Rationalizations Abound: Stopping Just Shy of Knowing
Katharine’s post last week explored laying the groundwork for belief in facilitated communication (FC), despite evidence that the messages are facilitator controlled. It reminded me of founder Douglas Biklen’s 1990 article “Communication Unbound” and the choices he made in presenting FC to the general public. While there is too much to discuss for a single blog post, here I focus on three areas: independence, authorship, and the ideomotor response.
A close reading of Biklen’s article reveals the same doubts about the technique that critics (still) have about authorship and unexpected literacy. Despite this, Biklen seems to override his doubts (in the name of skepticism) while carefully crafting his advertisement for the technique. For example, he asks “How does FC work, and with whom?” rather than “Does FC work?” Two different questions leading to significantly different answers. Biklen was not immune to interpreting what he thought he saw as independent communication. Many people were (and are) fooled by the illusion of FC (See Wegner, et. al., 2003, Burgess, et. al, 1998, and Clever Hans), but as a leader in the movement, Biklen shows a disappointing lack of curiosity about the mechanisms behind the technique, and only passively addresses the question of facilitator influence.
Using qualitative studies to determine authorship in FC is like asking builders to add a roof and walls to a house before the foundation and frame are in place. It’s not the right tool for the job. (Photograph by John Salvino).
Most dictionary definitions refer to “independence” as a sense of autonomy and freedom from outside control or support. Evidence-based communication methods and techniques exist that optimize users’ ability to interact with technology on their own. Users may need help in adjusting the devices to their individual physical needs or in learning how to use the technology, but the actual communication process (e.g., letter selection, word choices) are free from facilitator interference. Biklen’s use of “independence” reads like the end of a pharmaceutical ad quickly read in a low tone: independent with support at the hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, leg, or other body part. By no account (except in Biklen’s facilitated world) is “independence” defined as “dependence.” Legitimate Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) methods may involve some degree of cuing from the assistant, but these are temporary (days or weeks, not months or years) and openly acknowledged as cues. Facilitators vehemently deny cuing their clients—even when the cues are visible to the naked eye--making facilitator behavior problematic.
When questions of authorship arise in “Communication Unbound,” Biklen chooses to dismiss the concerns of speech therapists, teachers, and parents who, rightly, worried about their own, unconscious selection or cuing. The typed messages weren’t matching the individuals’ behaviors, vocalizations, or, in some cases, were simply untrue. Had he listened to the legitimate concerns of his facilitators (though critics were saying the exact same thing) and set up tests to answer these questions, perhaps I wouldn’t be writing this blog post. Instead, he defaulted to his belief in FC and focused on what he saw as the “hits” (“independent” communication with support from the facilitator) while ignoring the “misses” (unexpected literacy skills and erroneous content).
“Communication Unbound” is, purportedly, a qualitative, ethnographic study. Qualitative studies have value and are useful in gathering information about the individuals being studied through observations, interviews, etc. However, as a tool for determining independence in FC-generated messages they are not the right tool for the job. It’s a bit like asking a builder to put walls and a roof on a house before the foundation and frame are set in place. The independent thoughts of individuals being subjected to FC can only be recognized as such if the facilitators’ influence over the typing activity is ruled out. Blinding the facilitator to test protocols (e.g., a quantitative measure) is a reliably effective way of detecting facilitator influence. Contrary to proponent claims, the goal of these tests is not to measure the intellectual capabilities of the participants, but to determine who is controlling the typing. (See Controlled Studies). By relying solely on qualitative measures, Biklen repeatedly missed opportunities to rule facilitator influence in or out. He seemed enamored with the content of FC-generated messages, but less so with determining whether the words were, in fact, the clients’ own.
Biklen knew about the ideomotor response when he wrote “Communication Unbound.” This is a well-known phenomenon recognized by the scientific community in the mid-1800s. It is associated with automatic writing, dowsing, and using a planchette (e.g., Ouija board). In FC, small, often non-conscious muscle movements by the facilitator provide cuing for letter selection. These muscle movements also influence letter selection in FC variations in which the facilitator holds a letter board in the air. The ideomotor response, most likely, isn’t the sole reason why FC “works” (see Wegner, et. al, 2003)--facilitators need a healthy dose of motivated reasoning and self-delusion for extended use--but it does contribute to letter selection as facilitators unwittingly tense or loosen their grip on their client or the letter board to type out the desired messages. Even with this knowledge, Biklen fails to address the problem in any meaningful way (e.g., by conducting double-blind testing). None of the guidelines he provides at the end of the article offer an objective way to rule out facilitator influence. To the contrary, facilitators are told not to test and are tasked with being arbiters of communication truth as they multi-task their way into producing facilitated messages.
I suspect most, if not all, facilitators have moments when they wonder if they are controlling the typed messages, but thanks in large part to Biklen’s modeling, brush aside these doubts in favor of making FC “work.” Facilitators tell themselves they’re not cuing, but, deep down inside, I suspect they know who is authoring the messages (hint: not their clients). Biklen, in “Communication Unbound,” seems to model stopping short of knowing the truth about FC by urging his acolytes not to question the (scientifically unsound) underpinnings of FC. “Presumption of validity” is not the same as proof of independent communication, but questioning FC in an active, rather than passive, way just might jeopardize facilitators’ dearly held beliefs in a technique that cannot work as advertised.
Recommended Reading:
Spitz, H. (1997). Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to Facilitated Communication. Routledge. ISBN 978-0805825633
Twachtman-Cullen, D. (1997). A Passion to Believe: Autism and the Facilitated Communication Phenomemon (Essays in Developmental Science). Westview Press. ISBN 978-0813390987