Rejected: Discourse Analysis of Reviewer Feedback on Research Related to Facilitated Communication

• In Event: 66.063 - Typing and Talking Back: Challenging Prevailing Discourses of Research With Persons With Complex Communication Needs

Abstract

Objectives:

This article presents the results of a discourse analysis of reviewer feedback on articles related to facilitated communication or supported typing. The purpose is not to debate the merits of the submitted manuscripts or to defend or refute the decisions of the reviewers and editors. Rather, the purpose is to analyze the language of the discipline and the arguments made, with the larger purpose of considering what counts as “research,” “science,” and “validity” in research pertaining to individuals whose method of communication and assumptions of competence are often under fire.

Theoretical Framework:

Supported Typing or Facilitated Communication is highly controversial, with the research community divided on questions of validity and authorship (Bebko, Perry, & Bryson, 1996; Cardinal, Hanson, & Wakeham, 1996). Despite this, individuals who type to communicate have continued to build their skills and researchers have endeavored to demonstrate the potential benefits of this approach to communication support. New research methodologies move away from strictly validation studies to focus on how this method can be utilized to further communicative, academic and social access (Bernardi & Tuzzi, 2011; Broderick & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001). But these efforts happen against a backdrop of skepticism, doubt and, often, outright hostility. Presumptions of incompetence and narrow definitions of science limit the possibilities for alternative voices to be heard.

Methods and Data Sources:

Utilizing targeted and snowball sampling, I collected reviewer comments and decision letters from researchers who have submitted manuscripts related to supported typing or facilitated communication for publication and conducted a discourse analysis of the content (Gee, 2011). I have collected and analyzed 8 sets of reviewer comments and am continuing to add to the data set. For analysis, I removed all identifying information from the text and treated each document as a data sample. I was not interested in how the comments connected to specific articles, but the discourse itself. The data were coded using dedoose, an online qualitative research package, identifying key terms and phrases. I also considered the following types of questions. What language was used to justify decisions? How did reviewers define “science” or “empirical research?”

Substantiated Conclusions
While analysis is still underway, several key themes warrant discussion.

• “I thought this was moot!”: FC as an already discredited technique
• Science = skepticism; skepticism = new ways of understanding are not proven; Accepting new ways of understanding = it can’t be science
• You can’t include their data until they prove competence
• Redefining human rights and communication rights


Significance
Shifts in research have led us to accept that not all individuals with cerebral palsy have intellectual disabilities, sign language can be more effective than oral methods alone, and skull circumference is not an accurate predictor of intellectual potential. However, some research thresholds are harder to cross. Research in the field of facilitated communication raises questions of authorship, validity and competence. In DSE, we need to consider how current discourses serve to exclude and keep silent alternative voices and work to engage the research and disability community in new, more collaborative, ways.

Authors

• Christine Elaine Ashby, Syracuse University

• Jamie Burke, Syracuse University