Mapping Epistemic Partnerships: An Intersectional Framework for Collaborative Knowledge Production in Autism Studies

Background

The field of Autism Studies, including both Critical Autism Studies and broader Autism Research, remains dominated by White scholars, largely situated within Western academic institutions. ¹ This demographic reality shapes the epistemological frameworks within which autism is studied, ² reinforcing perspectives that fail to account for the experiences of non-White autistic individuals.^3–11 Although unintentional, this omission has material impact, particularly in relation to health care access, diagnostic practices, and support systems for non-White autistic people. The centering of White perspectives as the normative foundation of autism research results in a body of scholarship that does not critically engage with race, thereby marginalizing those who exist beyond its unmarked borders. The consequence of this epistemic erasure ¹² is a persistent gap in knowledge that directly affects the well-being of non-White autistic populations.

This issue is further compounded by the ways in which intersectionality has been appropriated and depoliticized within the field. Originally conceptualized by Kimberlé Crenshaw ¹³ to show the specific oppressions faced by Black women, intersectionality was fundamentally designed as a framework for analyzing race, gender and power structures.

However, in White-dominated fields such as Autism Studies, intersectionality is frequently applied without a critical engagement with race.^14,15 Because Whiteness operates as an unmarked and neutral category, many White scholars, including White autistic scholars, invoke intersectionality without interrogating how Whiteness structures their analyses. ¹⁶ This invisibility is what allows Whiteness to shape epistemic norms in Autism Studies while resisting scrutiny as a racialized standpoint.

This is evident in studies such as those on neuroqueering ¹⁷ or in research concerning masking in autistic women,^18,19 where race is conspicuously absent from the discussion. When Whiteness is assumed to be the default,^{14–16,20–25} race becomes an afterthought rather than a foundational axis of analysis. This epistemic oversight reinforces a research landscape in which non-White autistic experiences are systematically devalued. ¹⁶

To avoid reproducing this erasure, I clarify how key terms are used in this article. Race is understood not as a biological essence but as a social construct shaped by visible ascription, structural power, and lived experience. Ethnicity refers to cultural and ancestral affiliations that may or may not coincide with racial categories. The term Western designates dominant knowledge traditions rooted in Euro-American institutions. Importantly, I treat Whiteness as a race: not the absence of race, but a racial position rendered invisible through its own dominance.

I also acknowledge the ambiguity experienced by people of mixed heritage, whose appearance may confer White ascription while simultaneously hindering cultural histories marked by colonization, an assimilation into Whiteness that can operate as both protection and erasure. ²⁶ For these reasons, this article explicitly centers race.

Thus, recognizing Whiteness as a race rather than an unmarked norm makes clear why a necessary step toward the decolonization of autism research is the racialization of knowledge production. ²⁷ Coloniality is inextricably linked to the formation of racial hierarchies,^28–34 and the continued reluctance to center race within autism research reflects this colonial inheritance. If the field is to move beyond its White-dominant epistemological framework, ³⁵ it must confront the ways in which Whiteness functions not merely as a demographic characteristic of scholars but as an active force shaping what is considered legitimate knowledge.^2,36,37

This recognition became central to my doctoral research, Normal is Just Another Word for White: Autistic Experiences Beyond the Binary Burden. Initially, my project sought to explore the experiences of autistic women; however, as my research progressed, I became increasingly aware of how I, as an autistic Latin American scholar, was inadvertently reproducing the very marginalization I aimed to challenge.^12,38,39 Through sustained engagement with non-White autistic individuals over 4 years of fieldwork, I began to understand the necessity of explicitly centering Whiteness as an analytical category.^40,41 By doing so, I sought to reveal how the omission of race as a critical factor in Autism Research does not merely reflect an absence but constitutes an act of epistemic violence,^1,12 one that erases the realities of non-White autistic embodiment and impedes access to adequate health care.^3–11

