(Re)Constructions of Autistics in Human-Computer Interaction

Authors

Abstract

This three-paper dissertation argues that human-computer interaction (HCI) research constructs autism and autistic people in ways that enable and normalize harmful research practices. As an autistic researcher studying autism research, I employ critical discourse analysis, semi-autoethnography, and inductive citation analysis to expose discursive, rhetorical, and citational mechanisms through which autistic people are framed as passive recipients of technologically-mediated interventions rather than knowers, makers, or stakeholders in research that affects us. The first paper examines the field’s ideological stances through the rhetorical construction of autistic people as robot-like – mechanistic, computeristic, and possessing "natural affinities" for technology. Building on existing literature, I trace how these narratives position autistic people not merely as less-than-human but as less-than-living: things to be acted upon rather than self-determined agents. I argue that these constructions normalize human-computer interaction’s complicity in violent behavioral intervention paradigms and explore the political economies that sustain this research. Drawing on crip technoscience and cyborg theory, I propose the figure of the "cripborg" as an alternative framing that recognizes autistic technology use as agentic and political rather than robotic. The second paper investigates claims that autistic people have "a natural affinity for technology," which appears throughout autism-related human-computer interaction research. Through an inductive analysis of 77 claim-containing papers and 48 cited-for-claim papers, I find that this essentializing claim lacks meaningful evidentiary support. Citations either point to other papers making the same unsupported claim, to sources that do not contain supporting evidence, or to nothing at all. I identify troubling citational mechanics, finding that a significant number of “natural affinity” claims derive from a single paper that (A) does not support the claim and (B) contains the claim and cites an unsupportive paper in support of it. I find that the rhetorical patterns of citations lend the appearance of scientific merit without accountability to evidence and evidence of inadequate peer review. In effect, autism becomes a container for whatever meaning a given researcher requires to make their work appear properly warranted. These findings raise serious questions about the veridicality and rigor of HCI research, particularly regarding marginalized populations. I discuss the need for accountability and clearer agreements within the field about what constitutes rigorous and meaningful research. The final paper turns to #ActuallyAutistic Twitter, where I examine how autistic people use the platform to discuss, engage with, resist, and intervene in autism research. I find that autistic counternarratives align with the neurodiversity paradigm, while dominant academic discourses adhere to the medical model of disability. Though both orientations sometimes share stated research priorities, they represent fundamentally irreconcilable approaches – the same words carry radically different meanings and implications. I explore how autistic Twitter users interact with researchers across this paradigmatic divide and conclude by articulating the implications of these findings for HCI researchers interested in conducting ethical, non-violent autism research. Together, these papers show that autism in HCI is treated less as a population to be served and more as a resource to be extracted. Researchers claim social impact while perpetuating harm. These problems are endemic to the field's commitments to progress, productivity, and utility, and a fundamental reorientation is required. Autistic people are not belligerent robots made to bear imposed meanings. We are belligerent humans with knowledge and experiences critical to reshaping HCI.

No cited bibliography is currently integrated for this reference. This does not necessarily mean that no bibliography exists.