Research Standards
Article Classification System
Every article published under the Science Institute carries one of three classifications — visible at the top of the article, before the reader begins. No exceptions.
| Classification | Description |
|---|---|
| RESEARCH-BACKED | Claims are supported by peer-reviewed sources. All sources cited. Minimum 4-5 independent peer-reviewed sources per key claim. Contradicting evidence acknowledged where it exists. |
| LIVED EXPERIENCE | Personal or community narrative. Clearly labeled as such. Not presented as representative of all neurodivergents. Named as the source when used — never dressed up as research. |
| MIXED | Research-backed framework with lived experience illustration. Both clearly distinguished within the article. Research claims cited. Lived experience sections labeled. |
The classification is not a quality ranking. Lived experience is valuable and has a place in the Science Institute. The classification is about honesty — the reader always knows what kind of evidence they’re engaging with.
Source Standards
| Source | Types of trusted source |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed journal | Published in PubMed, Frontiers, Nature, ScienceDirect, Philosophical Transactions, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, or equivalent peer-reviewed publication. Highest credibility. Preferred for all science claims. |
| Books by credentialed researchers | Published by academic or established trade press. Author holds relevant academic credentials. Example: Baron-Cohen’s The Pattern Seekers (Basic Books). Secondary to peer-reviewed journals. |
| Established research organizations | NIH, CDC, WHO, academic research centers (e.g. Cambridge Autism Research Centre). Used for prevalence data and established clinical definitions. |
| Original first-person sources | Heather David and UMNTogether community members — clearly identified as lived experience, not research. Used to illustrate, identify questions, and provide community perspective. Never used as proof of a scientific claim. |
What does NOT qualify
- Popular science articles, blogs, or listicles — even if they cite real research. Go to the original source.
- Self-reported statistics without a traceable peer-reviewed source
- Social media content, even from credentialed individuals
- AI-generated summaries of research — always verify against the original paper
- Single-source claims — every key argument needs independent confirmation
Minimum source standard per key claim
- 4-5 independent peer-reviewed sources confirming the same finding. Independence matters — sources that all cite the same original paper are not independent confirmation. Where fewer than 4 sources exist, the article acknowledges the limitation explicitly.
- When contradicting evidence exists — and it often does — it is acknowledged. A finding with 4 confirming sources and 1 contradicting source is stronger when the contradiction is named than when it is hidden.
- We verify the primary data source for every citation to ensure that multiple references represent distinct sets of findings, rather than a single study echoed across multiple publications.
How Lived Experience Is Used
Lived experience is not anecdote dressed up as evidence. It is a legitimate and valuable source of knowledge — but only when it is honest about what it is and what it isn’t.
What lived experience can do in UMN research
- Identify questions worth researching — “I experience X, is there research on this?” is a valid starting point
- Illustrate what peer-reviewed findings look like in practice — giving research a human face
- Surface patterns that formal research hasn’t yet studied — pointing toward what needs investigation
- Represent the community perspective on research findings — how this lands for the people it describes
What lived experience cannot do
- Serve as proof of a scientific claim
- Stand in for peer-reviewed evidence where peer-reviewed evidence exists
- Be presented as representative of all neurodivergents — one person’s experience is one person’s experience
- Override established peer-reviewed findings. While lived experience can point to gaps in current research, it is not used to negate statistically significant, replicated scientific data within our Science Institute publications.
Use of Heather David as a source
Heather David is the founder of UMN, a data protection engineer with 20 years of IT experience, and a person with clinician-acknowledged AuADHD patterns. Her lived experience is a primary source for UMN’s founding story, product design decisions, and the questions the Science Institute was built to investigate.
When Heather’s experience is referenced in an article, it is:
- Named explicitly — “based on the founder’s lived experience” not presented anonymously
- Classified appropriately — articles drawing primarily on her experience are classified LIVED EXPERIENCE or MIXED
- Not conflated with research findings — her experience illustrates; the research confirms or refutes
Heather carries clinician-acknowledged patterns consistent with AuADHD without a formal adult diagnosis. This is explicitly framed in all references — the diagnostic system wasn’t built to find people like her, and she is far from alone in that. This framing is itself supported by research on adult ND underdiagnosis, particularly in women.
