Explore the vast range of titles available.

There has been a recent shift from person-first to identity-first language to describe autism. In this study, Australian adults who reported having a diagnosis of autism (N = 198) rated and ranked autism-terms for preference and offensiveness, and explained their choice in free-text. ‘Autistic’, ‘Person on the Autism Spectrum’, and ‘Autistic Person’ were rated most preferred and least offensive overall. Ranked-means showed ‘person on the autism spectrum’ was the most preferred term overall. Six qualitative themes reflected (1) autism as core to, or (2) part of one’s identity, (3) ‘spectrum’ reflecting diversity, (4) the rejection of stigmatising and (5) medicalised language, and (6) pragmatics. These findings highlight the importance of inclusive dialogue regarding individual language preference.

Neurodiversity is an umbrella term, including dyspraxia, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyscalculia, autistic spectrum and Tourette syndrome. The increasing number of students with learning difficulties associated with neurodiversity entering higher education (HE) poses a shared and growing challenge internationally for teachers and institutional leaders. This narrative synthesis draws together a corpus of international literature on how neurodiverse students experience higher education and the ways in which higher education institutions respond to the cluster of neurodiverse conditions. A systematic review was carried out to search, retrieve, appraise and synthesize the available evidence to provide an original contribution to the literature and significant insights of worth to higher education internationally. An inclusive approach to data extraction was used to ensure that all the relevant studies were included. All stages of the review process, including the initial search, screening, sample selection and analysis, are described. Three main themes and 11 subthemes were identified. Although the majority of publications focus on either dyslexia, autistic spectrum disorder, or ADHD, some common themes are evident in student experience across learning difficulties associated with neurodiversity. Although support services and technologies are available to meet students’ specific needs, there is an apparent dislocation between the two. Fear of stigmatization and labelling worsens the divide between what is needed and what is available to ensure neurodiverse students’ success in higher education, where good intentions are evidently not enough.

Dyslexia is a difficulty in learning to decode (read aloud) and to spell. DSM5 classifies dyslexia as one form of neurodevelopmental disorder. Neurodevelopmental disorders are heritable, life-long conditions with early onset. For many years, research on dyslexia proceeded on the basis that it was a specific learning difficulty - specific meaning that the difficulty could not be explained in terms of obvious causes such as sensory problems or general learning difficulties (low IQ). However, the failure to find qualitative differences in reading, and phonological skills, between children with dyslexia and children with more general learning problems led this kind of 'discrepancy' definition to fall from favour. The Rose Review stated that dyslexia can occur across the IQ range and that poor decoding skills require the same kinds of intervention irrespective of IQ. In this paper, we argue that loosening the criteria for dyslexia has influenced common understanding of the condition and led to diagnostic confusion. In the longer term, the use of the term may need to change. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Poorer outcomes for youth labeled with learning disabilities (LDs) are often attributed to the student's own deficiencies or cumulative disadvantage; but the more troubling possibility is that special education placement limits rather than expands these students' opportunities. Labeling theory partially attributes the poorer outcomes of labeled persons to stigma related to labels. This study uses data on approximately 11,740 adolescents and their schools from the Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002 to determine if stigma influences teachers' and parents' educational expectations for students labeled with LDs and labeled adolescents' expectations for themselves. Supporting the predictions of labeling theory, teachers and parents are more likely to perceive disabilities in, and hold lower educational expectations for labeled adolescents than for similarly achieving and behaving adolescents not labeled with disabilities. The negative effect of being labeled with LDs on adolescents' educational expectations is partially mechanized through parents' and particularly teachers' lower expectations.

While organizing efforts by movements such as Black Lives Matter and responses to the hate-filled policies and rhetoric of President Donald Trump are heightening public discourse of racism, much less attention is paid to mechanisms of racial oppression in the field of education. Instead, conceptualizations that allude to racial difference but are disconnected from structural analyses continue to prevail in K—12 education research. In this chapter, our goal is to challenge racism-neutral and racism-evasive approaches to studying racial disparities by centering current research that makes visible the normalized facets of racism in K—12 schools. After narrowing over 4,000 articles that study racial inequity in education research, we reviewed a total of 186 U.S.-focused research studies in a K—12 school context that examine racism. As we categorized the literature, we built on a theory of the \"new racism\"—a more covert and hidden racism than that of the past—and grouped the articles into two main sections: (1) research that brings to light racism's permanence and significance in the lives of students of Color through manifestations of what we conceptualize as (a) evaded racism, (b) \"antiracist\" racism, and (c) everyday racism and (2) research focused on confronting racism through racial literacy and the resistance of communities of Color. In our conclusion, we articulate suggestions for future directions in education research that include a more direct acknowledgement of racism as we attend to the experiences and needs of K-12 students of Color.

