Is Your Evidence Really Based? Behaviourist Capture, Autistic Self-Advocacy, and Librarianship
In the history of science and medicine there are numerous examples of how the “best available evidence” promoted by professional societies was profoundly, destructively wrong. This can be seen in the widespread support of scientific racism and eugenics as well as the pathologization of “sexual inversion” and gender variance. When, as librarians, we talk about the nature of authority and hold up peer review as an example of a methodological gold standard in academic and medical research, we must always ask ourselves: whose peers are we talking about? For that matter, whose interests are we talking about? It is becoming increasingly evident even to those outside the autistic community that despite claims of being grounded in evidence-based practices, most studies on the effectiveness of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) are poorly designed, do not disclose conflicts of interest, display a strategic disregard of the harmful outcomes of interventions, and do not reflect the interests of the majority of autistic people. At best, ABA is expensive, intensive, and ineffective at improving life outcomes. At worst, it is actively traumatic and makes us more susceptible to further victimization.
This discussion will examine recent challenges to the evidence-based nature of ABA and how ABA practitioners have historically taken advantage of the internalist nature of the peer-review system. These challenges reinforce what autistic activists have been saying for over twenty years and have consequences for how librarians deliver information literacy instruction. Information literacy and librarianship are not neutral activities and must include a place for own voice narratives, patient, and survivor accounts if we are to avoid perpetuating harmful industry standards with a shrug and a gesture to how “well, everyone’s doing it.”
