Who Gets to Speak in ABA—and What Does That Say About Us?

Back to News
Posted 2 days ago      Author: 3 Pie Squared Marketing Team

Who Gets to Speak in ABA—and What Does That Say About Us?

A new article came out in Behavior Analysis in Practice that asks whether keynote and invited speakers at state conferences are actually “experts” on their topics.

To figure that out, the authors looked at Google Scholar profiles of 735 speakers over three years. They checked for:

  • Peer-reviewed publications in general
  • Publications specifically on the topics people were presenting

And what they found was:

  • 31% had no topic-specific publications
  • Nearly 40% hadn’t published anything peer-reviewed at all

Then came the big question: should these people be presenting?

Now I’m wondering—BCBAs, how does that sit with you?

What Are We Really Saying With This?

This article isn’t just about who’s on a conference schedule. It’s about how we define who’s “qualified” to speak in our field. And more importantly, it’s about the message that sends—to each other, to other professions, and to the public.

So I have to ask:

  • Do you hear the same feedback I do from SLPs, OTs, and mental health providers?
  • Do they seem eager to collaborate—or guarded when they hear you’re a BCBA?
  • Does this kind of “who has published?” framing make that better or worse?

Are We Gatekeeping Progress?

I’m not against research. Far from it. But we have to be honest about the fact that a lot of BCBAs—some of the most impactful ones I’ve worked with—aren’t publishing. They’re running teams, solving systems problems, supporting staff, negotiating with funders, and still showing up for families every day.

They are absolutely shaping the field. But under this paper’s framework, they’re not “experts.”

So I want to ask you:

  • Is that a standard you agree with?
  • Do we believe publishing is the only measure of expertise that matters at a conference?
  • Or do we risk turning conferences into echo chambers that only reward a very specific kind of contribution?

What About the Current Stewards of the Field?

Another question I’ve been sitting with is this:

Are the people who’ve been speaking the longest—those who are continually given the mic—actively helping the field move forward?

Are they helping:

  • Improve our public image?
  • Make ABA more ethical and sustainable?
  • Bridge gaps with other disciplines?
  • Include diverse perspectives?

If they aren’t—and we’re still doubling down on protecting those voices—we might be missing the mark.

What Do Other Professions Do?

If you’ve spent time around SLPs, OTs, or mental health providers, you’ve probably noticed something: their conferences often include a healthy mix of researchers and frontline clinicians. Some have published. Some haven’t. But there’s usually room for both.

Why are we setting the bar higher for ABA conference speakers in one specific area while ignoring the value of implementation-level leadership?

Final Thoughts—And Questions for You

This post isn’t about calling out the paper. It’s about opening a conversation. So I’m asking:

  • Does this approach move the field forward—or reinforce hierarchy?
  • Have you worked with incredible BCBAs who’ve never published, but could teach a packed room more in an hour than some published folks do in ten?
  • Does the publishing standard actually improve outcomes—or is it just easier to measure?
  • Are we, as a field, listening to the right voices—or just the loudest ones?

Let’s not lose the people doing the work because we were too busy counting citations.

This Is What I’m Seeing on Social

Since the article came out, I’ve been watching the responses from BCBAs across platforms. And if the goal of the original paper was to spark dialogue, it certainly has.

But the conversation that’s unfolding isn’t about better vetting. It’s about what we value—and who keeps being asked to prove themselves.

Here’s what I keep seeing:

  • Frustration from clinicians who have 10, 15, even 20 years of applied experience and are still being told their voice doesn’t matter without a publication.
  • BCBAs asking why conference feedback, implementation results, and real-world leadership weren’t considered measures of expertise.
  • A strong pushback against the idea that publishing is accessible to everyone—it’s not. It requires time, resources, IRB access, and often unpaid labor.
  • Questions about who benefits when publishing is the gate—and who gets left out, despite doing meaningful work every day.
  • And a call for conference organizers and the field as a whole to reflect: Are we measuring what actually matters to the people doing the work?

No one is saying research doesn’t matter. But what I’m hearing is that we need a more inclusive, transparent, and practical definition of expertise—one that respects all the ways people show up and lead in this field.

That’s what the field is asking for. And I think it’s time we take that seriously.


Curious what sparked all this? Here’s the article that kicked off the conversation. I’d urge you to review it and form your own take:
👉 Are Keynote and Invited Speakers at State Behavior Analytic Conferences Experts on Their Presentation Topics?