What is message-passing?

• 1) a person with information, who is conveying that information ("speaker");
• 2) a person to whom the information is communicated ("listener");
• 3) some directly observable object, situation or experience which is referred to ("object")  (In most message-passing situations, it is assumed that the speaker and the listener have had different experiences related to the object of the message; for example, the speaker is describing a TV show the listener has not seen, or a childhood event for which the listener was not present.  If their experiences regarding the object have been identical [e.g. a movie they both attended], then it is probably not useful to look at their conversation as an example of message-passing.  Also, subjective reports about unobservable internal events [e.g. "I'm not hungry," "I had a nightmare about ghosts last night"] do not, by our definition here, constitute message-passing.)
• 4) The context of both the object or experience which is being referred to, and of the moment when the statement or reports are being made ("context").

A part of everyone's communication

Message-passing is not some onerous initiation rite for which FC users are singled out.  Rather it is an important skill in the repertoire of all fully participatory members of the community.  It is through message-passing that we make our knowledge known.  Through message-passing we connect with others, we become known as reliable people and as truth tellers.

For most members of the communicating community, message-passing skills were ones we acquired through gentle (and, sometimes, not-so-gentle) practice and correction during our pre-school years. Most of us learned to build accuracy in telling about events our listener had not witnessed.  We learned to modify what we said depending on which referents we might share with our listeners (To one person, we might say, "Joe and I went to the movie yesterday"; to another, we might say "I went to the movie with Joe yesterday -- he's my older brother.")  We learned about the power and the risks associated with lying -- both the social premium placed on honesty and those places in which withholding or misreporting information is expected and valued.  We learned to distinguish, in our own minds and in our conversations, between reality and fantasy, between what we had seen and what we were wishing for or dreading.  As we became more sophisticated, we learned to mark and qualify our messages, making our claims of accuracy and truthfulness concerning those messages explicit ("I think the teacher told us to read all of Chapter 4, but I'm not sure I heard her right.")

Because for most of us these skills were acquired and mastered in informal settings, they do not strike us as learned skills, in the way that long division or playing the trombone are learned skills.  We become very aware of the non-automatic nature of these skills, however, in the presence of FC users, who have spent much of their lives as observers rather than as full participants in the communication community.

Not only are these message passing skills common to all full participants in the community of communicators; they are also major determinants of our power and status in that community.  When we are able to pass messages, we are presumed to be believable, clear-thinking, grounded in reality, and responsive.  Without this skill, we may be assumed to be not believable, confused, living in a fantasy world, or oblivious to the world around us.

In addition to issues of status, there is a wide range of practical issues related to how reliable a message passer one is considered to be.   For example, most people know from repeated experience that one may leave phone messages with the children of some of our friends with confidence that the friends will receive those messages in a timely manner; for others, we may know that the children are not message passers in whom we can have any confidence -- we make a repeat phone call ourselves, to make sure our message has actually been received.  People who are not reliable message passers are often "chaperoned" in situations in which they might otherwise be able to participate independently; they may be forced to be public in conversations in which they might otherwise value their privacy.  For example, a teenage boy might have his mother sitting next to him in a conversation with his doctor, because the boy is not considered a reliable source of information; the boy might really prefer the conversation take place without his mother present.

The need for message-passing skills is most clear in the domain of self-advocacy. Annie's Coming Out  (Crossley & McDonald, 1984) documents Anne McDonald's four-year battle to have her profound wish to escape an intolerable institution heard and respected by the state.  Ultimately, her standing as a person allowed to speak on her own behalf rested on her being able to communicate two words which the hearing judge told her in private.  Although many FC users have parents and friends working powerfully on their behalf, self-advocacy is significantly enhanced by being seen as a reliable communicator.  (Reliable communicators are those who are accurate, precise and truthful, who tend to say what they mean to do and who do what they say they will do.)

Special issues for FC users

Unfortunately, many FC users are at risk of being suddenly and seriously disadvantaged by their lack of experience at effective message passing.  In challenging situations (e.g. when reporting a traumatic incident or a problematic situation; or when one's continued access to facilitation in school or at the workplace is being questioned), many FC users have been called on to demonstrate the validity of their communication within a short period of time.  This is obviously not the best situation in which to acquire and refine message-passing skills, and many people fail to do so.  In turn, such failure may contribute to loss of status, and even to loss of access to opportunities to communicate.

