Knowledge acquisition and research evidence in autism: Researcher and practitioner perspectives and engagement.
Researchers and practitioners care about the same autism topics but use different doors to find them—keep publishing in journals and open a side door through workshops and networks.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Faso et al. (2016) sent a survey to autism researchers and to practitioners. They asked how each group finds new studies and what topics they care about most.
The goal was to see if the two groups get their knowledge in the same way.
What they found
Researchers said they read journals first. Practitioners said they rely more on workshops and peers.
Still, both groups put journals in their top three sources. Researchers also reported talking across groups more often than practitioners did.
How this fits with other research
Hull et al. (2021) looked at dozens of stakeholder studies and found the autism community wants research that helps daily life. Faso et al. (2016) shows practitioners and researchers already share similar priority topics, so the gap is not in what to study but in how each side learns about it.
Fradet et al. (2025) asked if autistic scholars are included in research teams. They found most teams still work without them. Faso et al. (2016) did not ask this question, so the 2025 paper extends the conversation from "how do we hear about studies" to "who helps shape them."
Anonymous (2024) lets community members speak for themselves. They want studies that focus on real-life contexts, not just deficits. This aligns with Faso et al. (2016): practitioners want usable knowledge, and journals remain a key place to share it.
Why it matters
You already publish in journals, so keep doing that. Add plain-language summaries and share them at local meet-ups or online groups where practitioners gather. A short coffee-chat poster or a free webinar can move your findings into classrooms and clinics faster than the print version alone.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Post a one-page plain-language recap of your last journal article in your agency’s staff room or team chat.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Government policy and national practice guidelines have created an increasing need for autism services to adopt an evidence-based practice approach. However, a gap continues to exist between research evidence and its application. This study investigated the difference between autism researchers and practitioners in their methods of acquiring knowledge. METHODS: In a questionnaire study, 261 practitioners and 422 researchers reported on the methods they use and perceive to be beneficial for increasing research access and knowledge. They also reported on their level of engagement with members of the other professional community. RESULTS: Researchers and practitioners reported different methods used to access information. Each group, however, had similar overall priorities regarding access to research information. While researchers endorsed the use of academic journals significantly more often than practitioners, both groups included academic journals in their top three choices. The groups differed in the levels of engagement they reported; researchers indicated they were more engaged with practitioners than vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of researcher and practitioner preferences led to several recommendations to improve knowledge sharing and translation, including enhancing access to original research publications, facilitating informal networking opportunities and the development of proposals for the inclusion of practitioners throughout the research process.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.01.011