Search

Background: In the governmental delineation of the speech‐language therapist (SLT) profession and in preservice SLT education, Flemish SLTs are considered as gatekeepers of the standard language in Flanders. Yet, most Flemish clients typically use a colloquial language style. Following earlier research on how teachers' language style affects teacher–student interactions, an SLT's strict adherence to standard Dutch may potentially evoke perceptions of inequality in their clients. As a result, Flemish SLTs may find themselves torn between on the one hand adhering to the standard language and on the other hand adapting to the sociolinguistic style of their client and establishing trust. In the present study, we explored SLTs' views on using standard/colloquial language varieties in their practice. Methods & Procedures: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 Flemish SLTs who worked with children, adolescents and adults in special schools, private practices and hospitals. Interview transcripts were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes & Results: Analyses yielded three themes. Switching between styles was (1) triggered by client characteristics (age, style, therapeutic needs), and it was shaped by (2) the need for establishing trust and (3) a balance between the SLT's professional and personal identity. Notably, most SLTs described partially converging with their clients' colloquial style, effectively reconciling their professional identity as expert speakers with their personal identity as a colloquial language user. Conclusions & Implications: Despite consensus on the role of the SLT as gatekeeper of standard language, many SLTs felt that colloquial language also plays an important role as it bolsters therapeutic alliance and rehabilitation of functional communication. By implementing reflective mixed methods and integrating the client perspective, future studies should further examine how authentic style‐switching occurs and how various styles used by the SLT are evaluated by clients in different contexts. These findings may guide the development of style‐switching as a communicative strategy that can be addressed in preservice education. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: In Flanders, the existence of various (non‐)standard varieties of Dutch may evoke some tension regarding the preferred variety in a given context. Flemish teachers switch between standard language and colloquial language (style‐shifting), depending on the foregrounding of the transactional or relational nature of the context. Moving towards students' colloquial speech builds trust and perceptions of equality. Despite the importance of alliance in speech‐language therapy, little is known about how speech‐language therapists (SLTs) feel about using colloquial speech given that they are considered expert speakers. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: While 'talking properly' is part of the SLT's professional identity, many Flemish SLTs felt that strict adherence to the standard language variety hinders therapeutic alliance. While standard language was strongly associated with professionalism, strict adherence to standard language was used only when SLTs felt they had to prove their clinical competency or when language scaffolding was in the foreground. Partially converging with the clients' language use allowed SLTs to reconcile their professional identity as expert speaker with personal identity and authenticity. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Both colloquial speech and standard speech serve a function in SLT practice. Therefore, switching between standard and colloquial speech needs further consideration as a communicative strategy rather than instilling in therapists an ideological, normative stance towards language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing the speech production of multilingual children is challenging for speech‐language therapists (SLTs) around the world. Scientific recommendations to improve clinical practice are available, but their implementation has mostly been described in studies from English‐speaking countries. Aims: This survey aimed to describe the perspectives and practices of SLTs in assessing the speech production of multilingual children in French‐speaking Belgium. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was completed by 134 SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. Outcomes & Results: SLTs predominantly used norm‐referenced assessment approaches, which are not recommended for use with multilingual children, and lacked necessary training and resources to implement recommended practices in the assessment of speech production of multilingual children. The shift towards more appropriate practices with multilingual children seems to be in its infancy among SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. Some challenges identified by the SLTs were common to those in other countries and languages, such as the difficulty to distinguish between speech differences and speech disorders. Other challenges were specific to the French language and/or the Belgian context, such as the lack of appropriate tools in French. Conclusions & Implications: Action is required to improve clinical practice in assessing the speech production of multilingual children in French‐speaking contexts: better training for SLTs regarding linguistic diversity, more implementation research in the field of SLT, and advocacy for linguistic diversity with decision makers. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Existing research indicates that assessing the speech production of multilingual children is challenging for speech‐language therapists (SLTs). Scientific recommendations for best practices have been published, and the shift to more appropriate assessment practices may be progressing differently across countries. SLTs' practices have been described in surveys, mostly conducted in English‐speaking countries. Although French is the fifth most spoken language in the world, data about SLTs' perspectives and practices in French‐speaking regions are scarce. What this study adds: The implementation of recommended practices in assessing multilingual children's speech production was limited among SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. The norm‐referenced approach to assessment was predominant and few SLTs used recommended practices (e.g., criterion‐referenced measures, dynamic assessment, assessment of the child's speech production in the home language). Some challenges were identified that related specifically to practices in French‐speaking contexts (e.g., lack of French tools) and Belgian context (e.g., health policies unfavourable to multilingualism). These findings confirm that specific understanding of a situation is needed to develop context‐ and/or language‐specific solutions—and ultimately improve clinical practice. What are the clinical implications of this work?: SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium require specific training and support to provide appropriate assessment of speech production in multilingual children. Efforts to improve practices in French‐speaking contexts should focus on increasing understanding and consideration of cultural and linguistic diversity at all levels of the child's environment. Evidence‐based knowledge, assessment tools and multilingual resources are available to SLTs on websites in French and in English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]