different autistic lives are on the record, autism representation gets harder to compress into one personality, one level of ability or one expected future. A single story can't define autism - a growing collection can show how much the word actually contains.
