Is Neurodiversity-Affirming, Socially-Valid Applied Behaviour Analysis “Unscientific”?

Considerable disagreement surrounds the field of applied behaviour analysis (ABA), particularly in relation to autism. Some scholars, practitioners, and advocates – often aligned with the neurodiversity approach – argue ABA can be harmful and must be substantially reformed or even abolished. Others dispute claims of harmfulness and defend various aspects of traditional ABA scholarship and practice. This paper is a conceptual analysis of arguments and evidentiary standards in recent commentaries regarding ABA practices towards autistic individuals. We aim to identify where misunderstandings and mismatched evidentiary expectations may exacerbate polarization and to outline constructive directions for dialogue and research. Defenders of traditional ABA sometimes frame their positions as being largely objective, value-free, and evidence-based, while suggesting that criticisms are inaccurate or unscientific. We suggest the situation is more complex, with subjective biases, misinformation, oversimplifications, and fallacious arguments sometimes being apparent on both “sides.” For example, we argue that defenders of traditional ABA can mischaracterise the neurodiversity approach and key concerns about ABA. Furthermore, we suggest arguments in favour of traditional ABA and against reform efforts can sometimes raise crucial logical, scientific, and evidentiary issues. Moreover, we highlight the importance of emerging research regarding autistic people’s perspectives on the social validity of behavioural intervention. Ultimately, we propose that if researchers and practitioners actively seek to understand and engage with alternative points of view, and critically reflect on their own views to ensure they rest on solid logical and evidentiary foundations, ongoing progress towards more scientifically rigorous, socially-valid, and meaningfully effective intervention will accelerate.