Skip to main content

Facilitated communication

Facilitated communication (FC) is a process by which a facilitator supports the hand or arm of a communicatively impaired individual while using a keyboard or other devices with the aim of helping the individual to develop pointing skills and to communicate. Some neurologists and psychologists believe there is a high incidence of dyspraxia, or difficulty with planning and/or executing voluntary movement, among such individuals, and that this is alleviated by a facilitator's manual support. Proponents of FC suggest that some people with autism and moderate and profound mental retardation may have "undisclosed literacy", or the capacity for other symbolic communication, consistent with higher intellectual functioning than has been presumed.

The procedure is controversial, since a majority of peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that the typed language output attributed to the clients is directed or systematically determined by the therapists who provide facilitated assistance. Some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC, and some FC users have reportedly gone on to type independently.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Characteristics of Mass Communication

Five characteristics of mass communication have been identified by Cambridge University's John Thompson. Firstly, it "comprises both technical and institutional methods of production and distribution". This is evident throughout the history of the media, from print to the Internet, each suitable for commercial utility. Secondly, it involves the "commodification of symbolic forms",as the production of materials relies on its ability to manufacture and sell large quantities of the work. Just as radio stations rely on its time sold to advertisements, newspapers rely for the same reasons on its space. Mass communication's third characteristic is the "separate contexts between the production and reception of information", while the fourth is in its "reach to those 'far removed' in time and space, in comparison to the producers". Mass communication, which involves "information distribution". This is a "one to many" f...

Conclusion

Open communication climates encourage employees through supporting them, through allowing them to participate in decision making, and, through trusting them, which assures the integrity of information channels. Ultimately, the openness of any communication climate depends upon the character of the participants. Openness often demands courage because the communicator operates with lowered or eliminated defensive barriers, even when standing up to verbal assault. Because open communicators have to articulate their positions in meetings, public arenas, and in print, they must be secure individuals, confident in their own positions, ability, and authority. Yet, while open communication climate may make formidable personal demands, such openness ultimately rewards both the individual and the organization in providing an environment where people thrive and enterprise flourishes.

Trusting Environments

All parties in information exchange must tell the truth as they perceive it. They must also ensure that information is correct. Credibility is any employee's greatest asset. A reputation for carelessness, lying, deceit, or manipulation undercuts all future messages. The result of credibility is trust; it underpins all human relationships. Employees have to believe their information sources. If, for example, at weekly meetings, the staff hears contradictory information about project plans, decisions, or salary, they will dis­miss all information because they cannot confidently choose which to believe. If one week they are told the start-up date is November 14, the next week November 20, and following week November 7, they will understandably dismiss all the information as not credible. Repeated instances of passing such contradictory information will corrupt the integrity of the communication channel. People quickly dismiss information sources that prove to be wrong or untrustworthy...