For too long, autism case studies have centered on a narrow demographic — typically white, English-speaking males from middle- or upper-income families. But a growing number of researchers are challenging that model, asking: Whose stories are missing? And what does that mean for how we understand autism?

A recent piece from the Association of Health Care Journalists highlights how new voices in the autism research community are reshaping what inclusion really means. Dr. Brittany Hand and her colleagues at Ohio State University are among those leading the charge, advocating for “participatory case studies” that allow autistic individuals from diverse racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds to shape how their stories are told.

Traditional case studies often strip away context and culture in pursuit of clinical objectivity. But this can unintentionally erase the realities faced by many autistic individuals, particularly those from underrepresented communities. Language barriers, social stigma, and systemic inequities don’t just affect diagnosis and support — they also determine who gets to be studied, who gets published, and ultimately, who gets helped.

By inviting participants to co-author or collaborate on their case studies, researchers can build more inclusive and accurate portraits of autism. It’s not just about fairness — it’s about creating better science.

The call is clear: The future of autism research must reflect the full spectrum of voices. Because if we only tell part of the story, we’ll never understand the whole picture.