Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in autism research.

Howard et al. (2019) wrote a how-to paper. They explain a way to interview autistic people called interpretative phenomenological analysis, or IPA.

IPA treats each person as the expert on their own life. The researcher keeps a diary of their own thoughts so their bias does not drown out the speaker.

The paper does not give new data. It argues that IPA lets autistic voices be heard first and loudest in research.

Because IPA studies only a few people at a time, it shows the texture of living with autism instead of just group averages.

Tager-Flusberg (2004) said the same thing fifteen years earlier: stop forcing autistic people into boxes built for neurotypical controls. Howard et al. (2019) pick up that torch and hand researchers a lighter called IPA.

Mejía-Buenaño (2025) takes the idea into ABA clinics. They tell BCBAs to add open-ended questions or client journals to standard tests. The 2025 piece is the practical child of the 2019 theory.

Rabba et al. (2025) show why adult diagnosis feels broken—tools ignore self-report. IPA gives a ready-made way to fix that gap by letting adults tell their own story.

You can borrow IPA tomorrow. Add one reflective question to your intake: “What matters most to you about coming here?” Write down your own reactions before you score the data. That small step keeps the client’s voice on center stage and may reveal goals your checklist never asked about.