Human Rights, Social Validity,
and Power in Behaviour Analytic Practice

Acknowledgement of Country

• I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the lands on which we meet today, and pay my respects to Elders past, present, and emerging.
• I pay my respect to the Muwinina people, the original owners of the land, and the broader Palawa/Tasmanian Aboriginal community as the continuing custodians of Lutruwita.
• I acknowledge that this work takes place on land that was never ceded.

Who We Are

Dr Erin Leif

Dr Russ Fox

Alana Michell

How We Will Learn Together

• Come with curiosity, not certainty
• Honour each person's dignity and lived experience
• Equity matters – everyone needs different supports
• Respectful disagreement helps us learn
• Discomfort = growth – lean into learning moments
• Use identity-affirming language
• Move around as you need!

Learning Objectives

• At the conclusion of this panel, participants will be able to identify how learning histories and systems shape behaviour analytic practice priorities.
• At the conclusion of this panel, participants will be able to apply cultural humility as a reflective practice stance.
• At the conclusion of this panel, participants will be able to articulate unresolved tensions between systemic expectations and rights-based, socially valid practice.

Where We Are Going

Phase 1: Learning Histories

• Behaviour analysts, like all practitioners, have reinforcement histories that shape what we notice and prioritise.
• The three levels of selection (phylogenetic, ontogenetic, cultural) mean that neither our values nor our practice exist in a vacuum (Skinner, 1981).
• Cultural humility is not a competency to acquire; it is a practice stance requiring ongoing reflexivity.
• Mezirow's transformative learning (1991): disorienting dilemmas are the entry point for genuine professional change.

Phase 2: Foundational Frameworks

• Social validity (Wolf, 1978): goals, procedures, and outcomes should be socially significant. The critical question: for whom?
• WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) research bias shapes what counts as evidence (Henrich et al., 2010).
• Systems reinforce compliance with existing paradigms. Kuhn (1962): paradigm shifts require accumulated anomalies, not just good arguments.

Phase 3: Systems and Normalisation

• UNCRPD (2006), Articles 3, 4(3), 12, 19: requires genuine participation, not consultation as a formality.
• Human rights are not a specialty area. They are the baseline from which practice is accountable.
• Critical disability studies: 'doing good' in practice may simultaneously enact harm at a systems level (Barnes, 2014).
• Sitting with unresolved tension is not failure; it is what honest, culturally humble practice looks like.
• The field's scientific identity can be a barrier: accuracy and precision are reinforced, uncertainty is punished.

Phase 4: Humility, Not Certainty

• Notice whose voice you treat as information, and whose you treat as opinion.
• Examine your own reinforcement history: what have you been rewarded for not questioning?
• Discomfort in the face of these questions is not a sign something is wrong. It is a sign something is real.

Key References

• Barnes, E. (2014). Valuing disability, causing disability. Ethics, 125(1), 88-113.
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
• Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507), 501-504.
• United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
• Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203-214.

Contact