The research team, led by Lukas Wohofsky and colleagues at Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, grounded the project in the Open Innovation in Science framework, a transdisciplinary approach that opens research directions to contributions from outside traditional academic circles. Rather than prescribing solutions, the researchers structured the process so that participants themselves decided what to develop. This design choice reflects a broader shift in how autism is understood. Older classifications such as Kanner or Asperger autism and labels like high- or low-functioning have fallen out of favor within the autism community, replaced by a neurodiversity perspective that views human minds and brains as naturally diverse rather than divided into normal and disordered.

The neurodiversity paradigm, coined by researchers on the autism spectrum in the late 1990s, argues that neurological differences such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia should not by definition be treated as disorders but as expressions of natural human variation, comparable to differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. This marks a fundamental departure from the traditional medical model of disability, which often frames neurological differences as deficits. Instead of adapting autistic people to a supposed norm, the neurodiversity approach calls for reshaping social structures so that everyone can participate equally regardless of neurological traits. According to a systematic review cited by the authors, approximately one percent of the world’s population is on the autism spectrum, making the stakes of such structural change enormous.

Participatory research, in which community members collaborate with researchers throughout the scientific process, offers a natural vehicle for this paradigm. Yet it carries well-documented risks. The authors highlight tokenism, the practice of including affected individuals merely symbolically without real influence, as one of the most pressing concerns. Emotional overload can also arise when participants face unclear roles or overwhelming demands. A further complication is the reliance on neurotypical mediation, in which neurodivergent perspectives must be translated by third parties into academically acceptable language, potentially undermining the very goal of genuine participation. Classic models such as Arnstein’s ladder of participation place much autism research at its lower rungs, where tokenism flourishes.

To avoid these pitfalls, the project drew on Cornwall’s Continuum of Participation, a more flexible framework that does not assign normative value to specific levels of involvement. Instead, it allows participation to range from information-sharing to full empowerment depending on participants’ needs and preferences. This adaptability proved crucial for autistic contributors, for whom participation is often highly situational, shaped by fluctuating energy levels, masking behaviors, and constant self-regulation in response to neurotypical expectations. By enabling researchers to adjust roles and responsibilities dynamically, the model reduces the risk of tokenism and supports ethically sound collaboration.

The project unfolded in five phases. First, a survey on daily-life challenges was distributed through autism organizations, clinicians, and practitioners across Carinthia. Fifty-five people completed it, including fifteen autistic respondents, eight informal caregivers, and eighteen formal caregivers. Respondents rated twelve areas of daily life on a ten-point scale from pleasant to stressful, with an overall average of 7.1, indicating substantial strain. Social contacts emerged as the most stressful domain at 7.9, followed by public transport at 7.7 and education at 7.5. Across all areas, the three most frequently cited challenges were crowds, sensory overload, and a lack of awareness among neurotypical people in both child and adult settings.

The survey results fed into participatory kickoff events, held both in person and online to lower barriers to entry, where preliminary findings were discussed and potential contributors recruited. An online questionnaire then asked interested participants to rate fourteen candidate topics and provide information on location, travel willingness, and time resources. From this, six working groups formed around the domains of Working Life, Education, Public Authority Contacts, Shopping, Healthcare System, and Information, Networking, and Exchange. In total, forty people joined a group at least temporarily, with twenty-eight remaining active at the project’s end. Twenty-nine percent of the active citizen scientists were themselves on the autism spectrum. The groups met every two to four weeks for roughly eight months, mostly in person in three Carinthian cities, and were guided by the Dragon Dreaming method, a four-phase project design process of dreaming, planning, doing, and celebrating that requires no prior research experience.

The outcomes were strikingly concrete. The Education group developed a training program with the Caritas School for Social Care Professions, compiled into a booklet offering practical guidance for supporting autistic pupils, covering sensory sensitivity, classroom organization, lesson design, and examination accommodations. The Healthcare System group surveyed community experiences with health professionals and produced a guide to autism-inclusive providers in the region, aiming to transform stressful visits to dentists or therapists into manageable experiences. The Information, Networking, and Exchange group assembled 396 toolboxes containing informational and sensory materials, including items like fidget spinners and stretchable cords, distributed to schools, kindergartens, and healthcare organizations throughout Carinthia. The Shopping group piloted a peer-shopping assistance service in which autistic companions accompanied peers who found stores overwhelming, a concept now handed to a local NGO for further development. The Public Authority Contacts group printed and distributed more than 500 awareness brochures to government agencies, police, and emergency services, while the Working Life group produced flyers for employers and job-search guides for autistic job seekers.

Project evaluation confirmed the value of the approach. Twenty-five participants completed a reflection questionnaire based on the Open Innovation in Science impact tools of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had done something meaningful through their participation, twenty of twenty-five agreed or strongly agreed that the project improved the situation of those affected, and the overwhelming majority expressed satisfaction with both the results and their degree of co-determination. These findings align with a growing body of literature, including work by Pellicano and colleagues and the co-production reflections of Stark and colleagues, showing that when autistic people hold significant decision-making power, research agendas and outcomes better reflect community priorities and lived experience.

The authors are candid about the project’s limitations. The initial decision to hold in-person meetings may have excluded potential participants who preferred virtual or asynchronous involvement, and communication challenges arose during early ideation stages. Group composition, driven by practical considerations of interest and geography, produced an uneven distribution of autistic members across groups, with one group composed entirely of autistic individuals and others containing none. The Dragon Dreaming method, while accessible, has seen little use in scientific research, which limits the comprehensibility of results. Still, the authors argue that the benefits of community-driven research outweigh these difficulties. They recommend broadening geographic reach, enabling virtual and asynchronous participation, refining communication strategies, and conducting long-term follow-ups. As a context-specific example from a region where participatory autism research remains rare, the Carinthia project offers a compelling demonstration that the people closest to the challenges of autism are often best positioned to design the solutions, provided research institutions are willing to share genuine power.

Subject of Research: Participatory research with autistic citizen scientists to develop autism-inclusive environments in everyday life

Article Title: Development of Autism-Inclusive Approaches for Everyday Life in a Participatory Process: From Challenges to Resolutions

Article References: Wohofsky, L., Küffner, C., Fink, S. H., Sulopuisto, O., Orter-Jerney, R., Seifert, N., & Krainer, D. (2026). Development of Autism-Inclusive Approaches for Everyday Life in a Participatory Process: From Challenges to Resolutions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07570-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-026-07570-3

Keywords: autism, participatory research, citizen science, neurodiversity, Open Innovation in Science, autism-inclusive environments, Carinthia, Dragon Dreaming, daily living challenges, community-based research, healthcare access, education inclusion