Identifying “Who is Doing the Pointing” Is Not Enough
Since its inception, critics of Facilitated Communication (FC) have asked “Who is doing the pointing?” To anyone with an understanding of the ideomotor response and other non-conscious cues that take place during FC in any of its forms, the answer is obvious. But, by asking this question, critics hoped to motivate proponents to acknowledge the major flaw in their technique—that of facilitator influence and control over the typing activity-- and make corrections to eliminate the problem or, better yet, stop the practice altogether, since consumer-ready technology already exists that allows individuals to communicate using assistive devices independently and without the interference of a facilitator.
Neither happened.
Traditionalists, instead, changed the name of FC to “supported typing,” “typing to communicate,” and other variants and forged ahead with their practice. Split-off groups “invented” Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C), variants of FC in which the facilitator holds the board and the individual being facilitated extends a finger toward the board. Arguably, the typing activity happens without physical touch from the facilitators and proponents seem satisfied that they have answered the question of who is doing the pointing. RPM and S2C, however, do not adequately address the question of who is authoring the messages. Facilitators cannot refrain from cuing the individuals or hold the board still in the air. The movements are often visible to the naked eye as facilitators move the letter boards up and down, backwards and forwards to meet their clients’ outstretched finger. Pointing does not equal authorship. (See Wegner and Sparrow, 2003 for more information about why facilitators cannot help moving the board when they know or think they know the answer to facilitated information).
Like FC users before them, RPM and S2C proponents aggressively deny they control the messages. Cuing is built into the techniques, so it is baffling when proponents cannot grasp that fact that facilitator control plays a major role in how these techniques “work.” The responsible way forward for practitioners would be--still--to rule out facilitator influence by correcting the flaw(s) in their technique or stop the practice altogether. Asking this of proponents, however, seems akin to asking them to give up religion. They rationalize away the well-documented problem of facilitator influence with convoluted explanations to justify their own actions while avoiding simple tests that blind facilitators to test protocols.
Lately, proponents have turned their attention to proving who is typing the messages (quite literally) by using accelerometers or other technology to measure who initiates the movements: facilitators or those being facilitated. The results of these studies are not surprising. For “traditional” FC, sometimes the facilitators initiate the actions; sometimes those being facilitated do. The rate of movement depends on where the facilitator is touching the individual (e.g., wrist, elbow, shoulder, or other body part) and whether or not the individual already knows how to spell the word or not.
Current RPM or S2C eye tracking studies make reference to the length of time an individual spends looking at a letter and/or the anticipation of upcoming letters. Researchers make a big deal out of the rate—or rapidness—of the movements, as if that is an indication of comprehension and literacy skills. It is not. These same researchers do nothing in their studies to rule out any influence the facilitator has over letter selection (e.g., by blinding facilitators to test protocols or mounting the letter board on a stand instead of having facilitators hold it in the air). Often, the facilitators and those being subjected to the techniques have used the technique for years, building up pattern recognition for commonly practiced motions (“h” often follows “t”). The longer the practice times, the less obvious the cues need to be to get the client to identify the desired letter. Individuals are essentially trained to point on command, so it is not a surprise that pointing happens during the typing activity. Nor is it a surprise that these results contribute to the illusion that FC and RPM “work”. The question, then moves, from “who is doing the pointing?” with traditional FC to “who is selecting the letters?” with RPM and S2C.
Proponents get some credit for trying to determine who is doing the pointing (for FC) and who is initiating the typing motion (for RPM and S2C). These studies can give clues as to agency in the written activity. But, their efforts are wasted if they are not also interested in factoring language comprehension and literacy skills into the equation. Pointing, in and of itself, is not authorship. It takes active instruction to decode the complexities of written language.
Proponents are so deeply devoted to keeping the myth of FC alive, they stop short of asking the questions they may already know the answers to, but do not want to admit:
How much control does the facilitator have over the typing activity?
When is it okay for facilitators to supplant their own thoughts and intentions onto those being facilitated?
What happens when the facilitator is blinded to test protocols or when the letter board is stabilized?
Does the individual being subjected to facilitation have the language and literacy skills to understand the complexities of written language?
What does the verbal and non-verbal behavior of the individual being facilitated indicate about his or her willingness to be subjected to facilitation (e.g., pushing or pulling at the facilitator, closing their eyes, turning their bodies away from the activity, bolting from the situation, biting their own arms, verbally saying no to the process, or sitting passively and allowing the facilitator to control the activity)?
It is difficult to believe proponents do not know, deep down inside, what critics are really asking when they ask “who is doing the pointing?” or “who is selecting the letters?” Critics support legitimate, evidence-based alternative and augmentative communication, but FC and its variants have yet to meet the criteria of independent communication. Facilitators need to extricate themselves from the typing process and allow individuals to communicate independently. Simply identifying who initiates the typing activity is not enough.