Triad of Impairments and research

Hi all, I came across this on the internet. I believe it is based at Newcastle Uni. Does anyone know much about it? I think it may be a research thing.

I do not see Autism as a cause of depression. I have noted on here in the past, that people with diagnosed autism have been to the doctor and been told that it is just their autism and no help given. That is a nightmare scenario for the sufferer.

Autism puts us in a position of being more likely to get depressed due to bullying, broken relationships, work problems, poverty and lonliness. Alexithymia often makes it difficult to express these emotions, particularly at times of crisis, so we have no outlet for the emotions and internalise them.

Research into depression in the Autistic community may save lives and is therefore very important.

Just to pick up on mld's plans to do a PhD on suicide, the thing that concerns me is that most research assumes it is depression as a consequence of autism that gives rise to suicidal thoughts, not the autism itself. So all current research addresses suicide in terms of depression (with autism just one cause of depression). Yet people at the abler end of the spectrum often contemplate or go through with suicide, probably because they are trying to survive in the real world of work, social relationships etc. They may show no obvious signs of depression.

So why does all the funding go to research on depression and suicide?

It may not be easy for mld to choose the approach. PhD research is often nested in other research going on at the host institution and may be directed to compliment the work of lead researchers, so you risk having to do a PhD towards expected outcomes.

The chance to be reactionary, or rebellious is often out of the question. mld may have to "toe the party line" but once research is advanced there may be opportunities to direct things your own way, and of course with a PhD in the bag you have far more autonomy with post-doctoral research.

The real problem lies in the way funding bodies are loyal to "safe bets" - giving money to people who just want to produce variations on a theme, to finance the department. It is ever so hard to rebel.

Marjorie is right, be more cat...or whatever. Getting results is about changing perspectives. Real research comes about when people start looking at what is actually happening.

I've always struggled with the idea of defining autistic people by a 'triad of impairments'. Neurotypical people looking at us with the specific aim of defining us by what they perceive we can't do. My empathy and communication style are not identical to those of neurotypicals but that doesn't make them impaired or non-existent. You could measure or assess them in ways that would say they are but then you can assess a cat to prove it is an impaired dog. It can't bark and won't learn tricks, but in doing that you'd miss its capacity to climb trees, catch mice and land on its feet.

Be more cat.

ps. I'm away from home tomorrow until the 25th August, so will not be able to reply to any comments made to me.  Longman, you have made me think about my PhD research more than my supervisors have!  And Marjorie, I will contact you personally, if that is OK.  And Classic Codger - you have made me thin about IQ levels, but I don't want to cause stress to people who would never have considered suicide before.  M.

I appreciate all the comments that have come, it really takes me time to 'really' understand each persons thoughts.  I am going to be studying with Canterbury Christ Church Uni, in Kent.  Just a hop, skip and jump away from our flat!  I think what I'll be studying wil change over time, as I think I've biten off too much.  I want to put into place a plan for when people with autism (like me) feel suicidal (like me), instead of being told to do this and that, which is great for NTs, but means absolutely nothing for me!  I will be approaching some people directly when I start my research, perhaps to do a preliminary study of the material I'll be sending out to local people affected.

Thank you.

Margaret

Hi mld. I have personal experience of the area you are going to study and would like to offer any help I can. Where will you be doing your PhD?

Thanks Longman for your insight into how research is governed.

Hi Codger. Thank you for replying.

I first heard about Autism when studying to be a teacher in the 70s. We were shown a film of a young boy, maybe 7, twiddling a spoon in his fingers, while staring past the camera at nothing in particular. We were told that he got very upset when having his hair cut or doing a bowel movement, because he hated losing any thing from his body. If this was what autism was believed to be, then I think the notion of "high functioning autism" must have been a breakthrough realisation that autism was not just this terrible brain damaged, non functioning impairment and that there were people who could function in society. In other words, it is one of those hangover descriptions that is now outdated and superceded and therefor fading away, graduallty. Like I said in my post, many of those currently "running" the system are people of my generation who were taught these things in the unenlightened past.

The world of Autism has moved on but sometimes "we" still use the old language out of habit.

I believe the discussion to be important, whatever the terminology used.

I keep rabitting on about this, but the key distinction is between diagnosis and lifestyle (daily experience living with autism).

The diagnosis uses the triad to look for indicators (and underlies the AQ test - hence the triad seems familiar to us).

But it excludes things which could have other explanations - not leasr sensory issues. Maybe what mld might consider in her research is whether that is causing more problems than it solves.

Lifestyle should include a lot more than the triad - sensory issues for example affect many people on the spectrum. Correspondingly it is wrong, in my view, to use the triad to explain to professionals, in training packages, what it is like to live with autism.

Also diagnosis looks for SOMEof the triad factors in each sub-category - not all. We don't all manifest everything in the triad. Indeed some people have few triad characteristics but suffer greatly socially and sensorally - hence these fringe diagnoses which result in missing autism as a factor.

I'm wary of encouraging undergraduate dissertations for the purpose suggested. These are really assessed pieces of coursework, and aren't a good vehicle for new outcomes. Postgraduate research is governed by tight ethical controls, including the disposal of confidential data. The problem with undergraduates using this site as a quarry is that confidential information they obtain in an interview or on a questionnaire is likely to be lying around for ages - because the dissertation is part of the examination material, and disserations held in libraries are open to view. A postgraduate thesis can better protect confidential information. Even if the undergraduate uses a code, the information obtained may identify the person or a service used.

I dislike the premise of this idea of a link between IQ and functionality, especially when the term 'high function' is used. I share an abhorence of this term with others on this site, and for the same reasons.

Like many others, I am diagnosed, and my prefered descriptor is Type 1 ASD. However, because it is easy shorthand and close to ASDer, I use Aspie on here when I know I'm talking to other AS people.

AS people are on a spectrum of behaviour, intelligence and characteristics just the same as non-AS people. I don't believe that the term 'high functioning' has any social use, because in all my years I've never heard anyone describe another person as 'high functioning' outside of the context of AS. I'm an AS person, I'll be at all sorts of levels of functionality, depending on prevailing circumstances, and I don't find that IQ has any bearing on that.

Of course, I only have experience of one IQ, mine, so I cannot possibly judge between so-called 'functionality levels' against an arbitrary score. However, I do know what the AS experience is, and whatever the 'functionality' of AS people who post on here, I 'get' what they're saying.

Again like others, I am questioning the concept of the 'triad of impairments. I share the view that some of our 'imparments' are little understood and even less, described and taken into account.

Same old problem, we aren't getting listened to. I fail to see how a good dialogue can do less than good.

I completely agree that we older AS people can't change our past, or our present it seems, but it's important that we have our experience put to good use so that we can shape a better diagnosis, a better understanding and a better world for our children. Otherwise, it's all been a waste.

Marjorie, I agree with you in some of the things you say.  However, I am going to be studying for my PhD in September (for three years) into suicide and autism (high functioning ie IQ over 70).  I used to agree with Simon Baron-Cohen about the extreme male brain idea, but reading these comments everyday on NAS I am now wondering where my research is going to go, as ASD is much more complex than having an extreme male brain (and I'm a 52 yr old female with ASD).  It is complex, and I don't know the answer, but I thought that I'd reply!

Margaret