Abstract
Feelings have long run high between many autistic advocates and behavior analysts. The former often experience and perceive ABA as harmful and traumatic in its methods, and prejudicial and stigmatizing in its objectives, with some of the latter retorting that criticisms reflect misunderstandings of the science rather than areas of true concern. The result? A deep and contentious conceptual divide, leaving little room for dialogue or progress. Recent months, though, have seen a tentative shift. Alongside recognition that behavioral interventions are so deeply entrenched that they are here to stay, some critical autism scholars are gingerly initiating public conversations with behavioral practitioners in a spirit of taking a pragmatic approach to meaningful reform. Further, a new generation of behavior analysts-including some autistic practitioners-is emerging, recognizing problems in their field, and considering how to address them. Interest in such developments is spreading and signals an opportunity for behavior analysts to follow other academic and advocate communities that recognize the importance of interdisciplinarity and critical self-reflection to evolve as a field. We-an interdisciplinary team of critical autism, neurodiversity, and behavior analysis scholars-feel that formalizing a broad field for scholars and practitioners sharing these ambitions holds potential. This field-let's call it Critical Behavioral Studies-would favor profound social, cultural, and historical understanding, a commitment to extend the scope of training to better contextualize practice in relation to the group served, and the self-examination that would bring meaningful change to the field.