This shift in my research methodology was informed by a commitment to ethical engagement.^37,42 Rather than positioning my participants as passive subjects of study, I sought to recognize them as epistemic partners ⁴³ whose lived experiences directly informed the trajectory of my work. This collaborative approach led to the development of an intersectional framework of ethical engagement, designed to explicitly center Whiteness as a means of de-centering its invisible dominance.^16,41,44

Contrary to the misconception that such an approach detracts from the needs of White autistic individuals, it instead facilitates a more just and equitable distribution of health care resources. Furthermore, this framework is not limited to autism research; rather, it offers a critical tool for scholars across disciplines who seek to decolonize their methodologies and challenge the epistemic structures that have historically marginalized non-White perspectives.^36,45

By acknowledging and addressing the racialized dimensions of knowledge production, it becomes possible to construct research paradigms that do not merely accommodate non-White individuals as an afterthought but actively prioritize their perspectives.^1,46 Only through this process of epistemic decolonization,^{36,37,42,45,47–49} and countercolonial action, can academic research move beyond its colonial entanglements and toward a more inclusive and just intellectual landscape.

Countercolonialism and Epistemic Partnerships in Autism Research

Decolonial and intersectional scholars have long critiqued the silencing of marginalized voices within dominant epistemic practices, what Haraway calls “privilege of partial perspective,” ⁴⁴ and Mignolo calls “knowing the knower.” ⁴¹ These scholars do not simply call for the naming of these hierarchies but demand tools to actively dismantle them. The intersectional framework presented here responds directly to this demand. It is an instrument designed to navigate the complexities of epistemic partnerships, ⁴³ one that foregrounds reflexivity, accountability, relationality, and, crucially, makes Whiteness visible in the very process of knowledge production,^14,15,22 informed by intersectionality. ¹³

To understand the significance of this tool, it is essential to clarify my understanding of epistemic partnerships and countercolonialism. The term epistemic partners, introduced by Criado and Estalella ⁴³ in their work, resonated deeply with me. Initially they used it to describe scholarly collaborations within the same authority over knowledge production, however, it quickly became a concept that spoke to something far more profound in my own health-oriented anthropological practice.

It is important to distinguish epistemic partnerships from the more familiar concept of coproduced research. ⁵⁰ Coproduction emphasizes collaboration in designing and carrying out research, with community members and academics sharing responsibility for outputs. However, this approach remains bounded to institutional logics of participation and knowledge validation. Epistemic partnerships, by contrast, are not limited to questions of process or authorship. They recognize autistic collaborators as epistemic authorities in their own right, whose knowledges may exceed or disrupt academic norms altogether. This distinction is crucial: where coproduction seeks inclusion within existing structures, epistemic partnerships seek to unsettle the epistemic hierarchies that those structures reproduce.

That said, as I worked through my PhD thesis, positioned as a Latin American autistic scholar in a White Western Institution, I began to interrogate the dynamics of academic collaboration I engaged with. ²⁶ And I found myself asking: What if I acknowledged my autistic collaborators as authorities in their own right, with knowledge and experiences that defied conventional Western academic norms? What if I exchanged knowledge with them free from the constraints of established by those academic conventions? What if I refused the binary of objectivity/subjectivity?^16,51 This is exactly what I did, and in doing so, I engaged not only in epistemic partnerships but in a countercolonial act.

Nego Bispo ⁵² offers a powerful assertion: countercolonialism is the rejection of colonial domination, here, colonial epistemological domination. It is not merely about one group attempting to exert control; it is about actively resisting that control with intention. Countercolonialism represents a way of life distinct from colonial systems. This is why the term countercolonialism was coined, to confront colonialism directly.

Decolonization,^36,37 in contrast, is primarily an epistemic project, it names the effort to unsettle colonial categories of knowledge and to imagine alternatives. Countercolonialism, ⁵² however, is a practical and lived orientation, an embodied refusal of colonial logics and the cultivation of other ways of being. In my perspective and put differently: decolonization works on the level of knowledge, while countercolonialism insists on life practices that resist and outlast colonial structures.

