Helping to make things right for autistic Uni students
A recent study evaluated a training programme designed to help university staff better understand and support autistic students. As I well know, autistic students face additional challenges at university and are at higher risk of developing or exacerbating existing mental health conditions. However, as I’ve documented here and in my books, we often don’t get the support we require due to a lack of understanding among staff.
The training programme was developed together with autistic students and covered topics such as debunking stereotypes about autism, mental health issues common among autistic people, and practical strategies for supporting autistic students. There were two versions of the training - a 5-week online course and a condensed 3-hour session delivered to Uni staff.
Quantitative analysis of a questionnaire given before and after the training showed no significant improvement in autism knowledge. This was likely due to a “ceiling effect” as scores were already high before the training. However, qualitative feedback highlighted that staff valued hearing autistic people’s lived experiences during the training. They gained a more nuanced understanding of autism and learned new information and strategies, despite already having good baseline knowledge.
Staff appreciated the participatory nature of the training involving autistic people. This direct involvement was seen as rare and impactful. Even knowledgeable staff learned new communication approaches, accommodation options, and proactive ways to support autistic students that they intended to implement.
This highlights the need for varied evaluation methods beyond solely quantitative scores when assessing training outcomes. Whilst the training improved staff knowledge and attitudes, systemic barriers like lack of disability awareness and supportive policies still need addressing at an institutional level alongside educating staff.
Thematic analysis of interviews
The thematic analysis of interviews with staff who participated in the training revealed several key themes that provide more insight into the experience and impacts of the course.
Value of lived experience: many staff emphasised how powerful and meaningful it was to hear directly from autistic students during the training. As one interviewee stated, "it's rare" to have autistic individuals openly discuss difficulties they face (F6). Others felt a "responsibility" to keep learning from the autistic course deliverers about their lived realities (F6). Seeing relatable autistic students chat and laugh challenged stereotypes held by some staff of autistic people as inherently abnormal (F7).
Developing nuanced, in-depth knowledge: despite high baseline knowledge, staff gained more nuanced understanding of areas like masking behaviours and individual differences among autistic people. For example, one staff member reflected that "how they mask was really interesting and helps me see how different the experiences can be" (S4). Some became aware of their own unconscious biases carried into the training (F3, F4). Others found the training reinforced and updated prior learning. Crucially for practice, many recognised the need to adapt strategies individually rather than take a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
Links to professional practice: interview responses indicated intentions to improve practice using course content for reference (F1) and as a resource when supporting autistic students in future (F9). Strategies mentioned included checking in more with students proactively, giving more response time, explicitly explaining social rules, considering sensory needs in spaces used to meet students, and being more open to using accommodations like lecture recordings (F2, F5, F12).
Systemic Barriers: the interviews also revealed that whilst the training improved individual staff capacity, broader systemic barriers still persist for autistic students. Staff noted issues in the physical university environment itself, with noisy, crowded lecture halls and labs that could be "overstimulating" yet mandatory to use (F4, F9). Inflexible policies around assessments were also flagged, with heightened stress around tightly clustered deadlines (F2). Additionally, administrative barriers for staff themselves were mentioned, making it hard to access professional development opportunities within "time-poor" academic roles (F6).
Most critically, multiple staff raised the problem of being unaware if students had disabilities like autism or not, hampering their capacity to adjust teaching for relevant needs proactively (F11, S44). Disclosure decisions for students themselves depend on fears of stigma from disclosing an autism diagnosis and lengthy delays to access formal diagnosis. As one interviewee summarised succinctly: "autism does not cause mental health conditions. Being autistic in this world causes mental health conditions" (F2).
Acceptability and Feasibility of Training: the interviews also explored how acceptable and feasible staff found the training itself. Overall, both the 5-week and condensed formats were received positively. Staff commented that the training was clearly structured (F3), easy to understand (F5), and pitched at the right level despite covering extensive content (F8). Having flexibly paced online materials supported staff in balancing it amongst their other commitments (F7, F11).
Some found the volume of optional extra resources overwhelming though, creating self-imposed pressure to engage with them all, leaving them feeling guilty if they did not have capacity to do so (F3, F8, F12). However, others highlighted the ability to select their preferred format was beneficial, and they appreciated having materials to refer back to for refreshing their knowledge when actually supporting students in future (F1, F9).For the 3-hour condensed course, some commented more content than feasibly covered was squeezed into one session (S50). Others however still found it an excellent overview considering the time constraints, appreciating how autistic perspectives anchored the learning throughout (S3, S4).
Applicability elsewhere?
Whilst this study was conducted on a small scale at a single UK university, there are several reasons its findings could have relevance in a broader context, including the US.
For one, the issues autistic students face in UK universities are unlikely to differ greatly from the challenges arising in other countries. Sensory issues, social communication challenges, stigma, and mental health needs are fundamentally tied to the lived experience of autism neurology rather than cultural specifics. And the lack of staff understanding on supporting these is a widespread concern. So the impacts of improved training found here could be expected to translate.
Additionally, the participatory method involving autistic students directly to co-create and feature within the training is not constrained or inherent to the UK setting. Actively including autistic perspectives as shown here to be so powerful would be similarly impactful for awareness-raising in any country. Of course, tailoring exact content to reflect issues in a given university's policies and culture would maximise local relevance. But the principle of participatory design and delivery holds universal merit.
The study also speaks to feasibility and acceptability of delivering such training online. With virtual training inherently able to transcend geographical barriers, uptake could be high amongst motivated university staff even in rural areas or different states if rolled out systematically by institutions. Potentially modularising materials may further support flexibility for meeting staff development time allowances.
Certainly replicating this work on a larger scale would be valuable for substantiating the themes identified qualitatively here. But fundamentally, the issues and training solutions trialed have strong logic for wider applicability. Involving autistic students themselves also provides an inherent mechanism for adapting to cultural norms and policies in any given setting the training is applied to. So pending direct evaluation, cautious generalisability to contexts like US higher education seems reasonable.