Final answer:
Douglas Biklen advocates for Facilitated Communication by asserting that the clients are the true communicators. His six arguments include unexpected knowledge, independent typing during certain instances, verification by familiar third parties, client-driven corrections, the facilitator's inability to predict messages, and the congruence of expressed emotions with typed content. Despite Biklen's position, subsequent research largely disputes FC's validity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question relates to the practice of Facilitated Communication (FC), a technique where a facilitator supports the hand or arm of an individual with communication challenges, such as non-verbal individuals with autism, to help them type or point to letters on a board. The controversy around FC lies in determining who is actually doing the communicating—the individual with disabilities or the facilitator. Douglas Biklen's arguments for the legitimacy of FC are based on the premise that it is genuinely the client's thoughts being communicated. Although Biklen’s work is contentious, and many studies have shown FC to be an invalid communication technique, it is important to discuss his perspective as part of the historical context.
Here are Biklen's six arguments in support of the idea that the communication is authentically from the client:
Clients often communicate something unexpectedly knowledgeable or beyond what is presumed to be their awarenessIt is critical to note that the efficacy and authenticity of Facilitated Communication have been widely questioned by scholars. Subsequent research employing controlled experiments has often failed to validate FC as a reliable form of communication, suggesting that facilitators may unconsciously or consciously influence the messages.