Thoughts on a Poster?

[SummerAmy]

Hi everyone

I have recently had some feedback about a research poster I put out, saying that they didn't like my use of the term Asperger's. I had used it for a reason (where I am from this is the term most people prefer, but I now realise the internet is a whole different game!), but I have now redesigned the poster in a hope to balance this out.

What are your thoughts on the new design? Am I likely to accidentally offend anyone, and is any of it unclear? I was quite upset about the last feedback, so it would be great if I had feedback on this one before I sent it out

Thanks

Summer

 

[Starfire]

Doesn’t look offensive at all to me. If I were to make one suggestion it would be to change autism/Aspergers to ASD/Aspergers as that may encompass more people, and be a little more up to date. That’s a minor point though and realistically you will never please all the people all the time, if someone wants to be offended they will always find something to be offended by.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

 

[Progster]

I can only speak for myself, but I can't find anything offensive in the poster.

However, I find the question rather vague and hard to grasp - what exactly does "uniquely important" mean? More beneficial in comparison to what? To be honest, I don't really understand it.

 

[SummerAmy]

Doesn’t look offensive at all to me. If I were to make one suggestion it would be to change autism/Aspergers to ASD/Aspergers as that may encompass more people, and be a little more up to date. That’s a minor point though and realistically you will never please all the people all the time, if someone wants to be offended they will always find something to be offended by.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Thank you!! That's a good point, I will change it
And thank you for the welcome

 

[Starfire]

I can only speak for myself, but I can't find anything offensive in the poster.

However, I find the question rather vague and hard to grasp - what exactly does "uniquely important" mean? More beneficial in comparison to what? To be honest, I don't really understand it.

I agree with “More beneficial in comparison to what?” that’s a good point. That question is a little vague.

 

[SummerAmy]

I can only speak for myself, but I can't find anything offensive in the poster.

However, I find the question rather vague and hard to grasp - what exactly does "uniquely important" mean? More beneficial in comparison to what? To be honest, I don't really understand it.

That's helpful, thank you

In the original poster I referred to 'special interests', which was also taken as offensive, although it was the term most agreed upon in previous consultations . By using "uniquely important" I am trying to capture the whole 'circumscribed interests' concept without offending people that dislike the term or people that don't have a 'special interest' so to speak. The point of my research is to investigate if our 'special interests' have a more significant effect on our well-being than the interests of NT people, given the notion that in general we spend more time learning about/taking part in etc an interest that is important to us. Research with NTs shows a positive relationship between interests and well-being, and I predict that for those of us on the spectrum, this relationship will be even more positive. This is in contradiction to clinicians who claim our 'circumscribed interests' are all consuming and we should therefore be discouraged from them .

This is all very clumsy and long to put onto a short advert, so I have tried to sum it up the best I can, and then I explain a little more in the research brief when someone follows the link.

Any thoughts on how I could rephrase it would be greatly appreciated I will keep thinking!

 

[SummerAmy]

I agree with “More beneficial in comparison to what?” that’s a good point. That question is a little vague.

Ok It's more beneficial in comparison to NTs. I didn't know the best language to refer to people not on the spectrum, as they will also see the poster!

Any suggestions other than writing out 'individuals not on the autism spectrum'? - Which is also kind of a lie if we're being technical, because everyone falls somewhere . Does 'non-autistic adults' work?

 

[Progster]

That's helpful, thank you

In the original poster I referred to 'special interests', which was also taken as offensive, although it was the term most agreed upon in previous consultations . By using "uniquely important" I am trying to capture the whole 'circumscribed interests' concept without offending people that dislike the term or people that don't have a 'special interest' so to speak. The point of my research is to investigate if our 'special interests' have a more significant effect on our well-being than the interests of NT people, given the notion that in general we spend more time learning about/taking part in etc an interest that is important to us. Research with NTs shows a positive relationship between interests and well-being, and I predict that for those of us on the spectrum, this relationship will be even more positive. This is in contradiction to clinicians who claim our 'circumscribed interests' are all consuming and we should therefore be discouraged from them .

This is all very clumsy and long to put onto a short advert, so I have tried to sum it up the best I can, and then I explain a little more in the research brief when someone follows the link.

Any thoughts on how I could rephrase it would be greatly appreciated I will keep thinking!

Thanks for explaining, I think I understand now. How about:
Do those on the autistic spectrum benefit more from their hobbies and interests than their non-autistic counterparts?

 

[tree]

Or even...
How (to what degree) do hobbies and interests
benefit people on the autism spectrum?

or
What unique benefits do hobbies and interests
have for....
etc

 

[SummerAmy]

Thanks for explaining, I think I understand now. How about:
Do those on the autistic spectrum benefit more from their hobbies and interests than their non-autistic counterparts?