The maintenance of a communication portfolio (Biklen et al, 1995) can be very helpful in documenting one's ongoing record of effective message passing over time.  Additionally, however, we recommend that systematic practice of message-passing skills be made a routine part of skill building practice for FC users from early on in their training.  In the same way that we routinely support people in looking at the keyboard, using spaces and punctuation consistently, and working with decreasing physical support, we can support people in daily message-passing practice.  All of these may not always feel totally comfortable for the FC user, and may require patience and flexibility on the part of the facilitator.  However, all these skills can be incorporated into the practice routine through a facilitator's persistence, through explaining to the FC user the importance of specific skills, and through involving the FC user in the design of how skill practice is to be done.

Successful message-passing:  helpful hints from research

• Flexible, open-ended questioning (IDRP, 1989): Rather than being asked to name specific objects,  the subjects of this study were asked simply to describe what they had done earlier in the day.  By using this structure, the subjects had the opportunity to talk about any aspect of their experience which lent itself to conversation, not only those selected by the experimenter or facilitator.
• Repeated practice of a particular task (Cardinal et al., 1996; Olney, 1997):  In both of these studies, the participants had the opportunity to acquire message-passing skills through routinely practicing the same task over a period of several weeks..
• Third-party "scaffolding" of the conversation, by someone with access to the information  (Weiss et al., 1996; Sheehan & Matuozzi, 1996): In addition to the facilitator and the FC user, a third person who had knowledge of the message-passing "object" was present.  This person was able to provide support in framing questions, keep the conversation focused, and provide feedback to the FC user.
• FC user choosing among tasks (Olney, 1997), choosing aspects of tasks (Weiss et al., 1996), or structuring tasks (Marcus & Shevin, 1997):  In all of these studies, FC users exercised a great deal of control over much of the form, content, duration and presentation of the practice tasks.
• A "culture of practice"  (Cardinal et al., 1996):  For the participants in this study, regular practice of message passing was a part of the daily classroom routine for anyone using facilitated communication, rather than a signal that "something important is going on."

Using successful approaches in a message-passing workshop

Facilitator support for acquisition of message-passing skills

• physical support
• emotional support
• structural communication support
• advocacy support.

Physical support.

• Movement toward minimal support:  There does not appear to be a direct connection between locus of support and successful message passing.  Many FC users who are successful message-passers still require support at the wrist or forearm, and some who type with support at the shoulder have not passed messages frequently or consistently.  However, the work toward greater physical independence permits both the FC user and the facilitator to focus their attention on the process of typing, rather than only on the content of what is typed.  This focus on process lends itself to practice of all FC-related skills, including message-passing.
• Careful monitoring of attention: FC users who routinely look away from the keyboard for much of their typing appear to be in the habit of relying on their facilitators to provide them with orientation toward the keyboard.  Learning to maintain a sustained orientation of the eyes toward the keyboard is an important part of becoming more self-reliant as a communicator.  This supports not only physical independence in typing, but also the ability to maintain focus on the message one has set out to communicate.
• Awareness of facilitator's "anticipatory set":  Facilitators tend to anticipate what FC users will type before the message has been completed.  This is a universal characteristic of all interactive forms of communication, as evidenced by the common practice of one person completing another's sentences.  Language is, by its nature, redundant.  That means that we do not need to read every word in a sentence in order to be able to predict what will come n___.   However, FC users may come to rely on the reassurance physically conveyed by the facilitator's anticipation. In "Sorting It Out Under Fire:  Our Journey" (Marcus & Shevin, 1997), Eugene Marcus describes the effect of the facilitator's anticipation on his ability to pass messages clearly:
    Following the first time I tried and failed to pass the O.D.Heck test, there seemed to be three big barriers I needed to overcome. First, I needed to find a way for Mayer to support my typing without fouling my stream of thought. That was not his fault, but it was something he did constantly without knowing it. For example, whenever we both looked at one picture, the easiest thing to do was to find out from his touch what he anticipated I would type.   You may wonder what that feels like to an FC communicator. Despite some often misunderstood analogies, let me try another one: its like trying to sing "O Canada" when the band is playing "The Star Spangled Banner."  Though you may try, its not going to work if the band is too loud.
     The second barrier was my own messy method of wordfinding. Over the years I had worked to be a good student. That thinking meant that if there was an answer to my question that the teacher expected, they gave small indications of what they expected, and they were often gratified to learn that I knew it.  I found myself with similar skills at reading Mayer's tiny hand movements and other indicators of what he was thinking.  So I had to substitute my clear thinking for his.
• Facilitator practice to minimize anticipatory set:  Once the facilitator is aware of the anticipation which he/she experiences during facilitation, the facilitator can practice minimizing the reflection of that anticipation in both the physical support and the verbal feedback provided.  This practice can be made an explicit part of his/her work with the FC user; it can also be carried out very effectively in role plays with another facilitator.  (See Schubert, 1994, for a description of such role-play exercises.)

