[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ken St. Louis
Date: 16 Oct 2006
Time: 12:35:54 -0500
Remote Name: 157.182.15.42
Hi Michael, I was hoping you would weigh in on this. Actually I was expecting a stronger critique from you. <smile> You know how much I respect you and your work in advocating for those who stutter and live with HIV/AIDS. In fact, the title of my book, "Living with Stuttering: Stories, Basics, Resources, and Hope" comes from our discussion of this issue. I see what you are saying that maybe my anchor labels don’t separate out the true essence of person-first (or victim-less) labeling might achieve. There might well be a difference between calling someone a “cancer victim” as opposed to “person living with cancer,” etc. Possibly, but that was not the purpose of the study. I wanted to look at “person-first” labeling as it relates to stuttering and cluttering. But I needed to include other labels so that respondents would not adopt a “set” to evaluate fluency labels differently than other labels. I also needed “anchor” labels to compare the two groups of respondents, those who responded to one group of person-first or direct labels and those who responded to the counterpart terms. What you suggest would be a great followup. Do you wanna do it? You mention Zeitgeist. Maybe I’m a dinosaur (about to become extinct). We’ll see. Keep up the good work. Ken