Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March 25, 2022
Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists
Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions.
METHODS:
Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS:
Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications.
CONCLUSION:
More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.
RacineE. Neuroscience, neuroethics, and the media. In: Clausen J., Levy N, editors. Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015. pp. 1465–1471.
2.
Morein-ZamirS, SahakianBJ. Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010;14(2):49–51.
3.
RoskiesA. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron. 2002;35(1):21–3.
4.
IllesJ, BlakemoreC, HanssonMG, HenschTK, LeshnerA, MaestreG, et al. International perspectives on engaging the public in neuroethics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2005;6(12):977–82.
Ramirez-ZamoraA, GiordanoJ, GunduzA, AlcantaraJ, CagleJN, CerneraS, et al. Proceedings of the seventh annual deep brain stimulation think tank: advances in neurophysiology, adaptive DBS, virtual reality, Neuroethics and technology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2020;14:54.
7.
GoeringS, KleinE. Fostering neuroethics integration with neuroscience in the BRAIN initiative: Comments on the NIH neuroethics roadmap. AJOB Neuroscience. 2020;11(3):184–8.
8.
FarahMJ. Checking in with Neuroethics. Hastings Center Report. 2021;51(1):3–3.
9.
GardenH, WinickoffD. Issues in neurotechnology governance OECD, Paris: ECD Science, Technology and IndustryWorking Papers, No. 2018/11; 2018. [cited 2021 March 4]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/c3256cc6-en.
10.
FocquaertF, SchermerM. Moral enhancement: Do means matter morally?Neuroethics. 2015;8(2):139–51. doi 10.1007/s12152-015-9230-y.
11.
SakakibaraE. Irrationality and Pathology of Beliefs. Neuroethics. 2016;9(2):147–57. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9256-9.
12.
BaylisF. “I Am Who I Am”: On the Perceived Threats to Personal Identity from Deep Brain Stimulation. Neuroethics. 2013;6(3):513–26. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9137-1.
13.
MiceraS, CaleoM, ChisariC, HummelFC, PedrocchiA. Advanced Neurotechnologies for the Restoration of Motor Function. Neuron. 2020;105(4):604–20.
14.
BardI, GaskellG, AllansdottirA, da CunhaRV, EduardP, HampelJ, et al. Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment. Neuroethics. 2018;11(3):309–22. doi: 10.1007/s12152-018-9366-7.
15.
StraudiS, BujaS, BaroniA, PavarelliC, PranoviG, FregniF, et al. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with group exercise treatment in subjects with chronic low back pain: a pilot randomized control trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2018;32(10):1348–56. doi: 10.1177/0269215518777881.
16.
Biofaction. BIO·FICTION Science Art Film Festival 2019 Program Topic FUTUREBODY. and neurotechnologies online: Biofiction Science Art Festival; 2019. [cited 2021 March 4]. Available from: https://bio-fiction.com/program-2/.
17.
GoeringS, KleinE. Neurotechnologies and Justice by, with, and for Disabled People. In: Cureton A, Wasserman DT, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press; 2019.
18.
BárdI, SinghI. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Improving performance through brain–computer interface. In: Clausen J., N. L, editors. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015. pp. 741–762.
19.
MoritzCT, RutherP, GoeringS, StettA, BallT, BurgardW, et al. New perspectives on neuroengineering and neurotechnologies: NSF-DFG workshop report. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2016;63(7):1354–67.
20.
FriedrichO, JoxRJ. Disorders of consciousness and the use of neurotechnologies: An ethical perspective. The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York, USA: Routledge; 2017. pp. 85–102.
21.
PelsEGM, AarnoutseEJ, RamseyNF, VansteenselMJ. Estimated Prevalence of the Target Population for Brain-Computer Interface Neurotechnology in the Netherlands. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair. 2017;31(7):677–85. doi: 10.1177/1545968317714577.
22.
McDonaldPJ, HrincuV, ConnollyMB, HarrisonMJ, IbrahimGM, NaftelRP, et al. Novel Neurotechnological Interventions for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: Physician Perspectives. Journal of Child Neurology. . 2021;36(3):222–9.
SpeelmanJH, SchuurmanR. The History of Deep Brain Stimulation. In: Temel Y., Leentjens A., de Bie R., Chabardes S., A. F, editors. Fundamentals and Clinics of Deep Brain Stimulation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. pp. 3–13.
25.