Use of family members as sources
Heather’s children have formal diagnoses and their experiences have informed her understanding of ND minds from multiple angles — as a parent, as someone who recognized her own patterns through theirs, and as an advocate who fought the systems designed to serve them.
When family experience is referenced:
- It is never identified by name or in ways that would identify specific individuals
- It is used only with consent — explicit, informed, and ongoing
- It is classified as LIVED EXPERIENCE
- It is used to illustrate, not to prove
Science Standards Followed
UMN holds itself to current science communication standards. The Science Institute is not a clinical research institution — it communicates and contextualizes research. These standards govern how that communication happens.
| Type of Literature | Descripton |
|---|---|
| Current literature | Sources are checked for currency. Older foundational papers are valid where the science hasn’t changed. Where newer research contradicts older findings, the newer research is prioritized and the contradiction is noted. |
| Multiple independent sources | Minimum 4-5 independent peer-reviewed sources per key claim. Independence means each source reached its findings through its own methodology, not by citing the same original paper. |
| Contradicting evidence | Acknowledged explicitly. A nuanced finding with known contradictions is more credible than a simple finding with contradictions hidden. Where contradicting evidence exists, the article states it. |
| Correlation vs causation | Clearly distinguished. “ADHD is associated with X” is not the same as “ADHD causes X.” The language in every article reflects this distinction. |
| Emerging vs established | Findings described as emerging when they come from limited or recent studies. Established findings described as established when replicated across multiple large independent studies. |
| Sample bias acknowledgment | Where research was conducted primarily on specific populations (e.g. young white boys, specific countries), this is noted. The Science Institute exists partly because this bias has distorted the field. |
| Not clinical advice | Nothing published by UMN constitutes medical, psychological, or diagnostic advice. Readers are always directed to qualified professionals for individual assessment and support. |
What UMN Is Not
Being clear about what UMN is not is as important as being clear about what it is. This section belongs on the How We Research page explicitly.
| What we’re not | Descripton |
|---|---|
| Not a clinical practice | UMN does not diagnose, treat, or provide clinical care. Nothing on this site replaces a qualified clinician. If you are seeking assessment or support, a professional who understands neurodivergence is the right path. |
| Not providing medical advice | Nothing on this site is medical advice. Research communication about what studies show is not the same as clinical recommendation for any individual. |
| Not a peer-reviewed research institution | UMN communicates, contextualizes, and advocates based on research. The Science Institute aspires to conduct original community-consented research as it grows — but that research will be clearly distinguished from communication work and held to full academic ethics standards. |
| Not speaking for all neurodivergents | No single organization, researcher, or platform can speak for the full diversity of neurodivergent experience. UMN speaks from and for its community, with the explicit commitment to expand whose voices are represented over time. |
| Not infallible | We maintain a public record of significant revisions to previously published content to ensure transparency as the science evolves |
Community Research Ethics
When UMNTogether community members contribute to research — through surveys, shared experience, or participation in community-consented studies — these commitments apply without exception.
- Contributors, not subjects — community members who share their experience are contributors to the research, not research subjects. That distinction is not semantic. It changes the power relationship.
- Consent is explicit and specific — not buried in terms of service. Opting into research participation requires a conscious, deliberate action. The default is always no.
- Findings go back to community first — the people whose experience made the research possible see the findings before they are published anywhere else.
- No individual is identifiable — community experience is aggregated and anonymized. No finding is presented in a way that could identify a specific individual.
- Contribution is always voluntary. You may withdraw consent at any time prior to publication. Once findings are published, UMN will remove your contribution from its own platforms upon request, but we cannot modify data already distributed in physical formats or third-party archives prior to the request.
- Plain language summaries — every research finding is communicated in accessible language for the community, not just in academic format for specialists.