From autonomy to relationships: productive engagement with uncertainty.

Van der Molen et al. (2010) wrote a position paper. They argue that services for people with intellectual disability should stop chasing independence only. Instead, plans should build real relationships and give clients voice.

The paper is theoretical. It does not test a new therapy. It maps a new direction for planners, teachers, and behavior analysts.

The authors say autonomy-only goals often leave people lonely. Relationship-centred plans create belonging and still respect choice.

They call this shift 'productive engagement with uncertainty.' You let the client lead, even when the path is not clear.

Swenson (2008) set the stage. That paper shows why market-style services fail: people with ID cannot act as typical shoppers. Van der Molen et al. (2010) answer by replacing market logic with human connection.

Shogren (2022) updates the same line. It adds an anti-ableism lens and tells practitioners to hear multiply-marginalized voices. The 2022 piece keeps the relationship core but widens the justice frame.

Parchomiuk et al. (2025) give boots-on-the-ground detail. Their qualitative study lists concrete barriers families and agencies create. The 2010 paper gives the vision; the 2025 paper shows what walls you will hit when you pursue it.

Next time you write a behavior plan, add a relationship goal alongside the independence goal. Ask the client who they want in their life, not just what they want to do alone. This one change can cut loneliness and boost motivation without extra hours or cost.