LevinSB. Upgrading Discussions of Cognitive Enhancement. Neuroethics. 2016;9(1):53–67. doi: 10.1007/s12152-016-9253-z.
26.
BoehlenW, SampleM. Rehabilitation culture and its impact on technology: unpacking practical conditions for ultrabilitation. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2020;42(11):1490–4. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1550531.
27.
CabreraL, CourchesneC, BittlingerM, MüllerS, MartinezR, RacineE, et al. Authentic self and last resort: international perceptions of psychiatric neurosurgery. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.. 2021;45(1):141–61.
28.
KögelJ, SchmidJR, JoxRJ, FriedrichO. Using brain-computer interfaces: A scoping review of studies employing social research methods. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019;20(1). doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0354-1.
29.
DinhCT, HumphriesS, ChatterjeeA. Public opinion on cognitive enhancement varies across different situations. AJOB Neuroscience. 2020;11(4):224–37.
30.
BrunyéTT, BrouR, DotyTJ, GregoryFD, HusseyEK, LiebermanHR, et al. A review of US Army research contributing to cognitive enhancement in military contexts. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. 2020;4:453–68. doi: 10.1007/s41465-020-00167-3.
31.
GordonKA, DaienMF, NegandhiJ, BlakemanA, GanekH, PapsinB, et al. Exposure to Spoken Communication in Children With Cochlear Implants During the COVID-19 Lockdown. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2021;online first. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.5496.
32.
BodingtonE, SaeedSR, SmithMC, StocksNG, MorseRP. A narrative review of the logistic and economic feasibility of cochlear implants in lower-income countries. Cochlear Implants International. 2021;22(1):7–16.
33.
LeemhuisE, EspositoRM, GennaroLD, PazzagliaM. Go Virtual to Get Real: Virtual Reality as a Resource for Spinal Cord Treatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(4):Article 1819. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041819.
34.
ZaamiS, RinaldiR, BersaniG, Del RioA, CiallellaC, MarinelliE. Nootropics use in the workplace: psychiatric and ethical aftermath towards the new frontier of bioengineering. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. 2020;24(4):2129–39.
35.
NelsonM, JensenC, LentonS. Study drug use among university students inWestern Australia: Results of a web survey and their policy and practice implications. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2020;ahead of print. doi:10.1111/dar.13190.
36.
RicciG. Pharmacological Human Enhancement: An Overview of the Looming Bioethical and Regulatory Challenges. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2020;11:Article 53. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00053.
37.
KritikosJ, AlevizopoulosG, KoutsourisD. Personalized Virtual Reality Human-Computer Interaction for Psychiatric and Neurological Illnesses: A Dynamically Adaptive Virtual Reality Environment That Changes According to Real-Time Feedback From Electrophysiological Signal Responses. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2021;15(45). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.596980.
38.
WolbringG, DiepL. Cognitive/Neuroenhancement through an Ability Studies lens. In: Jotterand F, Dubljevic V, editors. Cognitive Enhancement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 57–75.
SampleM, AunosM, Blain-MoraesS, BublitzC, ChandlerJA, FalkTH, et al. Brain-computer interfaces and personhood: interdisciplinary deliberations on neural technology. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2019;online first. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab39cd.
42.
KögelJ, WolbringG. What It Takes to Be a Pioneer: Ability Expectations From Brain-Computer Interface Users. NanoEthics. 2020:1-13.
43.
TeagleHFB, MooreJA. School-based services for children with cochlear implants. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2002;33(3):162–71. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2002/014).
44.
CinarB, YaraliM, AtayG, BajinM, SennarogluG, SennarogluL. The role of eABR with intracochlear test electrode in decision making between cochlear and brainstem implants: preliminary results. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2017;274(9):3315–26. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4643-3.
45.
HollandR, CrinionJ. Can tDCS enhance treatment of aphasia after stroke?Aphasiology. 2012;26(9):1169–91. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2011.616925.
46.
FridrikssonJ, HubbardHI, HudspethSG. Transcranial brain stimulation to treat aphasia: A clinical perspective. Seminars in Speech and Language. 2012;33(3):188–202. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1320039.
47.
VillamilV, WolbringG. Role and Scope Coverage of Speech-Related Professionals Linked to Neuro-Advancements within the Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers. Education Sciences. 2019;9(2):Article 98. doi: doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020098.
PescoD. Working With Aboriginal Children and Families: Cultural Responsiveness and Beyond. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology. 2014;38(2):144–51.
