First, I'm responding because Scott's reply did not appear on
the Mail Archive version of Tips. I don't know why but this has
been an intermittent problem for Tips posts, I believe that one
of my recent posts did not make it to the website.
Second, I was unaware that there was a "disability studies"
area separate from disabilities specialties within psychology.
The real issue is to what extent do people in "disability studies"
use criteria other than scientific in evaluating claims and processes
(e.g., concerned with different types of "truth" such as "poetic
truth" instead of "factual truth").
Third, for Scott, given that the "guns everywhere" law has been
signed, what do you plan on carrying to class? Do you choose
something to indicate to students that you are just carrying or
are you a believer of overwhelming power and fond of saying
"Are you feeling lucky?" in class? 1/2 :-)
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
------------ Original Message -----------------
Subject: RE: Facilitated communication
From: "Lilienfeld, Scott O"
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:30:16 +0000
Jim; Thanks for sending along. Alas, this is only the latest piece of
evidence that FC is alive and well in many quarters. See below for
the Abstract of a lengthy article ("The Surprising Persistence of
Facilitated Communication: Implications for Clinical Psychological
Science") we've recently submitted for publication (will be happy to
share it with the group once it's press somewhere...):
"Clinical psychologists may assume that once novel clinical techniques
have been refuted by research, they will be promptly abandoned. Using
facilitated communication (FC) for autism as a recent case example, we
provide evidence to the contrary. Although FC was scientifically
discredited by the mid to late 1990s, it is still administered in
clinical and educational settings. We examine evidence for FC's (a)
continued use by practitioners, (b) persistence in academic and
institutional settings, (c) popularity in online and print sources,
(d) promotion in the media, and (e) continued risk to caregivers
accused of sexual abuse. We analyze the sources of these
developments, explore their ethical implications, and offer
recommendations for addressing the spread of FC and other
unsubstantiated interventions."
And re: Stubblefield, she is the same Rutgers faculty member who
referred to scientific criticisms of FC as constituting "hate speech.'
Here is what we write about her:
"Perhaps the most impassioned defense of FC in the peer-reviewed
literature appeared in an article by Stubblefield (2011) in
Disabilities Studies Quarterly entitled "Sound and Fury: When
Opposition to Facilitated Communication Functions as Hate Speech."
Invoking the metaphors of pornographers exploiting women and of Ku
Klux Klan members burning a cross on the lawn on an African-American's
house, the author contended that criticisms of FC and of FC advocates
can result in a "silencing of those people targeted by the hate
speech" (http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1729/1777). Ironically,
critics of FC were expressly denied the opportunity to the respond to
her article by the editor of the journal, who replied that rebuttals
to articles were not within the journal guidelines (Brenda Bruggeman,
November 4 & 27, 2011, personal communication with J.T.T.). "
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology, Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:35 AM
Hi
Facilitated communication rears its ugly head yet again.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/23/rutgers-philosophy-professor-accused-sexually-assaulting-disabled-research-partner#sthash.MISrn3V9.dpbs
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36307
or send a blank email to
leave-36307-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
