[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Bob Quesal
Date: 10/10/01
Time: 5:25:37 PM
Remote Name: 143.43.201.169
Hi Harsha:
Thank you for the kind words. I think the points you raise are correct. I do want to make a couple of comments, however. The argument that we haven’t moved the field along has been used by some to suggest that we will never find the answers to stuttering “so why bother?” I think, however, that just because some researchers might disagree, that does not mean that we have not made strides in helping people who stutter. I think those who focus on the “arguments” in speech-language pathology are just trying to make excuses.
There may be other disorders that are more “important” (although I am not sure who gets to decide that) but I think anyone who stutters would feel that his or her problem is as important as that of anyone else. Woody Starkweather has pointed out (and Woody, forgive me if I’m misquoting you here) that if the incidence of disorders was what led us to decide how important it is to know about, all that physicians (“non-specialist” general practitioners) would know how to treat would be the common cold. Even though stuttering is a low-incidence disorder, I would submit that it is one of the most difficult to treat effectively. That would suggest MORE training, not LESS.
Time will tell if the specialization movement is helpful or harmful to fluency disorders as a part of practice among “generalist” SLPs. I think if specialists work with generalists and generalists are not afraid of specialists, the Specialty Recognition program will be very beneficial. If the argument becomes “let the specialist do it” then academic training in fluency disorders is in very, very bad shape.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post.
Bob Q.