51.
HernándezPA, HadleyAJ. Exploring the relationship between curriculum and cultural competency in pre-service speech-language pathology students. Journal of Cultural Diversity. 2020;27(1):3–13.
52.
ComptonMV, TuckerDA, FlynnPF. Preparation and perceptions of speech-language pathologists working with children with cochlear implants. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 2009;30(3):142–54. doi: 10.1177/1525740108325554.
53.
WolbringG. Hearing beyond the normal enabled by therapeutic devices: The role of the recipient and the hearing profession. Neuroethics. 2013;6(3):607–16. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9120-x.
54.
BallN, WolbringG. Cognitive Enhancement: Perceptions Among Parents of Children with Disabilities. Neuroethics. 2014;7(3):345–64. doi: 10.1007/s12152-014-9201-8.
55.
GardenH, BowmanDM, HaeslerS, WinickoffDE. Neurotechnology and Society: Strengthening Responsible Innovation in Brain Science. Neuron. 2016;92(3):642–6.
56.
Wiles HigdonC. Communication Sciences and Disorders: The Future of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Journal of Life Care Planning. 2015;13(2):5–26.
57.
SwanK, HopperM, WenkeR, JacksonC, TillT, ConwayE. Speech-Language Pathologist Interventions for Communication in Moderate-Severe Dementia: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2018;27(2):836–52. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-17-0043.
58.
GuillouëtE, CognéM, SaverotE, RocheN, Pradat-DiehlP, Weill-ChounlamountryA, et al. Impact of Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Speech-language Therapy on Spontaneous Speech in Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Double-blind Study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS. 2020;26(1):7–18.
59.
HillK, HugginsJ, WoodworthC. Inter-professional practitioners’ opinions on features and services for an Augmentative and Alternative Communication-Brain- Computer Interface device. PM&R. 2020:Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/pmrj.12525.
60.
VandenborreD, WilssensI, van DunK, MantoM. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Language/Speech: Can Patients Benefit from a Combined Therapeutic Approach? In: G. A, editor. Translational Neuroscience of Speech and Language Disorders. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. pp. 81–119.
61.
HsiehM-Y, LynchG, MadisonC. Intervention techniques used with autism spectrum disorder by speech-language pathologists in the United States and Taiwan: a descriptive analysis of practice in clinical settings. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.. 2018;27(3):1091–104.
62.
KerteszA. The Western Aphasia Battery: a systematic review of research and clinical applications. Aphasiology. 2020;latest article:1-30. doi:10.1080/02687038.2020.1852002.
63.
KnickelbeinBA, RichburgCM. Special educators’ perspectives on the services and benefits of educational audiologists. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 2012;34(1):17–28. doi: 10.1177/1525740111413120.
64.
ScheryTK, PetersML. Developing auditory learning in children with cochlear implants. Topics in Language Disorders. 2003;23(1):4–15. doi: 10.1097/00011363-200301000-00004.
65.
StarrK. Making the cochlear connection in class. ASHA Leader. 2017;22(7):38–9. doi: 10.1044/leader.SCM.22072017.38.
66.
McCaslinDL. Confessions of an Audiology “Legacy”. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2015;26(3):218–218. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.26.3.1.
67.
FarahMJ. Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005;9(1):34–40.
68.
SoekadarSR, BirbaumerN. Brain–machine interfaces for communication in complete paralysis: Ethical implications and challenges. Handbook of Neuroethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 705–24.
69.
WallachW. From Robots to Techno Sapiens: Ethics, Law and Public Policy in the Development of Robotics and Neurotechnologies. Law, Innovation and Technology. 2011;3(2):185–207.
70.
FinsJJ. Neuroethics, neuroimaging, and disorders of consciousness: promise or peril?Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 2011;122:336–46. doi: PMC3116331.
71.
StahnischFW. History of Neuroscience and Neuroethics: Introduction. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015. pp. 461–466.
72.
NijboerF, ClausenJ, AllisonB, HaselagerP. The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing. Neuroethics. 2013;6(3):541–78. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6.
73.
ClausenJ. Conceptual and ethical issues with brain–hardware interfaces. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2011;24(6):495–501.
74.
BellE, LegerP, SankarT, RacineE. Deep brain stimulation as clinical innovation: an ethical and organizational framework to sustain deliberations about psychiatric deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(1):3–10.
75.
