Listening with Humility:Lessons Learned from a Dialogue with Scholars from Critical Autism Studies
Real talk with autistic scholars shows BCBAs must trade 'fixing' for collaborative goal setting.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Mathur and six fellow behavior analysts sat down with four scholars from Critical Autism Studies. They talked for two hours. The group recorded the whole chat and later pulled out lessons for ABA folks.
No clients, no data sheets. Just people talking. The goal was to model how ABA can listen to autistic-led critique without getting defensive.
What they found
The biggest takeaway: humility hurts, but it grows better practice. The BCBAs admitted some goals, like 'look less autistic,' had harmed clients. The CAS scholars said they want partnership, not abolition.
Both sides agreed on new rules: ask clients what 'better life' means to them, share power in goal setting, and keep checking if help still feels helpful.
How this fits with other research
Graber et al. (2023) first drew the ethical map. They said ABA and neurodiversity can share ground if we drop conformity goals. Mathur’s team walked that map by actually talking to neurodiversity scholars.
Bölte et al. (2019) used a philosophy journal to argue autism is difference, not deficit. Mathur moves the same argument into a live room with BCBAs practicing the listening part.
Henderson et al. (2023) list teamwork barriers between clinicians. Mathur shows one fix: enter the room ready to change your own mind first.
Why it matters
You can start small. This week, ask your autistic client or their family, 'What would make life easier for you?' Write the answer verbatim in the plan. Next, pick one goal that serves their answer, not 'eye contact.' Finally, invite them to rate each session: did this feel helpful or just compliant? Keep the score and adjust. That loop—ask, act, check—is humility in practice.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one client-driven question to your intake form and use their words in the behavior plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Abstract The field of applied behavior analysis (ABA) appears to be at an inflection point where we are experiencing substantial criticism from the autistic community. We as a field can choose to defend our field from the criticism or we can choose to listen and be responsive to it. Some early forays into discussing the implications of neurodiversity for ABA have been fruitful (Veneziano & Shea, 2023; Mathur et al., 2024) and it seems clear that the time for direct dialogue between ABA scientist practitioners and some of our greatest critics has come. Suckle et al. (2025) described one side of a recent dialogue between scholars of ABA and Critical Autism Studies (CAS), in which CAS scholars posed questions to ABA scholars and ABA scholars answered them. That article was explicitly composed for a disability studies audience and accordingly published in a disability studies journal. The current article describes the other side of that dialogue, in which ABA scholars posed questions to CAS scholars, who then provided their answers. The current article is explicitly written for the ABA researcher and practitioner audience. We may not feel entirely comfortable with some of the criticisms of ABA that come from CAS scholars but we believe that willingness to experience this discomfort is a critical prerequisite for our field to evolve. This article explores how our field can engage in cross-disciplinary collaboration and concludes with potential actionable steps that ABA researchers and practitioners can put into practice today.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2026 · doi:10.1007/s40617-025-01149-7