Approaching People about Participating in Study

Post Reply New Topic

I still think you should ask a Moderator, here, if you can repeat your request for people to participate in your survey, on GAD.

Also, you could put the link in your signature.

Also, you could put-up a request on AspieCentral----but, unless you're already a member there, it might be seen as suspicious----as in, they might not trust someone they don't know; but, you never know.

Also, maybe Monster.com has a "bulletin-board" area.

Also, I see requests for research participants, all-the-time, on Craig's List.

I agree with Caelum, your view doesn't matter so much as that of the person whom you are approaching.


Your original post was about approaching one particular individual that you suspected was autistic, not about posting on workplace bulletins. I think that is perfectly acceptable.

(Sorry if I "struck a nerve", I didn't intend to be hostile. I don't have any doubts about your motivations. I just meant that if a stranger approached me at my workplace asking me to participate in a study about autism, I would almost certainly decline, especially if they pretended that it wasn't aimed at me.)

These are really good ideas...thank you Cat!



Oh, no, you weren't hostile, I didn't think that. You're right, that was my original question. After people replied I quickly realized how weird I was coming off to other people so I didn't actually approach any individuals. I did originally want to talk to several people about it directly, but I've realized that sometimes you just can't bring it up.

In the past few days I've spoken to several OBVIOUS aspies, and it was like an elephant in the room. I went to an all female college with a large LGBTQ presence and it's like this with gayness. Even if you're talking to a woman in a gay club, she's dressed like a lumberjack and holding hands with another woman, it's not okay to assume she's a lesbian. In fact, she may not even be a woman. You have to be respectful of people and some social groups have tighter rules than others.

How many people do you need for your study?

I would gather that you've gotten at least ten so far.

15 responses, but only 10 are useable so far. Unless a participant sends me back the informed consent, the survey is useless, which really sucks because I know people spend a lot of time in there answering the questions.

I need 40-50. I can write about it with what I have now, even, but my findings wouldn't be too accurate. The more people respond, the more reliable the data will be.

You're welcome!!

I spent about 3 hours today canvassing a 5 block radius in the neighborhood where I live. It took so long because people were really nice and kept asking me about it. I'm happy to run my mouth in any circumstance, but especially about autism. I realized that one business owner who is notoriously rude is probably an aspie. She was really nice to me and let me put a flier up in a high visibility area.

I had a long conversation with a business owner from India and he said that autistic people in India are not called "autistic" and even if they are in a high caste family they're treated as low caste individuals, meaning they can't touch the other family members or eat off the same plates. It sounded awful. I have liked nearly every person I've ever met from India, but I keep hearing things about the social system that makes it sound like a difficult place to live.

I made a lot of friends today. I hope I get some participants from today's fliers.

Sorry, but I have to change the subject. I find it interesting how easily people (not just you) will consider someone they just met a friend.

I would never (ever) consider someone I just met (while spending “3 hours...canvassing [the local] neighborhood”) a friend. This makes me wonder. Maybe my definition of “friend” is too strict. Maybe I have lots of friends and I just don’t know it. I wonder if this is an Aspie thing (or simply confirmation of how awkward I am).

I know what you mean, Rocket.

I've had the experience of confiding with strangers and thinking them a "friend" for that moment. This would be one definition of a "friend": a person you feel enthusiasm for, and trust. A person who will help you fulfill an objective.

But I see what you mean. Friendship, by most people's definition, takes time to develop.

I've taken several autism tests, because I won't recommend something to another person that I haven't tried myself. I'm on the extreme end of the "neurotypical spectrum" in that I connect with other people easily, read faces, voices, body language easily, and feel at ease in pretty much any social situation. I also have some traits that people often associate with autism, such as snapsnot memorization, visual thinking, and synesthesia. There isn't a group for people like me.

It's pretty easy for me to make friends. I think it's because I'm interested in people and care about most people I talk to, so people pick up on that.

