[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ken St. Louis
Date: 10 Oct 2011
Time: 11:34:19 -0500
Remote Name: 157.182.15.31
Damon, Good questions, but ones that strike a chord (or a nerve) with me. I had a paper on this topic a few years back. Maybe you'd like to take a look at the paper and the threaded discussion. <http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad9/papers/stlouis9.html> In that paper, I summarized research I had carried out several years earlier, and mentioned corroborating research by Dietrich and Brockelhurst, that showed clearly that person-first labeling (e.g., person who stutters) was no more sensitive (or less pejorative) than direct labeling (e.g., stutterer). In fact, in spite of lots of guidelines to use person-first terminology by training programs, textbooks, professional organizations, journals, etc., there is NO RESEARCH EVIDENCE that person-first labeling engenders more sensitivity. The evidence for such labeling is anecdotal, i.e., opinions of those who stutter indicating that they feel better being regarded as persons who stutter rather than stutterers. I don't know, but my guess from attending NSA conventions and dealing with lots of stutterers is that that most of them don't much care how they are called, so long as they are respected. A bully can call someone a "PWS" (maybe pronounced "peedoubleyouess") just as effectively as using the word "stutterer," if everyone knew what that word meant, and he/she wanted to hurt someone. Similarly, a caring person can use either term and communicate sensitivity. I fear we have simply confused real sensitivity with the use person-first labeling. Personally, I cannot imagine feeling better about being referred to as a PWS than a stutterer--I much prefer the latter. I suspect that others on this esteemed panel will disagree with my position. But that's OK. I don't think I changed many minds in the earlier papers, and I'm not betting large amounts of money that I'll change any here either. <smile> Cheers, Ken