Search results

Learners with autism require specialized education and supports to ensure acquisition and mastery of various communication skills. This is particularly true for individuals whose disability significantly impacts their language development. Without functional communication, these individuals often engage in severe behavior, have reduced self-determination, and experience diminished quality of life. Accordingly, researchers in special education and related fields have sought ways to improve the communication skills of learners with autism who need specialized language and communication interventions. Although the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is well-established in the empirical literature and has helped countless individuals learn to communicate, the method known as facilitated communication (FC; which also is being called “supported typing” and “rapid prompting method”) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Few methods in special education have been as thoroughly discredited as FC and perhaps none are as dangerous. This chapter contrasts the thoroughly debunked FC and its pseudoscientific characteristics with those underpinning PECS. A brief historical account of each method is provided along with key scientific and pseudoscientific features that distinguish science from pseudoscience. Ultimately, our intent is to further clarify how FC is not an augmentative or alternative communication method and why PECS is.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions and experiences of early adopters of the technology.

Registered dietitians (RDs) (n=14) were recruited from the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Mexico and Israel. Six qualitative interviews and two focus groups were conducted online using a conference calling platform. Data were recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed.

Early adopters of nutrigenomics (NGx) were experienced, self-efficacious RDs who actively sought knowledge of NGx through communication with one another and the broader scientific community. They considered NGx an extension of current practice and believed RDs had the skills to deliver it. Perceived barriers to widening the application of NGx were linked to skepticism among the wider dietetics community. Proliferation of unregulated websites offering tests and diets was considered “pseudoscience” and detrimental to dietetics fully embracing NGx. Lack of a sustainable public health model for the delivery of NGx was also perceived to hinder progress. Results are discussed with reference to “diffusion of innovation theory.”

The views of RDs who practice NGx have not been previously studied. These data highlight requirements for future dietetic training provision and more inclusive service delivery models. Regulation of NGx services and formal recognition by professional bodies is needed to address the research/practice translation gap. Further research is required to inquire as to the views of the wider dietetics profession.

Students with special needs include children with impaired attention, disruptive behavior, learning disabilities, and developmental disorders, among many other conditions. When a child has been diagnosed with such a disorder, his or her parents may seek treatment that could assist the child to be more academically and socially successful. Numerous interventions exist for the treatment of childhood disorders; however, these treatment methods differ in the types and amounts of evidence supporting their usefulness and effectiveness (Lilienfeld, 2005).

The paper aims to describe the inadequate nature of both “mono‐objectivist” approaches, which deny any role of social influence in science, and relativist social constructions, which fail to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It outlines an alternative conceptual framework that allows for the possibility of social construction of science, while preventing epistemological relativism.

The study utilizes the cybernetic concept of recursion to show how science can bend back on itself, investigating its own foundations, without undermining its ability to improve our empirical understanding of the world. The paper makes use of several case studies to define specific mechanisms that show how the process of knowledge production in science can steer a course between reduction to a single “right answer,” and fragmentation into subjective interpretations.

The paper concludes by showing how the cybernetic recursion of multiple objectivity can also be applied to cybernetics itself. In particular, it suggests that such recursive investigations allow us to reconsider the Law of Requisite Variety, and envision an alternative form that can better account for the complexity that arises in self‐generating systems.

The research is unlikely to be of use to scientists looking for epistemological proof of singular right answers, or social constructivists looking for proof of epistemological relativism.

The paper suggests that researchers in constructivism need not limit their work for fear that it will lead to relativist conclusions.

This paper fulfils an identified need to offer an alternative to current developments in the field of science and technology studies.