Emotional support

• Communicating to the FC user that "message passing is for everyone": FC users need information on the important role that message-passing plays in everyone's life.  It's particularly important to stress that message-passing involves skills that are learned and practiced over time, rather than skills that one is either born with or not.  Accounts of message-passing by typical individuals in daily life, and the painstaking acquisition of such skills over time by other FC users can both be helpful.
• Negotiation with FC user about fear or resistance to working on message-passing:  There are many reasons that an FC user may be apprehensive about even attempting to work on message-passing skills.  He or she may have attempted to pass messages in the past without succeeding.  Such failures may have been accompanied by having his/her competence or honesty questioned, by the loss of relationships or access to facilitation, or by negative repercussions to a facilitator, family member, or friend.  Such fear of working on these skills needs to be dealt with first, by bringing the issues out in the open where they can be discussed, and second, by negotiating to provide an environment of safety in which message-passing can be practiced.  It needs to be clear that the "worst case scenarios" can easily be avoided.
• Avoiding making message-passing a "high stakes" issue:  Message-passing can most effectively be practiced with a facilitator who has experienced the FC user at his or her most competent, and who has been witness to information being communicated effectively on an informal basis.  For example, a school facilitator who has occasionally been told about things that happened at home over the weekend is able to tell the FC user, "I already know you can do this -- I'd like to practice with you to make it easier for us."  This is a far different message than telling the FC user, "I need to figure out whether the typing we do together is real or not."
• Reassurance about "failed" attempts: Message-passing is an incredibly hard skill for many FC users; nevertheless, many have persevered and mastered the ability.  Both the difficulty and the possibility of success need to be reiterated frequently.  As Eugene Marcus wrote in "Sorting It Out Under Fire" (Marcus & Shevin, 1997),
I tried to pass the test, and was amazed -- truly amazed -- at how hard it was for me.  In that way (and in that way only!) it was a good experience, because it got me really thinking about how much support, physical and psychological, I have come to expect and am comfortable with... Giving up to despair was my strong temptation after that first test.  Mayer and Laural did not permit me that melancholy pleasure.  They told me something that I had never known about research, which is that failure is valued as much as success is, for the student of how things work.
• Facilitator confidence:  FC users need our confidence as facilitators; not only confidence in them, but confidence in ourselves.  They need to be able to trust both our perseverance and our problem solving skills.
• Facilitator transparency:  Practice of message-passing skills depends on high levels of trust among the partners in the enterprise.  This trust can easily be undermined by facilitators who attempt to "sneak in" message-passing practice without the FC user's knowledge or permission.  Although information is sometimes passed in this way, there is a real risk of damaging relationships in the process.

