Heyworth Melanie, Chan Timothy, Lawson Wenn
Reframing Autism, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Macquarie School of Education, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 10;13:864991. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864991. eCollection 2022.
Debate surrounding the validity of the method of supported typing known as facilitated communication (FC) has been continuous since its inception in the 1990s. Views are polarized on whether FC can be considered an authenticated method for use by people with complex communication needs (CCN) or significant challenges in speech, language, and communication. This perspective article presents an analysis of the research arguing for-and against-the use of FC, combined with the lived experience knowledge of autistic adults who utilize FC, to rehabilitate its current standing as discredited and unevidenced. By considering extant qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as personal accounts of the use of this particular Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) method, the authors argue that the current dismissal of FC is rooted in ableist and outdated approaches. FC research should be reconsidered and reconducted using current best practice autism research approaches, including coproduction and a presumption of autistic communication competence, to assess its validity as a potential AAC method for autistic individuals.
自20世纪90年代辅助沟通(FC)这种支持性打字方法问世以来,围绕其有效性的争论就一直持续不断。对于FC是否可被视为有复杂沟通需求(CCN)或在言语、语言和沟通方面存在重大挑战的人群所使用的一种经认证的方法,各方观点两极分化。这篇观点文章对支持和反对使用FC的研究进行了分析,并结合了使用FC的自闭症成年人的生活经验知识,以恢复其目前作为不可信且无证据支持的地位。通过考虑现有的定性和定量研究,以及对这种特定的辅助和替代沟通(AAC)方法使用情况的个人叙述,作者认为目前对FC的摒弃源于能力主义和过时的方法。FC研究应该使用当前最佳实践的自闭症研究方法重新进行考量和开展,包括共同生产和对自闭症沟通能力的推定,以评估其作为自闭症个体潜在AAC方法的有效性。