What's behind curtain number one?
My first source is a podcast from the podcasts about stuttering known as StutterTalk. It is the longest running podcast about stuttering, and it is a non-profit organization. The author of this particular article is Peter Reitzes and he is joined in the podcast by Peter Dhu. Both have been involved in the speech and hearing community for a long time, and Peter Dhu is recognized as having ties to the Australian government and past experience in positions involving speech pathology, including being the consumer representative for Speech Pathology Australia. He is a very reliable source of information since he knows what he's talking about.
The podcast was posted on April 13, 2015, and was written just after the release of the budget proposal. Due to that, it is probably not as colored with opinion as something that was published after a larger amount of people had talked about it. One of the only things that happened around the time of publication was Hilary Clinton's confirmation that she would be running for president in the 2016 election. I don't see how that would affect my topic, however.
During the course of the podcast, Mr. Dhu discusses the release of the budget proposal and the likely thinking behind the proposal from Speech Pathology Australia. He adds a perspective from them and Lidcombe that supports their decision in making the proposal.
The Two of Sources (get it? like the ten of spades? Nothin? Yeah..not my best work.):
My second source is from the ASHA Leader Blog, and it is an article titled "Another View on Speech Pathology Australia’s Stuttering Treatment Proposal". This is a very respectable blog from the American Speech-Language Hearing Association. It is edited and led by people in authority in the Speech-Language and Hearing World.
The author of the article is Ann Packman, PhD, SLP, who is a senior research officer for the Australian Stuttering Research Centre. She has 30 years of experience in stuttering as a clinician, teacher, and researcher. She has the background to have a very knowledgeable opinion.
The article was published on March 13, 2015. It was not a very eventful time, other than the fact that North Korea tested missiles while the US was going through military drills with South Korea.
This article is the first I have found to explain exactly why the Lidcombe program was chosen to be the sole source of therapy provided for through the new budget proposal. It represents a perspective in full support of the budget change and allows the reader to understand fully why children's options are being limited to the one program. The statement made in the article about Australia researching and testing multiple types of therapy and discovering this one to be the best, definitely throws a positive light on Speech Pathology Australia's choice.
I wonder what source three could be?
My third source is from a website called Stuttering U. It is the website of a program that hosts a 3-day summer camp for children who stutter. They also host a 2-day training camp for speech pathologists to learn some more up-to-date treatment methods. This could be both bad and good for my project considering the people who host the website must be emotionally involved in the issue considering they spend so much time with the children who stutter. They are very informed, however, so it could end up being a mix of information and opinion that comes from the website.
The author of the article is Greg Coleman, who is a co-director of Stuttering U. He is a board certified specialist in fluency disorders. He also is the coordinator of the ASHA special interest group on fluency disorders. He is well-learned, therefore has legitimately formed opinions on fluency disorders such as stuttering. He wrote the article on March 9, 2015, which is around the same couple days as my last source.
This article is used at the end as a petition against the passing of the proposed budget. It is riddled with opinion and reasons as to why the proposal shouldn't be passed. These reasons include the fact that limiting the choices in therapy for children using medicare will limit a clinicians ability to choose which type of therapy will be most beneficial to a patient. The entire article is completely against the proposal.
Source numero four:
My fourth source is an official posting by Speech Pathology Australia about the budget proposal. It comes directly from them, therefore it is a reliable source.
The written document was authored by Ronelle Hutchinson, who is the manager of policy and advocacy at Speech Pathology Australia. Her role in the authoring of this document is purely professional. She has worked in many positions, but all involve the professional side of medicine or business, rather than a clinical side. She has probably seen many instances in which a child goes through speech therapy, but has never done it herself. She is probably well versed in the goings on in this world by now, but has never done so herself. Her opinion is therefore a professional one that doesn't hold much bearing in any of the emotional sides of this issue.
Since the publication is directly from the same people who made the budget proposal, it definitely represents their opinions. It spells out the gist of the budget proposal and a small dose of what it will entail. It argues for the passing of the proposal.
Source 5:
Source 5 is a post on Stutter Musings on Tumblr. It is not a scientific journal, therefore can only be used as a source when presenting people's opinions. It was written by someone named Jack, who stutters and is a Speech-Language Pathologist. There is not even a last name to look up, so I feel like I've hit a dead end with this one. His opinion is purely here to include information about what people are saying online about the topic. The article was published on March 12, 2015. It provides some basic information about the topic of discussion. It serves as the only publication I've chosen to research that isn't written by someone well educated in the matter of the budget proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment