Today’s episode critically examines a systematic review by Bryant et al. concerning Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) and Natural Language Acquisition (NLA), arguing that the review intentionally narrows its definition of acceptable evidence to exclude the majority of relevant research. It asserts that the authors’ methodology, which prioritises randomized control trials (RCTs) and similar designs, creates a “manufactured void” of evidence for GLP/NLA, thereby serving to delegitimise autistic-led frameworks and reinforce established behaviourist approaches in speech and language therapy. The article of the source article, Dr. Jaime Hoerricks, further contends that this exclusion is not neutral scholarship but a strategic move to protect entrenched interests and maintain market dominance within the profession, particularly by those aligned with Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Ultimately, Dr. Hoerricks positions the Bryant et al. review as a political act aimed at “enclosure” rather than genuine scientific appraisal, with significant ethical implications for autistic children and their families.
Here’s the link to the source article: https://open.substack.com/pub/autside/p/when-no-evidence-means-we-refused
Let me know what you think.
