Issues Raised by Facilitated Communication for Theorizing and Research on Autism: Comments on Duchan’s (1993) Tutorial The validity of facilitated communication authorship is an issue provoking extreme responses from supporters and opponents alike. The ideology of both camps, as reflected in the public and academic rhetoric on authorship, obscures the possibility of a middle-ground. These comments on Duchan’s (1993) thoughtful position paper are intended as ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   February 01, 1995
Issues Raised by Facilitated Communication for Theorizing and Research on Autism: Comments on Duchan’s (1993) Tutorial
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Elaine R. Silliman
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620-8150
Article Information
Special Populations / Autism Spectrum / Language / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   February 01, 1995
Issues Raised by Facilitated Communication for Theorizing and Research on Autism: Comments on Duchan’s (1993) Tutorial
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 1995, Vol. 38, 204-206. doi:10.1044/jshr.3801.204
History: Received March 28, 1994 , Accepted May 2, 1994
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 1995, Vol. 38, 204-206. doi:10.1044/jshr.3801.204
History: Received March 28, 1994; Accepted May 2, 1994
The validity of facilitated communication authorship is an issue provoking extreme responses from supporters and opponents alike. The ideology of both camps, as reflected in the public and academic rhetoric on authorship, obscures the possibility of a middle-ground. These comments on Duchan’s (1993) thoughtful position paper are intended as a case for a middle-ground. On the one hand, much of the supportive evidence published to date (Biklen, 1990, 1992, 1993; Biklen, Morton, Gold, Berrigan, & Swaminathen, 1992) lacks the rigor expected of qualitative research premised on a contextualist philosophy of science. On the other hand, much of the published research denying the validity of FC messages is equally questionable.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access