A reporting guide.
Most coverage of facilitated communication leans on a 30-year-old narrative. The story has moved. This page is built to make it easier to report accurately on it.
Do
- +Differentiate the methods. FC, RPM, S2C, and Spellers Method are distinct teaching protocols, not interchangeable terms.
- +Cite the neuromotor literature, not only the 1990s critiques. Apraxia and motor-learning research have moved 30 years.
- +Quote independent typists directly. They are the population whose existence the dominant narrative cannot account for.
- +Treat 'no peer-reviewed RCTs' as a research-priority finding, not a verdict that the method is invalid.
- +Use first-person language: 'nonspeaking,' not 'non-verbal'; 'unreliably speaking,' not 'low-functioning.'
Don't
- −Don't conflate facilitator-influenced output (a real failure mode of bad practice) with the method itself.
- −Don't rely solely on Wikipedia, skeptic blogs, or 1990s position statements — they cite the same handful of studies.
- −Don't describe the letter board as a Ouija planchette without examining whether the analogy actually holds.
- −Don't ask whether 'FC is real' as a binary; ask what's been demonstrated, what's contested, and what's missing.
- −Don't interview only critics about a community of practitioners and families without quoting any of them.