By naming it, we transform colonialism’s poison into an antidote. ⁵² We take the very force that threatens our survival, as the marginalized, and use it against the oppressor. Through this act, we reclaim authority over our own embodiment, ⁵³ we define the terms of the conversation, and most importantly, we create space for care, not as self-indulgence, but as self-preservation, as Lorde ⁵⁴ puts it. And this, for the autistic people is an act of epistemological warfare. ⁴¹

By epistemological warfare I mean the struggle over the very terms of knowledge: who is recognized as a knower, ⁴¹ whose experiences are legitimized, and which frameworks are treated as authoritative. For autistic people positioned outside the dominance of Whiteness, resisting these hierarchies and insisting on the validity of our own knowledges are itself a countercolonial act.

Accountability played a central role in this work. It became apparent to me through my interactions with my epistemic partners, autistic people from multiple marginalized backgrounds, sometimes and very often without formal education, some of them facing homelessness, that accountability is not simply a matter of checking off boxes or following prescribed methodological guidelines. Rather, it was a continuous, dynamic process ⁴³ that required my constant reflection on how privilege, positionality, and power shaped my research journey, ⁴⁴ and the knowledge I was producing.

It is also important to recognize that this framework was not created solely by me, nor was it developed within my epistemic partnerships. I adapted it as a reflexive tool, drawing inspiration from Black women in social media spaces, particularly by a video shared by @whitewomanwhisperer on Instagram, which tagged the creator @moony from TikTok, where she explained the process of what she called “Stay in your lane.”

The framework, inspired by @moony, not only guided my own research practice but also holds potential as a model for others engaged in ethical, intersectional work and epistemic partnerships. This is why I choose to share my methodological tool, because it is through collective effort and mutual accountability that we can disrupt the very ableist system that marginalizes us.

The Framework

This framework is not static. It is a living document, shaped by ongoing use and dialogue. It resists the colonial impulse to fix knowledge in place, ³⁷ embracing instead a dynamic, iterative process of reflection and action. ⁴³ Within Autism Studies, where Whiteness has long shaped the epistemic foundations of research, ¹ this adaptability is particularly crucial. By embedding these questions into research practice, the framework actively dismantles epistemic hierarchies and reimagines knowledge production.

The first step in the framework demands that the researchers confront their positionality in relation to Whiteness by asking: 1.

Do I hold privilege within the context of Whiteness and its relational power structures?

This question is deliberately broad to account for the reality that many autism researchers—whether neurotypical, autistic, White, non-White, disabled, or nondisabled—may hold privilege in some form. It resists the colonial impulse toward neutrality,^53,55 ensuring that all researchers recognize their location within the systems of power that shape knowledge production. ⁴⁴

From this starting point, the researcher is prompted to widen their lens, asking: 2.

Does my work engage with populations who are marginalized in relation to Whiteness? And if not, have I stated that as a limitation?

This question demands that the researcher move beyond assumptions of universality and recognize that autism is not experienced in a vacuum. ⁵⁶ In Autism Studies, the dominance of White autistic perspectives has led to frameworks that fail to account for the racialized experiences of non-White autistic individuals. This question insists that researchers actively situate their work within these broader power structures rather than treating them as secondary concerns.

Reflection does not stop at recognizing marginalization; it extends into an interrogation of privilege within autism research. The researcher must ask: 3.

Even if I face marginalization in some way (e.g., as an autistic person), do I still hold privileges that shape my academic, social, or institutional access?

In autism studies, White autistic scholars frequently assume that their experiences of marginalization exempt them from holding privilege. ⁵⁷ This question challenges that assumption by recognizing that different axes of oppression and privilege exist simultaneously. ¹³ The researcher is pushed toward self-inventory, accounting for how academic training, cultural background, or institutional legitimacy may skew their interpretations, even when working toward decolonial or countercolonial aims.

Once positionality has been acknowledged, the framework shifts attention outward, asking: 4.

Have I listened to people who hold less power than I do, particularly those marginalized by Whiteness? And if not, have I stated that as a limitation?

