I am a Behavior Analyst and an Advocate for ABA: Are you?

Ahearn (2025) wrote a position paper. He tells behavior analysts to speak up for ABA. The paper is not a study with data. It is a call to action.

The author says critics attack ABA from inside and outside the field. He wants every BCBA to defend the science in public.

The paper finds that silence hurts the field. When BCBAs stay quiet, misinformation spreads. The author claims active advocacy can protect ABA’s future.

Evanko et al. (2025) and Coop et al. (2025) say the same thing: BCBAs must advocate. Evanko focuses on state committees. Coop adds policy storytelling. All three papers share one message: speak up or lose ground.

Nicolosi et al. (2025) extends the call. They say advocacy must include neurodiversity voices. Ahearn defends ABA; Nicolosi shows how to do it while listening to Autistic people. The two pieces fit like puzzle pieces.

Vollmer et al. (2025) looks like a contrast. They urge internal social-validity checks instead of public defense. Really, the papers work together. Fix practice first, then speak with confidence.

You shape how teachers, parents, and payers see ABA. Next time you hear “ABA is robotic,” answer with plain facts and a real client story. Post it on LinkedIn, email the teacher, or speak at the school board. One voice counters ten myths.