SavianeC. Neuroethics Beyond Traditional Media. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015. pp. 1487–1500.
76.
RacineE. Neuroscience and the media: Ethical challenges and opportunities. In: Illes J, Sahakian BJ, editors. Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Oxford, UKOxford Press; 2012. pp. 783–802.
77.
ForliniC, RacineE. Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: Perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics.. 2009;2(3):163–77.
78.
PavariniG, SinghIJCQoHE. Pragmatic neuroethics: Lived experiences as a source of moral knowledge. 2018;27(4):578–89.
79.
Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA). Study Examining the Progress in Implementing the 2004, 10-year Plan to Strengthen Health-care online: Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists 2004. [cited 2021 March 4]. Available from: https://www.sac-oac.ca/sites/default/files/resources/CASLPA_10_Year_Health_submission.pdf.
80.
MulcairG, PietrantonAA, WilliamsC. The International Communication Project: Raising global awareness of communication as a human right. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2018;20(1):34–8.
81.
PascoeM, KlopD, MdlaloT, NdhambiM. Beyond lip service: Towards human rights-driven guidelines for South African speech-language pathologists. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2018;20(1):67–74.
82.
WickendenM. Widening the SLP lens: How can we improve the wellbeing of people with communication disabilities globally. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2013;15(1):14–20. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.726276.
83.
HoskinsB, MascheriniM. Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research. 2009;90(3):459–88.
84.
StiversC. The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the administrative state. Administration & Society. 1990;22(1):86–105.
85.
KleinmanDL. Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science. Politics and the Life Sciences. 1998;17(2):133–45. doi: 10.1017/S0730938400012120.
86.
CarolanMS. Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process. Society & Natural Resources. 2006;19(7):661–8. doi: 10.1080/08941920600742443.
87.
GustonDH. Forget Politicizing Science. Let’s Democratize Science! Issues in Science and Technology. 2004;21(1):25–8.
88.
ToumeyC. Democratizing nanotech, then and now. Nat Nano. 2011;6(10):605–6. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2011.168.
89.
HoskinsB, CrickRD. Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: different currencies or two sides of the same coin?European Journal of Education. 2010;45(1):121–37.
90.
WesthuesA. Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives. 4th ed. Kenny-Sherber C, editor. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press2006. pp. 467.
91.
ToffoliL, RudgeT, BarnesL. The work of nurses in private health: Accounting for the intangibles in care delivery. Health Sociology Review. 2011;20(3):338–51. doi: 10.5172/hesr.2011.20.3.338.
92.
MorrisK, FergusonA, WorrallL. A qualitative study of legal and social justice needs for people with aphasia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2014;16(6):541–51. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2013.855260.
93.
McSherryR, PearceP. Clinical Governance: A Guide to Implementation for Healthcare Professionals: Wiley; 2011.
94.
Webster-WrightA. Reframing Professional Development Through Understanding Authentic Professional Learning. Review of Educational Research. 2009;79(2):702–39. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330970.
95.
XueL, Le BotG, Van PetegemW, van WieringenA. Defining interdisciplinary competencies for audiological rehabilitation: findings from a modified Delphi study. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(2):81–90.
96.
HardimanM, RinneL, GregoryE, YarmolinskayaJ. Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and Classroom Teaching: Where the Brain Sciences Meet Pedagogy. Neuroethics. 2012;5(2):135–43. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6.
97.
BriefE, IllesJ. Tangles of neurogenetics, neuroethics, and culture. Neuron. 2010;68(2):174–7.
98.
KleinE. To ELSI or not to ELSI neuroscience: Lessons for neuroethics from the Human Genome Project. AJOB Neuroscience. 2010;1(4):3–8.
99.
CarraraA. Severe mentally ill patients: our global migrants: Neuroethical issues in psychiatry and pharmacology today. A brief manifesto toward The World Symposium 2021. CNS Spectrums. 2020:1-2. doi:10.1017/S1092852920000048.
100.
ThreatsTT. The ICF and speech-language pathology: Aspiring to a fuller realization of ethical and moral issues. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2010;12(2):87–93. doi: 10.3109/17549500903568476.
101.
FejesA, DahlstedtM. The Confessing Society : Foucault, Confession and Practices of Lifelong Learning. London, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group; 2012.
102.
FejesA. The planetspeak discourse of lifelong learning in Sweden: what is an educable adult?Journal of Education Policy. 2006;21(6):697–716. doi: 10.1080/02680930600969266.
