Every now and then, one of these dissertation flubbers make me wonder if these doctorates are actually practicing what they preached. This dissertation was published in 2019, and the references used date back mostly 20 years ago, when supporting arguments that ABA is best for autistic students in education. A quick peek into the author’s professional account is her having been a BCBA in 2004, or at least 15 years before she got her doctorate in education. Will we ever get honest research about autistic students stuck in school jail?

The author, Stephanie G. Augustin, presented her doctoral thesis titled “A Phenomenological Analysis of Autistic Children Receiving Applied Behavior Analytic Treatment: A Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents’ Perspective” to Northeastern University’s Graduate School of Education in 2019. Her research focuses on the experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse parents whose autistic children undergo ABA treatment, exploring the intersection of cultural factors and the application of ABA therapy in education.
Augustine completely ignores a critical issue in the ABA debate: trauma. How can you endorse ABA without acknowledging the potential trauma it can inflict, especially in marginalized communities? The focus on “cultural sensitivity” feels like a convenient distraction from the real harm ABA can cause—coercive, retraumatizing interventions that prioritize compliance over emotional well-being.
Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) might sound good on paper, but it risks encouraging educators to treat behaviors as problems to be fixed rather than symptoms of deeper issues like trauma. Where’s the mention of the damage ABA has done to those with trauma histories? The author’s narrow recommendation to apply ABA “culturally” is irresponsible and misses the mark completely.
This paper essentially pushes a blanket endorsement of ABA, even if it tries to soften the blow with talk of cultural sensitivity. It sets a dangerous precedent for educators to apply ABA without critically considering individual needs, trauma, or the broader context. The author had a responsibility to present a balanced view, but this paper is nothing more than a one-sided defense of an outdated, harmful practice.
APA Citation:
Augustin, S. G. (2019). A Phenomenological Analysis of Autistic Children Receiving Applied Behavior Analytic Treatment: A Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents’ Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).
Extracted reference to Trauma:
Critics of Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is a developmental theory that looks at every aspect of the individual’s external environment, called “systems” at every level from individual to societal. This theory was useful as a paradigm for understanding the context of human development in the framework of examining the relationships between individual and relational contexts. However, the theory posits that one’s experiences are impacted by events that occur at any level of the system, making it difficult to pin down any specific event or series of events that shapes individual behavior and development. The theory has a great concern for people, their interpretations of life events, and the transactional relationships that occur in relation to others (Siporin, 1980). Siporin (1980) critiqued Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory based on the premise that one’s ability to “evolve” or access what they want and need can be determined by access to resources and the individual’s beliefs about his/her ability to obtain the goal. He gives the example of a successful engineer needing not only to have the academic capacity, but also the willingness, resources, commitment, time, and learned competence (Siporin, 1980) to achieve his/her goal. While the theory is often used to explain how people overcome trauma or negative life events, there is a great deal of information on how ecological systems theory frames societal problems such as crime, mental health issues, and disease (Siporin, 1980).
There are also claims that this theory leaves out critical components, crucial to a thorough developmental theory, mainly the concept of resilience and the individualistic or the “entrepreneurial” person (Christenson, 2016). In a review of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, Christenson makes some proposed “enhancements” based on the premise that the theory distorts one’s understanding of how individuals deal with trauma and pain throughout the course of their development (2016). While the model describes the kinds of impact that negative experiences in various systems can have on human development, it does not take into consideration the concept of “resiliency” (Christenson 2016). Resiliency is the ability for an individual to persevere, move forward, and overcome despite barriers, trauma’s, and negative experiences (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2018).
Christenson (2016) also brings into question the lack of entrepreneurship or individuality discussed in the ecological model, which stresses relationships between people and contexts. He compares the model to various other developmental theories such as Freudian psychodynamic theory, Erikson’s psychosocial theory, Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, and Vygotsky’s cognitive-mediation theory. He critiques that the theory would be more comprehensive if it included the person as an individual and took into consideration how the individual acts as his/her own agent in decision making, perception creating, and the willingness to participate with others in meaningful ways that are satisfying and risk-taking. Darling (2007) supports the notion that a significant part of ecological systems theory is an understanding of the individual as a reactive, response-evoking entity in the “center of the circle.” This means that the systems cannot exist without the solicitation and active participation of the individual. Individuals cannot function in isolation, thus requires access to people, resources, and competencies in order to obtain opportunities (Siporin, 1980).