Are people who question FC/S2C/RPM evil?
Whenever we get a comment on our website saying people who question FC/S2C/RPM are “evil,” I, honestly, feel sad for the commenter(s). I’m not unsympathetic to this facilitator mindset—it’s one I, too, adopted early on in my experiences with FC and, perhaps, by categorizing skeptics as “evil,” facilitators (psychologically) distance themselves from “outsiders” who may threaten their own closely held (and presumably contrastingly “good”) beliefs about FC.
Image by Sander Sammy
However, I don’t think this polarized “good” vs. “evil” thinking aids proponent efforts to legitimize FC/S2C/RPM. To my mind, it’s the technique that is problematic, not the individuals being subjected to its use. Science-based evidence that definitively rules out facilitator influence and control over letter selection would get my (and other critics’) attention faster than ad hominem attacks do. Proponents might better advance their cause if they responded to criticism with well-designed, reliably controlled studies proving their claims of independence and not with highly charged emotional responses that lend credence to the idea that FC/S2C/RPM are coping strategies, not science-based communication techniques.
The assertion that all critics are “evil,” for me at least, disintegrated almost instantly upon talking with the individuals vilified in the FC literature. In contrast to FC proponents, who immediately reported to news outlets that I (and others in similar situations) were “poorly trained” (See Prisoners of Silence) without bothering to contact me to get my side of the story, the critics of FC, these “evil” people, were among the first to reach out and offer their assistance when I decided to write about my experiences with FC in 2012. Recognizing that anyone can fall for the illusion of FC/S2C/RPM, they gently asked me questions about my experiences and provided information that helped me understand why FC can’t work as an independent form of communication. Based on these interactions and subsequent research, I now understand that the techniques of FC/S2C/RPM have design flaws that preclude independent letter selection. In other words, these techniques can’t work without some degree (up to 100%) of facilitator influence or control. (See controlled studies)
Through the years, I’ve come to understand the importance of asking a lot of questions about facilitator behaviors and, it seems to me, that if a person or organization forbids the mere asking of questions—especially around the subject of independent communication for its users—that alone should raise red flags. It makes me wonder what the leaders of FC/S2C/RPM do not want people to know about their technique.
I’ll suggest that if facilitators are so unsettled by legitimate questions regarding facilitator cueing or unexpected literacy during letter selection that they find themselves resorting to ad hominem attacks to repel questioners, then there might just be something that they know deep down inside about FC/S2C/RPM (and their role in it) that they’re afraid to say aloud.
I understand that facilitators have been indoctrinated by workshop leaders to “presume competence” in their clients and not question FC-generated messages. For the most part, I don’t think people who’ve fallen for the illusion of FC/S2C/RPM are evil. Misguided, maybe. Uninformed, perhaps. But not evil. I believe that most, if not all facilitators try very hard to follow FC/S2C/RPM guidelines, such as they are and I think it’s safe to say that facilitators, on balance, want to do a good job and believe they can “support” letter selection without influencing or controlling it. But my question to them is this: how do you know for sure you’re not cueing your clients unless you’re willing to ask that question (and use the tools that can give you the answers)?
Image by Levi Jones
In my opinion, facilitators should be lining up to be tested under reliably controlled conditions, not relying on “incidental” proof or anecdotes to back up their claims. At this point, it is difficult for me to understand why they would not want to know if they are (unwittingly) cueing their clients, unless emotionally motivated to do so.
I also understand that facilitators (reasonably) might feel anxious about testing FC/S2C/RPM under reliably controlled conditions. What, if like with facilitators in the past their clients produce erratic, nonsensical, or erroneous answers? What if the FC-generated answers are based on content they (the facilitators) know but their clients do not (or vice versa)? What if their belief in FC is challenged during the testing? It would not be a pleasant feeling.