I like it! Hadn't thought about phrasing it that way, it definitely sounds more positive.
Where do we stand on referring to people on and not on the spectrum? I've always been a little confused because technically everyone (including NT's) is somewhere on the spectrum, as it's a spectrum? Or have I always confused it with a 'spectrum of traits', which is different, and the autism spectrum only refers to autistic people?

 

[SummerAmy]

So I've done some research and I think I've always confused the word spectrum with the idea of traits being present in a bell curve. In academic writing I've referred to the Autism Spectrum, as detailed in the DSM etc., and I refer to being 'on the spectrum' when talking to friends, but I've always been too afraid of getting it wrong on social media.

That's embarrassing!

 

[Starfire]

I think you are getting some great feedback from people far more eloquent than me, and I can’t really add to their suggestions.

This is in contradiction to clinicians who claim our 'circumscribed interests' are all consuming and we should therefore be discouraged from them

I find this quite shocking, I had no idea clinicians thought that! It would have a devastating effect on me if I were unable to pursue my interests, passions and hobbies how I see fit. My family know to leave me alone when “dads on a mission.” As for discouraging me, why? I work hard and provide, I don’t see any harm in being left to pursue my special interests in what little time I have free for myself.

 

[SummerAmy]

I think you are getting some great feedback from people far more eloquent than me, and I can’t really add to their suggestions.



I find this quite shocking, I had no idea clinicians thought that! It would have a devastating effect on me if I were unable to pursue my interests, passions and hobbies how I see fit. My family know to leave me alone when “dads on a mission.” As for discouraging me, why? I work hard and provide, I don’t see any harm in being left to pursue my special interests in what little time I have free for myself.

It was a view related to inhibiting development in children, which I definitely think has changed now. There is a lot of research on how interests 'interfere'. I don't want to generalise to all clinicians either, as I'm sure some would have recognised them as a benefit
There is a lot of research being done now on how interests can be used as motivators, which I also see as tricky if people start to view interests as just a tool to get children to do what they want them to do. I'd like to just demonstrate they can be beneficial to general well-being, and not necessarily a tool to be harnessed.

And your suggestions have been great, thank you!

 

[Mary Anne]

I agree with changing the Austism part to ASD or change the whole thing to the “on the Autism Spectrum,” given the current hysteria over the historical controversy with the name Aspergers.

 

[SummerAmy]

I agree with changing the Austism part to ASD or change the whole thing to the “on the Autism Spectrum,” given the current hysteria over the historical controversy with the name Aspergers.

Yes, true! My posters were already out when the news was published it was rather awkward

 

[Mary Anne]

Yes, true! My posters were already out when the news was published it was rather awkward

Hopefully, not everyone will be so hysterical when seeing the name. You did th best you could at the time. Like anything in this modern world, things can change in a nanosecond. I long for the olden days of pre-computers when time slowly unfolded at a snails pace. Give me the world of the 1960s American TV show “Andy Griffith.”
Will we here on this forum be able to participate in your research? I am in the USA.

 

[Mary Anne]

Being a research person, this is the actual scientific study which was just published on Han Aspergers which is causing all the media firestorm. It does seem compelling!

Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene†in Nazi-era Vienna | Molecular Autism | Full Text

 

[SummerAmy]

Hopefully, not everyone will be so hysterical when seeing the name. You did th best you could at the time. Like anything in this modern world, things can change in a nanosecond. I long for the olden days of pre-computers when time slowly unfolded at a snails pace. Give me the world of the 1960s American TV show “Andy Griffith.”
Will we here on this forum be able to participate in your research? I am in the USA.

I will second that
If you'd like to, the link is here:
https://cccusocialsciences.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mAWKjs8xMVbcwJ
It's live for another couple of weeks, but once started it gives you two weeks to complete even after the survey closes to new responses

 

[Mary Anne]

I will second that
If you'd like to, the link is here:
https://cccusocialsciences.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2mAWKjs8xMVbcwJ
It's live for another couple of weeks, but once started it gives you two weeks to complete even after the survey closes to new responses

Thanks! Off to do it now!

 

[Progster]

I like it! Hadn't thought about phrasing it that way, it definitely sounds more positive.
Where do we stand on referring to people on and not on the spectrum? I've always been a little confused because technically everyone (including NT's) is somewhere on the spectrum, as it's a spectrum? Or have I always confused it with a 'spectrum of traits', which is different, and the autism spectrum only refers to autistic people?

I think that if you say 'people on the autistic spectrum, it will be clear that you refer to people with an ASD diagnosis, or those with a suspected one.