It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia

Abstract

Tha author argues that despite the vast proliferation of scientific research, our understanding of dyslexia is marked by serious weaknesses of conceptualization, definition, and operationalization that are not only unscientific but also result in impoverished practice in schools, social inequity in both understanding and provision for many struggling readers, and ultimately, reduced life chances for millions of students worldwide. Key to this problem is the inconsistency of the use of the term dyslexia in both scientific research and clinical and educational practice. Four different, common conceptions of dyslexia are outlined, and the implications that each of these have for work with struggling readers are discussed. Whereas it is often claimed that scientific understandings, derived from genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive science, enable clinicians to validly identify, from within a larger group of poor readers, those individuals with dyslexia, the author shows this to be not only misleading but also potentially deleterious to broader inclusive practice. The author argues that the seemingly scientifically based construction of the dyslexic individual, often buoyed by vested interests, typically favors more socially privileged students and often undermines attempts to identify and help all of those who struggle to learn to read. Common responses by proponents to challenges to the dyslexia construct are outlined and discussed. In conclusion, the author argues that scientists, researchers, clinicians, and educators have a responsibility to address and confront the real‐world consequences of much science but little wisdom in the field of reading disability.

Accessible authentication: dyslexia and password strategies

“…As Kirby [25] points out: "it is useful to think of dyslexia as a both an ongoing psychological diagnosis and a social construct, with all that entails" (p.59). Some researchers question the existence of dyslexia, due to the challenges of diagnosing it with any degree of confidence [18]. The fact that there is no such thing as "typical" dyslexia [6] probably contributes to this difficulty, something that Wagner et al [44] also emphasizes.…”

The assignment and distribution of the dyslexia label: Using the UK Millennium Cohort Study to investigate the socio-demographic predictors of the dyslexia label in England and Wales

“…While previous research has investigated socio-demographic predictors of special educational needs (SEN) in England [ 11 ], this is the first paper to investigate the dyslexia label specifically. This is of particular interest as, while there is cognitive and biological evidence for other subgroups of SEN, clear evidence of these differences in those with dyslexia is lacking [ 2 , 5 ]. Given that dyslexia identification can lead to resources and support such as extra time in examinations and additional educational input [ 12 ], it is vital to know whether this resource allocation is equitable in its distribution among the population.…”

“…Whether there is any difference between those who have received a diagnosis of dyslexia and those who struggle with literacy has been systematically questioned. Research in the field suggests that there is no compelling evidence that the etiology, neurology, neuropsychology, or treatments for 'dyslexia' and 'low reading achievement' are different [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Therefore, to identify a subgroup of people with dyslexia may be misleading.…”

‘It’s been taken away’: an experience of a disappearing dyslexia diagnosis

“…There has long existed a belief that the reading difficulties experienced by dyslexic people are special because they are 'unexpected' and exist as one part of a 'spiky' profile of abilities and difficulties (Stanovich and Stanovich 1997). This conception of dyslexia as a distinct category, connected to ideas of 'average or above intelligence', has remained in the public imagination and within some diagnostic practice in the UK (Ryder and Norwich 2018), despite the rejection of the discrepancy model in much of the literature and in assessment guidance (Elliott 2020). Indeed the value of the discrepancy model altogether remains controversial.…”