103.
WalkerJ. The inclusion and construction of the worthy citizen through lifelong learning: A focus on the OECD. Journal of Education Policy. 2009;24(3):335–51.
104.
AvosehMBM. Learning to be active citizens: lessons of traditional Africa for lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 2001;20(6):479–86. doi: 10.1080/02601370110088454.
105.
AliKHM, WilliamsDJ, JacksonP, PauHP. Attitudes of the UK ear, nose and throat clinical community to the future potential use of stem cell therapies to treat deafness. Regenerative Medicine. 2012;7(2):179–86. doi: 10.2217/rme.11.124.
106.
BraunV, ClarkeV. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Newcastle upon Tyne, UKSage:; 2013.
107.
TongcoMDC. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications. 2007;5:147–58.
108.
HsiehH-F, ShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15(9):1277–88.
109.
ClarkeV, BraunV. Thematic analysis. In: Teo T, editor. Encyclopedia of critical psychology. New York: Springer; 2014. pp. 1947–1952.
110.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Scope of practice in audiology online: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2018. [cited 2021 March 4]. Available from: https://www.asha.org/policy/SP2018-00353/.
111.
WardEC. Elizabeth Usher memorial lecture: Expanding scope of practice - inspiring practice change and raising new considerations. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2019;21(3):228–39. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2019.1572224.
112.
EinsiedelEF. Commentary: On the position paper of the Ethics Committee of the International Xenotransplantation Association. Transplantation. 2004;78(8):1110–11.
113.
MurrayJ, BickfordJ. INSPIRE: Inspiring practice innovation, research and engagement. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2019;21(3):225–7. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2019.1615535.
114.
SmithYJ. Potential for Improved Outcomes and Quality of Life through Social Justice Awareness. Work. 2013;45(1):3–4. doi: 10.3233/WOR-131632.
115.
ParsonsCL, BowmanSN, IaconoTA. Public Awareness of Speech/Language Pathologists and the Services they Provide. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders. 1983;11(1):51–9. doi: 10.3109/asl2.1983.11.issue-1.05.
116.
SchuetzeHG, CaseyC. Models and meanings of Lifelong Learning: progress and barriers on the road to a Learning Society. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2006;36(3):279–87. doi: 10.1080/03057920600872365.
117.
GaretMS, PorterAC, DesimoneL, BirmanBF, YoonKS. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal. 2001;38(4):915–45.
118.
DoddB. Evidence-based practice and speech-language pathology: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2007;59(3):118–29.
119.
ByrneN. The personality of past, present and future speech–language pathology students. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. . 2018;53(2):228–36.
120.
FreedmanSE. Repaving the one-way street: Self-reflection in speech-language pathology. Work. 2013;44(3):379–80. doi: 10.3233/WOR-121514.
121.
SparrowR. Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2005;13(2):135–52.
122.
KatzN, Gilad IzhakyS, DrorYF. Reasons for choosing a career and workplace among occupational therapists and speech language pathologists. Work. 2013;45(3):343–8. doi: 10.3233/WOR-121532.
123.
StamM, KostensePJ, FestenJM, KramerSE. The relationship between hearing status and the participation in different categories of work: Demographics. Work. 2013;46(2):207–19. doi: 10.3233/WOR-131747.
124.
MillarC, CareyLB, FortuneT, MathisenBA, HillAE, DukhnoJ, et al. Global citizenship: Defining capabilities for speech-language pathology. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2019;21(3):317–24. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2019.1607902.
125.
HallAC, TimmonsAC, BoeltzigH, HamnerD, FeskoS. Maximizing competence through professional development: Increasing disability knowledge among One-Stop Career Center staff. Work. 2006;26(4):355–67.
126.
ThébaultJ, GaudartC, CloutierE, VolkoffS. Transmission of vocational skills between experienced and new hospital workers. Work. 2012;41(2):195–204. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1284.
127.
VillamilV, DeloriaR, WolbringG, Editors are Habib M. Fardoun, Sergio Albiol Pérez, Ahlam A.M. Hassan, Elena de la Guia; DOI:10.1145/3364138; Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: What is the role of social workers, occupational therapists, audiologists, nurses and speech language pathologists according to academic literature and Canadian newspaper coverage? REHAB ’19:5th Workshop on ICTs for improving Patients Rehabilitation Research Techniques; 2019; Popayán, Colombia 11-13th September: ACM.