It's interesting:

I don't have synesthesia, snapshot memory, nor am I a visual thinker.

Yet, I'm on the Spectrum!

SocAutism:

Have you read much about the Broad Autism Phenotype?

I wish I had time to research more things. Being a mom takes up quite a lot of time. I have a side interest in the structure of thought, which I was looking into before I became under the weather with my little boy. From what I was finding out then, it seemed like most NT people think in a combination of words and pictures. Many autistic people also experience abstract thought and atypical thought patterns. Examples might be thoughts that are like spirals or explosions in form. It was starting to look to me like the people with more abstract thoughts were less likely to be able to "pass" as NT.

Autistic people also were more likely to have abstract identities, such as identifying with a texture, sound, or object. I was really interested in this and wanted to compare autistic thoughts and identities to neurotypical people and bipolar people. Maybe some other kind of neuro-identity as well. I was just jotting things down and making observations at that time.

It's something I hope to pick back up later, but for right now most of my time is taken up with making sure my little boy is having a nice life.

As to Broader Autism Phenotype- I'm not sure where I want to stand on that yet. It seems to me like what I'm expecting to happen with autism is starting to happen with this BAP...the definition grows, more people fit the description of autism, it's not clear what autism is anymore, it stops being a big deal, and then it eventually goes away as a diagnosis and is more of a general descriptor. But I don't know. I need to keep reading about it for awhile.

Have you ever thought about the BAP in relation to yourself?

I hope you know that just because one might have autistic traits--doesn't mean that one is "broken" in any way. It might, paradoxically, prove to be advantageous to such a person.

I am on the Spectrum--but I lack some features of Spectrum-hood. This is especially evident in the fact that I'm not especially averse to much in a sensory sense (though I used to be). I only really learned about the sensory issues involved in autism through being on this Site.

It seems to me that you're a pretty ideal autism researcher--because it seems as you are able to really fully discern and empathize with what goes on within an autism thought-pattern.

When I was an adolescent, and we had a cold winter in New York City, I used to feel sorry for the puddles. I thought they were shivering, and that they felt cold.

I hope I'm not "talking out of turn." Please forgive me if I am. I think you have a perspective which just might prove to be useful. I don't find that you are approaching this, fully, as a detached clinician. Rather, I believe you could discern things, as a person really KNOWLEDGEABLE about autism, which most researchers are not able to discern.

I used to do this all the time. It's almost like a double-confirmation that I'm on the Spectrum, even lacking, in relative terms, issues of a sensory nature.

This is interesting to read. I was put off by the language in the literature review: "I am approaching this research under the lens of critical autism studies, which sees autistics as a socially constructed minority population."

I was going to do the survey over the weekend, but did not get beyond this point. I felt I needed to think about what this means before proceeding.

It sounds like something I disagree with in that I don't think autism is socially constructed, though there are socially constructed responses to it, both for the "NT" observer and for autistic people--but autism is a real thing with a molecular basis, just as skin pigmentation is real and gendered physiology is real. That there are social constructions around these things is evident, but to say that autism IS the social construct is like saying that "female" is a social construct. I think that is taking it too far and has left behind an important part of reality.

I will send back the consent doc and get on with the survey soon, though.

I think you're being too literal, Adamantium. (Fully aware of the pot calling the kettle black here, too. )

I take it to mean that the sociological construct of "the other" is what Soc is referring to. That, yes, there are very real differences in our brain structures, but those differences are what they are and wouldn't be a massive ordeal if there were more mutual understanding between the two groups.

...

Upon second reading of your post, I see that we're pretty much in agreement there. As such, sorry to re-state your position. But I'm curious as to why there's a difference between your outrage at the statement and my more general acceptance of it.

Is it because you read it as Autism instead of Autistics? I can see how that would elicit your response. Autism would be more of a neurological study, whereas Autistics would definitely be in the realm of sociological study.