These questions demand more than a passive act of hearing. They require deep listening ⁵⁸ —an engagement that decenters the researcher’s own voice and resists the colonial tendency toward extraction. In autism studies, White autistic researchers may even cite non-White perspectives without meaningfully incorporating them into their analysis, thus maintaining epistemic dominance. Listening, however, is insufficient without amplification. Thus, the next question insists on action: 6.

Am I amplifying autistic voices less powerful than myself, particularly those whose autism, lives, and perspectives are shaped by Whiteness and its legacy?

Amplification is not mere citation. It is a structural intervention that ensures that non-White autistic scholars and autistic individuals are not only heard but actively centered in knowledge production. The tendency to tokenize ⁵⁹ non-White autistic voices, acknowledging their presence while maintaining Whiteness as the default perspective—must be actively resisted.

A crucial tension emerges between intellectual activism ⁶⁰ and appropriation—between speaking on behalf of others and knowing when to step aside. The framework addresses this balance through two intertwined questions: 7.

Am I considering whether I need to speak on behalf of marginalized communities because they may be absent due to systemic exclusion? Or am I assuming a voice that is not mine to take?

Here, the framework resists the savior complex often present in allyship. ⁶¹ The researcher is compelled to reflect on the ethical stakes of intervention, recognizing that silence—when intentional—can itself be a form of resistance, creating space for non-White autistic voices to emerge.

Epistemic partnerships require a willingness to be challenged. The framework builds this principle into the process by prompting reflection on two distinct forms of pushback. The first comes from those more marginalized than the researcher: 9.

Can I accept critique from non-White autistic scholars or individuals whose perspectives challenge the dominance of Whiteness, or do I act defensively in ways that protect my own comfort?

This question demands epistemic humility, acknowledging that critique—particularly from those historically excluded from knowledge production ³⁷ —is not a threat but a gift. Equally important is the researcher’s response to pushback from those who hold more power than they do: 10.

Can I withstand pushback from those who hold more institutional, social, or academic privilege than I do, particularly if their critique serves to maintain dominant power structures?

In Autism Studies, researchers committed to decolonial work frequently encounter resistance, both from within academia and from within autistic communities that are themselves shaped by Whiteness. ² Navigating epistemic partnerships means recognizing when pushback is rooted in justice versus when it serves to protect dominant frameworks.

Finally, the framework culminates in a question that confronts the core of countercolonial praxis through epistemic partnerships: 11.

Am I open to not being the ultimate authority on the matter, and accepting discomfort as part of my learning experience, particularly discomfort stemming from the de-centering of Whiteness in Autism Studies?

This question serves as both a conclusion and a beginning—an invitation to relinquish authority and embrace the vulnerability ⁴² that come with genuine epistemic partnerships. In the context of autism studies, where Whiteness has long shaped what is considered valid knowledge, ² this question insists on the necessity of continuous self-interrogation and accountability.

This framework is not a checklist but a compass, guiding all researchers through the ethical complexities of knowledge collaboration in Autism Studies. By integrating these questions into their research practice, scholars can move beyond merely aligning with intersectionality in theory and instead operationalize it through epistemic partnerships, redistributing epistemic authority.

Also, although presented in numbered form, this framework is not meant to be understood as a linear or sequential tool. Rather, the questions are reflexive prompts that can be returned to iteratively, disrupting the linear logics of Enlightenment thought and emphasizing process over progression.^51,62 The act of returning to these questions, reconsidering one’s positionality, and reorienting research choices is itself an action, an ongoing practice of accountability that unsettles the stability of colonial methodologies.

By continuously interrogating their relationship to power, Whiteness, and epistemic authority,^13,41,44 researchers can engage in Autism Studies in ways that are accountable, reflexive, and fundamentally countercolonial in their disruption of methodological norms, while also decolonial in their reorientation of thought and epistemic frameworks. In doing so, this work advances Critical Intersectional Autism Studies as a methodological intervention, both in academia and in broader discourses on autism, offering a framework that challenges, disrupts, and ultimately reshapes the field toward greater justice and equity.