LET'S COMMUNICATE!
by Alan Kurtz
Critics of facilitated communication have repeatedly cautioned parents and professionals against using the technique before its validity can be objectively established. In support of their position they have cited numerous controlled studies. In most of those studies FC users have failed to pass messages in blind trials (There were, of course, exceptions. For instance in the first study examining the validity of FC, four of six individuals demonstrated ,that they could pass messages in blind conditions (Intellectual Disabilities Review Panel, 1989).
While we believe that many of the early controlled studies have serious methodological flaws, we also believe that there is a great deal to be learned from them. We have copies of most of those studies. They continue to be available to anyone wishing to borrow them. The annotated bibliography we published several years ago contains all the studies we were aware of at the time including those in which FC users failed to validate their communication. We feel that people should have this information regardless of whether it supports our personal point of view.
As the largely negative results were being published, other researchers were taking a slower more deliberate approach to studying the phenomenon of FC and its validity. Before developing their research protocols they asked questions such as "What is FC?" and "What procedures are appropriate to use in testing it?" Don Cardinal, for instance, took over a year developing the protocol that he used in his study of 43 students.
Some of these studies are now appearing in journals. Articles by Don Cardinal and Darlene Hanson, Michael Weiss, and Cynthia Sheehan and Robert Matouzzi have been accepted for publication in Mental Retardation. Each demonstrates the ability of FC users to pass messages in blind conditions. Cardinal and Hanson's study is the largest study to date. In addition, Gene Marcus, an FC user, and Mayer Shevin are the authors of a chapter that will appear in a new book on the validation of FC by Don Cardinal and Doug Biklen. In it Gene describes his struggle and eventual success with a protocol similar to one used by Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, & Schwartz (1993). (See"FC User and Facilitator Write Chapter on Successful Experience with Validity Testing, p. I .')
The emergence of new research sharply contradicting earlier results usually stimulates scientific dialogue and inquiry. In the debate around FC this appears not to be the case. New studies validating FC appear at a time when several outspoken critics are not only refusing to discuss the issues but appear to be actively discouraging debate. Stephen Taylor, editor of Mental Retardation, reported in the October, 1995 TASH Newsletter:
Most recently, FC opponents have attempted to undermine a consensus conference on FC underwritten by federal agencies concerned with people with disabilities. The conference represented an attempt to bring together persons with different positions on FC, including independent researchers and disability leaders. Not only have opponents refused to participate in a discussion of FC on neutral grounds, they have attempted to have political pressure exerted to prevent the conference from being held.
Reportedly some individuals have rationalized their refusal to participate arguing that the research demonstrates FC does not work and that further discussion is a waste of time and money. Those daring to suggest that there might be another side or even a middle ground in the debate have been subjected to personal and professional attacks on their credibility (Taylor, 1995).
It is ironic that many of those who have argued consistently for controlled investigations into the validity of FC should suddenly decide that research is no longer necessary. The timing of this position reversal is no coincidence. It occurs just as emerging research makes the extreme position held by many FC opponents an increasingly untenable one. In fact, more evidence exists today supporting the use of FC than ever before.
This debate, or lack of if, is not merely an ivory tower issue to be fought out among academicians. Many people inaccurately believe that the research is complete, conclusive, methodologically sound, and uniformly negative. This belief has led schools and agencies in Maine and around the country to deny individuals the opportunity to use this potentially useful technique. When people are precluded from speaking as a matter of public policy, this academic issue becomes an issue of civil rights.
For our part we encourage debate. We believe that only the truth will be served by continued public discussion. The silencing of one group by another, on the other hand, can only lead to resentment, further polarization, and misinformation.
Send us your letters! Engage us in debate! Invite us to public discussions and panels! We welcome all opportunities for dialogue about the research on facilitated communication.
REFERENCES
Intellectual Disabilities Review Panel (1 989). Investigation into the reliability and validity of assisted communication technique. Melbourne: Department of Community Services, Victoria.
Taylor, S. (1995). Time to speak out on the FC controversy. TASH Newsletter, 21(l 0), p.7
Wheeler, D,L., Jacobson, J.W., Paglieri, R.A. & Schwartz, A.
(1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication.
Mental Retardation, 31, 49-60.
The purpose of Facilitated Communication In Maine is to promote the appropriate use of facilitated communication through education, technical assistance, and support to people with disabilities, parents, educators, speech and language pathologists support providers, and other interested individuals. The project provides up-to-date information on current best practices, introductory and advanced workshops on the technique, resources regarding theoretical and practical components of facilitated communication and ongoing support to a network of resource persons who provide local education and support to other facilitators.
In complying with the letter and spirit of applicable laws and in pursuing its own goals of pluralism, the University of Maine shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or citizen status, age, disability, or veterans status in employment education, and all other areas of the University. The University provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. This publication is available on audiotape and upon request this material will be made available in other alternative formats to accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities.