Marilyn Chadwick of the Syracuse Facilitated Communication Institute admits lack of scientific support for facilitated communication.

July 3, 2005

Marilyn Chadwick, a trainer and consultant for the institute, acknowledged that results from double blind studies investigating the validity of the method have produced disappointing results, but she said that qualitative studies overwhelmingly suggest that the true voices of users are emerging. (p. 3, News)

In a typical double-blind test, the facilitator and subject are shown a series of pictures. Sometimes they see the same picture; sometimes they see different pictures. Each does not know what the other is seeing. Published accounts of double-blind tests consistently show that the faciilitator is composing the messages. (Wheeler on O.D. Heck Double-Blind Study).

Contrary to Chadwick's statement, qualiitative research is ill-suited to making the determinations of authorship she claims they have demonstrated. According to its proponents, qualitative research methods are not designed to analyze outcomes, but meaning and process. Because the researchers would be directly involved in the communication process, as well as in the collection and interpretion of findings, these studies do not have the necessary safeguards against subjectivity, bias, and influence to make a determination of authorship possible (Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research).