I don’t blame facilitators for their defensive position regarding testing. This anxiety about testing appears to originate from FC’s leaders Rosemary Crossley and Douglas Biklen who, from the beginning, warn(ed) their facilitators not to test FC. Personally, I do not believe it is the fault of the facilitators that, to date, they have failed to produce independent communications under reliably controlled conditions. The technique is flawed, and we all need to focus more on that. Regardless of how skilled a facilitator thinks they are it is highly unlikely that facilitator-dependent techniques could lead to independent communication, even if practiced for years by well-intentioned people.
I’ll suggest (again from personal experience) that it might, on the surface, feel better to demonize the evaluators and avoid testing than it would be to face the fear that the well-intentioned actions by facilitators might be causing harm to the very people they’re trying to help, but avoidance doesn’t absolve facilitators from overtly or covertly influencing or controlling letter selection. Instead of rejecting questions of authorship when they arise, facilitators should be leaning into them, testing them, and making sure FC-generated messages are truly the words of their clients—not just “presuming” based on a dearly held belief. Facilitators could save themselves a whole lot of disappointment and grief by participating in controlled tests now, rather than wait for something bad to happen. (See False Allegations and Facilitator Crimes). And, if on the off chance facilitators succeed in proving that, under reliably controlled conditions, FC/S2C/RPM messages are produced independently and without their control—then they would be the first in the world to do so.
Rosemary Crossley enveloping Jamie Burke (age 5) and holding his wrists to get him to touch letters on a keyboard. (Inside the Edge, 2002)
Recently, I read Rosemary Crossley’s book Facilitated Communication Training. To me, knowing what I know about FC, the book comes across as defensive. Certainly, the criteria she included in her book regarding authorship seems more protective of the idea of FC than of ruling out facilitator cueing and control during FC sessions:
The partner (aka facilitator) is trained and experienced with the facilitated communication method.
The aid user (aka person being subjected to FC) has previously communicated fluently with that partner.
The aid user is satisfied there is a genuine reason for the validation being sought and gives consent to the procedure.
The aid user has experience with the validation task required and has demonstrated the skills required by the testing procedure.
Using these criteria, I’m certain facilitators could easily talk themselves out of participating in reliably controlled testing by claiming their client(s) disclosed to them that there is no “genuine reason” to conduct a test. Afterall, in the minds of facilitators FC works because people being subjected to its use say it works.
Nevertheless, I think, moving forward, we can use Crossley’s criteria to analyze the reliably controlled tests that proponents reject. I will even add two concerns of my own:
Were researchers responsive to proponent concerns that testing be conducted in as natural a setting as possible?
Were participants given opportunities to take breaks and/or end the session when tired, agitated, or simply done for the day?
It is important to note that current-day proponents of FC/S2C/RPM refuse to undergo any reliably controlled tests. I think this is, at least in part, due to a mythology that surrounds blinded testing and those who conduct the tests. Researchers, too, are characterized as biased and presuming incompetence in people with disabilities. I could find no evidence that any of the evaluators directly set out to “debunk” FC. On the contrary, in most testing situations, facilitators and their clients were selected for participation in the studies because of their success with FC inside and outside the classroom. The exceptions were controlled studies conducted because of (false) allegations of abuse where facilitators were ordered by the court to participate. Even then, I could find no instances where participants (e.g., individuals being subjected to FC) refused to participate or were treated poorly by the examiners.
To my knowledge, the most recent authorship study was conducted in 2014, which I will cover in my next blog post:
Saloviita, T, Leppanen, M, and Ojalammi, U. (2014). Authorship in facilitated communication: An analysis of 11 cases. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30:3, 213-225. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.927529
Are these researchers who questioned FC in this study “evil”? I don’t know how anyone could read their report and believe so.
Note: in our research for this website, we’ve discovered controlled testing going back as far as 1992 (in the United States). There may be earlier studies from different countries. The results of reliably controlled tests have been consistent throughout the years. I wonder how much evidence do FC/S2C/RPM proponents need of facilitator influence and control over letter selection before they begin to address the well-documented flaw(s) in their techniques?