Skip to content

A Look at Facilitated Communication Posts and Disappointment

July 5, 2011

Sometimes, we find ourselves obsessing specializing in particular topics, and it’s only after the fact that we realize it was happening. Occasionally, it’s into areas we would never have expected. No one could be more surprised than I was that vaccination became a focus of interest and an area in which I’d start collecting and reading as much as I could on vaccines, and yet I can’t imagine throwing around the “I’m an expert” bit as some folks do. Despite anti-vaccine activists insistence that there’s little research, I’ll never read all the literature; there’s simply that much research. The go-to textbook on it is over 3,000 pages alone. You can imagine my irritation at people who claim they’ve done their research and know what they know but they’ve never seen that textbook. What they mean is they’ve read or another conspiracy site, joined a forum or facebook page and they’re now the experts. But I digress.
Facilitated Communication is another of those topics which has become a sustained focus of interest for me. Listed below are the pieces I’ve written on it here at Countering and if it appeared at Science 2.0, a link to it there, as the comments are often very illuminating over there. If you’ve missed these posts, if you don’t know what it is (or that it’s going under the innocuous “supported typing” moniker now and that several prominent autistic individuals who use AAC are actually being facilitated and not communicating independently, if you’ve missed the stories on parents going to jail because their daughter was facilitated into accusing them of rape, maybe you want to take a bit of time. Don’t take my word for it, though, look at the research, too. If you need a journal article I refer to in one of the pieces, email me at and I’ll send you the pdf.
I’d recommend starting with my last piece on why I think it’s so very important that we be skeptical. Let me add here, as well, that when I see people who should know better, who I believe do know better, stand on the sidelines that they would never ever stand on if it had to do with autism and vaccines, I’m disappointed in their choice to allow charlatans and cons–wolves–in. And make no mistake, the people who are promoting FC know it doesn’t work. That’s why Biklen’s changed the name, changed his website, and buried or removed the links to the research on FC. Now he markets it with AAC and it slips in, even though it should have died away long ago.

For instance, this 13 page pdf on training facilitators? www.­inclusioninstitu­tes.­org/­userfiles/­file/­Training Standar­ds Facilitator C­ompetencies.­pdf. It’s gone. You get a short overview now at instead

           The original Facilitated Communication Institute page  is gone. Just gone…you can still look at it here, though, courtesy of the wayback machine.
           As for research, it’s been recast as Supported Typing and there’s a pdf of  research supporting FC. When you click on the link for research not supporting it, though, you get taken to a page not found instead. The fact that 13 professional organizations have denounced FC? Never mentioned. Instead, Biklen assures readers that “But the story of facilitation and research on facilitation was just beginning. A number of studies, using multiple methodologies, have now successfully demonstrated authorship; these studies have demonstrated that is the communication aid user who is conveying the message, not the person providing the support.” No, they haven’t.

  • SQTs: Lilienfeld (2005) Looks at Dubious Autism Treatments  (Science 2.0)
It goes without saying that just like with the anti-vaccine movement, we’re not going to change the minds of those who’ve been devoted to it for decades. We’re not going to change the minds of people who are vested in the methodology because asking parents who’re using it to let go of their kids’ hands and arms and accept that their children are profoundly disabled is asking more than they can do. The key here is to reach this next generation of parents confronted with a non-verbal, apparently intellectually disabled child and convince them that if their child is capable of communicating, there is sufficient technology available to ensure that the child’s communication is free from corruption and therefore genuine.
We must convince them that whatever level of communication their child is capable of is okay. It is the ultimate denier of the equal value of all human beings to co-opt their communication and pretend that they are somebody they aren’t. And somehow we’ve got to get parents tempted for immediate success and reinforcement that there is a genius trapped inside their profoundly disabled child to get that, to see that by insisting that the value of the person is predicated on the supposed intellectual capability is denying the value of the person.
Figuring out how to compassionately address those who have fallen for it, to provide options and alternatives, is not an easy thing. After all, despite two decades of clear, consistent science showing it’s bunk, we still have a major university supporting it and advocacy groups promoting it. Never mind it doesn’t work, never mind that the disabled person’s autonomy of expression is taken from him. Never mind the wasted opportunities to truly learn some form of independent communication.

The likelihood of convincing the family to walk away from this in trade for whatever communication the person can actually do is slim and next to none. We have to show families new to the diagnosis that this, while no doubt comforting within the family context, is not helping the individual learn to communicate independently and it’s not real. Biklen and his fellow facilitators may give lip service to the idea of fading, but the reality is that this mother has to use two hands to get the communication she’s wanting. And that ought to ring alarm bells for even the most gullible of people.

So even though the issue of facilitated communication isn’t one I would have thought I’d take on and speak out against as often as I do, even though I have three independent communicators who are loud and fairly effective at getting their needs across and for sure their wants, I’m going to continue to stand up against this, mostly because I remain amazed that those disability rights activists who should be having conniptions over some facilitator denying the individual’s autonomy aren’t doing it.

Supporting disability rights, supporting neurodiversity, means supporting people for who they really are and what they are really capable of.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: