I understand why it didn’t, and I don’t mean it should have made any specific reference to any specific thing, but I wish the section of Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate which discussed “evidence-based” theories or treatments had mentioned the degree to which researcher assumptions shape what “evidence” supposedly means, e.g., among other things, that one study that assumed a priori that “recovery” from autism was possible (and then, of course, defined “recovery” simply as the absence of certain specified outward behaviors).

Join the Conversation?

Hello. My name is Bix. @bix