By the 1990s, sociology faced a frustrating paradox. Classic work on mental illness stigma and labeling theory reinforced that the \"mark\" of mental illness created prejudice and discrimination for individuals and family members. Yet that foundation, coupled with deinstitutionalization of mental health care, produced contradictory responses. Claims that stigma was dissipating were made, while others argued that intervention efforts were needed to reduce stigma. While signaling the critical role of theory-based research in establishing the pervasive effects of stigma, both claims directed resources away from social science research. Yet the contemporary scientific foundation underlying both claims was weak. A reply came in a resurgence of research directed toward mental illness stigma nationally and internationally, bringing together researchers from different disciplines for the first time. I report on the general population's attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral dispositions that targeted public stigma and implications for the next decade of research and intervention efforts.

BackgroundLabeling theory underscores the sequential process that unfolds within an individual, influenced by those in his or her immediate surroundings. Nevertheless, research into the developmental characteristics of labeling theory remains limited. Furthermore, prior studies investigating the impact of informal labeling have predominantly occurred within a Western cultural context.ObjectiveThis study explores two fundamental aspects of within-individual dynamics in the influence of perceived informal labeling on deviant self-concept, utilizing a sample of Korean youth: (1) the evolution of a labeled youth’s deviant self-concept over time and (2) variations in the development of the deviant self-concept among individuals.MethodsUsing HLM 8.0, A series of random-effects models were estimated using six-wave panel data from Korean youth.ResultsThe findings reveal that (1) the immediate within-individual effect of perceived informal labeling on deviant self-concept was significantly positive. However, when one- and two-year time intervals between variables were considered, the effects showed a reverse significance. (2) The increase in deviant self-concept over a six-year span was less pronounced for those with a higher level of perceived informal labeling in the first wave, suggesting that these youths attempted to mitigate the adverse effects of labeling.ConclusionsThe impact of perceived informal labeling is not consistent over time. Moreover, labeling effects may be shaped by an individual’s cultural background. This study is significant as it offers empirical testing of the developmental aspects of labeling theory within a unique cultural context.

The relationship between stigmatization and the self-regard of patients/consumers with mental disorder is negative but only moderate in strength, probably because a subset of persons with mental illness resists devaluation and discrimination by others. Resistance has seldom been discussed in the stigma and labeling literatures, and thus conditions under which individuals are resistant have not been identified. I define resistance as opposition to the imposition of mental illness stereotypes by others and distinguish between deflecting (\" that's not me\") and challenging resistance strategies. Individuals should be more likely to employ resistance strategies when they have: past experience with stigma resistance; past familiarity with an ill family member or friend; symptoms that are non-severe or controlled; treatment experience in settings run by consumers; initially high levels of psychosocial coping resources; and multiple role-identities. Incorporating resistance into classic and modified labeling theories of mental illness highlights the personal agency of labeled individuals, missing especially in classic labeling theory.

Those seeking romantic relations are increasingly using online dating sites, including young men on the autism spectrum. This study presented dating profiles with and without an explicit label of autism and positive or negative wording to 306 ‘females seeking a male partner’. Participants assessed the men’s dating profiles in terms of perceived attractiveness, trustworthiness and desire-to-date. They also completed a questionnaire on their level of stigmatisation of, and familiarity with, autism. An explicit autism label and positive wording positively impacted perceived attractiveness. With positively worded profiles, those with highly stigmatising views reported decreased desire-to-date when an explicit label of autism was present; those with low levels of stigmatising reported increased desire-to-date when an explicit autism label was present.

Research suggests that children suffering from different types of disorders (learning disorders, behavioral disorders, or intellectual disabilities) are sometimes evaluated differently simply due to the presence of a diagnostic label. We conducted a multilevel meta-analysis of experimental studies (based on data from 8,295 participants and on 284 effects nested in 60 experiments) to examine the magnitude and robustness of such label effects and to explore the impact of potential moderators (type of evaluation, diagnostic category, expertise, student’s gender, and amount and type of information). We found a moderately negative overall label effect (Hedges’ g = −0.42), which was robust across several types of evaluation, different samples, and different diagnostic categories. There was no indication that expertise and the gender of the child moderated the effect. Presenting participants with only a label yielded the strongest negative effect of g = −1.26, suggesting that the effect was dependent on the amount of information being presented to participants. We conclude that labeling a child can exacerbate negative academic evaluations, behavioral evaluations, evaluations of personality, and overall assessments of the child. Further implications for theory and future research are discussed.