Looking under the bonnet of Intensive Interaction - thinking about the mechanics of social interactivity

Quite often recently I have found myself referring to the central contention of a paper by Philip Schweigert (communication consultant/instructional lead at the New Mexico School for the Blind and Visually Impaired). This paper, 'Understanding the importance of the Partner in Communication Development for Individuals with Sensory and Multiple Disabilities' was published in the journal Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (2012, Vol. 21, 167-173).

In this paper Schweigert points us very simply (which is why I like it) to the four requirements for successful communication: 

1. a 'means of expression' to communicate with (for us IIers that's via the Fundamentals of Communication)

2. a sender of a communication (well yes, obviously)

3. a receiver of that communication (no s*** Sherlock!)

but then, most interestingly of all (I think) ... 

4. a 'topic' i.e. something of mutual interest to communicate about ... so now "hhhmm" I am thinking: what is our topic when engaging with someone with Intensive Interaction?  

This on the surface looks like a variation on the Means - Reasons - Opportunities model (Money, D. 2002) that is already very useful and widespread across learning disability communication training. But the more specific 'topic' aspect of Schweigert's paper is the part that I find most attractive: 

‘The topic is something to communicate about… experiences help the child formulate interests. They provide motivation and topics for interaction. It is important to remember that the experiences we are describing here do not initially develop in social isolation.'

So, when we are joining in with someone's activity, sociably reflecting back aspects of their behaviour or vocalisations, using touch and other fundamental communication channels, what is the topic of such a conversation?  

Well I suppose the topic is the person themselves and our shared experiences (current and past) with them ... we are talking to, and with them, about them, and about our interest in them, and our interest in the things they are currently doing. Surely for most of us, 'we' and our experiences are the main thing we generally like to talk about. We like to engage in a process of sociable (but generally functionally useless) chit-chat: and we like to do this a lot, especially with those around us who are genuinely interested in us and our well-being.  

So if Intensive Interaction is the 'means of expression' it can also form the basis of the 'topic' as well ... two aspects in one, because it is the 'how' of how we are communicating, and it is the content (or topic) based on our 'in the moment' shared experiences, with these being a reflection of the person and their current (often pre-symbolic) behavioural repertoire. 

I also think that this can be in stark contrast to the situation where our people can so often be talked about ... not to or with ... but by other people, between other people.

Interestingly, also taking a more overtly developmental perspective, Schweigert states that: 

‘Before we can talk about symbolic communication for children with multiple and sensory disabilities, we must consider their presymbolic foundation and specifically their communicative intent. In order for such learners to develop an understanding of communication and their ability to influence others through their own behaviour, they must demonstrate a means of expression that others can detect and respond to. Means of expression must encompass not just the symbolic forms, but also the presymbolic forms. Behaviours such as a slight turn of the head, orientation of the body, change in respiration, or opening/closing of the eyes that are more subtle and difficult to detect also must be considered’.

I'm not sure if he knows it, but that looks a lot like Intensive Interaction!

x