Structural support

• Arranging the environment:  We can best communicate that message passing is a universal conversational skill by practicing it in environments similar to those in which most of us engage in message-passing.  Such environments include:
• a third person who serves as a conversational and message-passing partner: Most of us in our daily lives communicate information provided to us by one person to another person.  Natural-feeling message-passing activities tend to include this component.  Additionally, a third person who is not facilitating but who is knowledgeable about the information being conveyed can support the FC user by providing feedback during the message-passing process.  (See Weiss et al., 1966, for a description of this kind of support.)
• conversational supports: When we are experienced at message passing, we rely on small social cues to remind us that we are being relied on to convey information unknown to the listener (e.g. we describe a restaurant we have been to differently to someone we know has been there many times than we would to someone from another town.) Initially, for FC users  without extensive message-passing experience, structure may need to be provided to alert the FC user to the fact that he or she is being asked to provide information that the current facilitator is not privy to.
• frequent opportunity for practice:  Message-passing practice becomes more natural-feeling when it can be incorporated as part of the daily routine.
• Structuring the activity:  There are many ways to structure message-passing activities to increase the likelihood of success for relatively inexperienced FC users.  Some common approaches include
• limiting the set:  Working initially with a small set of objects, pictures, etc., which are known to both the "speaker" and the "listener," and gradually expanding the possible choices.
• eliminating memorization:  This can be done, for example, by having the FC user indicate which item, from a list of possibilities he or she is looking at with the facilitator, is the item that had previously been singled out or practiced.
• Providing and eliciting feedback:  Practice of message-passing is not a test, and should not take on the trappings of testing, if it is to remain a "safe," relaxed activity.   Toward this end, it is useful to provide the FC user with feedback about whether he or she has been successful at conveying unknown information after each attempt, rather than keeping the FC user and facilitator in the dark until a whole series of trials have been completed.  It is also useful to have a debriefing conversation after the session is completed; facilitators can find out from the FC user how the experience felt, what helped, what made it difficult, and what changes in the approach might be tried in future practice sessions.  (For a description of such debriefing conversations, see Marcus & Shevin, 1997.)

Advocacy support

• Person-centered planning:  An FC user is most likely to take on a new  challenge  -- independent typing, message-passing, training new facilitators -- if that challenge is seen as furthering his or her short-range or long-range goals.  Finding out what those goals are, and who needs to work on what as a way of achieving them, can best take place in the context of a general, wide-reaching, informal planning process in which the FC user is a full, valued participant.  Without such planning, we may find ourselves in the position of trying to get someone to participate in practice that he or she finds pointless.
• Creation of a safe context:  The facilitator and others in the FC user's circle create a safe environment for practice in several ways.  Among the most important are:
• letting individual control activities, timetables, etc.:  The FC user can play a major part in determining when practice should be done, which activities should be used, who should participate, and when and how activities should be modified.
• negotiating away "high stakes components" with others:  Facilitators and circle members, by understanding and communicating that message-passing involves skills that are acquired through practice over time, can seek assurances that FC users will continue to be supported in their access to communication opportunities regardless of their current level of mastery of message-passing or independent typing skills.  It is the role of facilitators and other circle members to keep "proof-seekers" from controlling the day-to-day agenda.

Conclusion

Message-passing has for too long been considered the property of the critics who dismiss all facilitated communication as illusory.  Increasingly, FC users are mastering message-passing skills as part of their own empowered communication.  It is our hope that FC users and facilitators will work on the details of reliable message-passing in the same routine, matter-of-fact way that they now work on decreasing physical support.
 

References

• Biklen, D., Saha, N., & Kliewer, C. (1995). How teachers confirm authorship of facilitated communication.  Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 45-56.
• Cardinal, D.N., Hanson, D., & Wakeham, J. (1996).  Investigation of authorship in facilitated communication.  Mental Retardation, 34(4), 231-242.
• Crossley, R., & McDonald, A. (1984).  Annie's Coming Out.  New York: Viking Penguin.
• Intellectual Disability Review Panel [IDRP] (1989).  Investigation into the reliability and validity of the assisted communication technique. Melbourne, Australia:  Department of Community Services, Victoria.
• Marcus, E., & Shevin, M.  (1997).  Sorting it out under fire:  Our Journey.  In D. Biklen and D. Cardinal (eds.), Contested words, contested science:  Unraveling the facilitated communication controversy. New York:  Teachers College Press.
• Olney, M. (1997).  A controlled study of facilitated communication using computer games.  In D. Biklen and D. Cardinal (eds.), Contested words, contested science:  Unraveling the facilitated communication controversy.  New York:  Teachers College Press.
• Schubert, A. (1994). Keep learning: Know the feel of facilitated communication. Facilitated Communication Digest, 2(2), 2-3.
• Sheehan, C.  & Matuozzi, R. (1996).  Validation of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34(2), 94-107.
• Weiss, M.J.S., Wagner, S.H., & Bauman, M.L. (1996).  A validated case study of facilitated communication.  Mental Retardation, 34(4), 220-230.
• Wheeler, D.J., Jacobson, J.W., Paglieri, R.A., & Schwartz, A.A. (1993).  An experimental assessment of facilitated communication.  Mental Retardation 31(1), 49-60.

  ---

Return To Facilitated Communication Digest Index

Return to Facilitated Communication Institute Home Page