Epistemic Fairness in Disability Evaluation. A Case for Grassroot Epistemology of Autism

Based on a mixed-methods study of families of autistic individuals (N=155) assessed by the Polish Disability Assessment Board, one issuing certificates necessary for receiving state support, this research presents a case for building an empirically-based bottom-up epistemology of autism. The results indicate a pervasive lack of autism-specific expertise among DAB members, who are inadequately informed and influenced by stereotypes, resulting in often unfair decisions. Based on these results, we argue that the scarcity of transparent, standardized epistemic criteria and the asymmetrical power relations between service users and providers generate conditions where the credibility and authority to define autistic “disability” remain unevenly distributed. We thus call into question the legitimacy of the psychiatric knowledge acted upon by the case-study system and propose to build future disability assessment frameworks with the full and active participation of service users and their families. We argue it is essential to separate clinical diagnosis, disability evaluation, and support allocation. We thus provide factual and critical insights for policymakers and professionals beyond the Polish cultural context, where different normative and biased assumptions about the bodily and cognitive functioning of people on the autism spectrum might control the disability certification process.