From the Editor Ten years ago, Gerald Siegel (1987)  wrote about the limits of science in our profession. His purpose was not to minimize the importance of science and scientific research but to emphasize that many of the decisions we make clinically can never be answered without examining social, economic, ethical, and political ... Editorial
Editorial  |   May 01, 1997
From the Editor
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Editorial
Editorial   |   May 01, 1997
From the Editor
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1997, Vol. 6, 2. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0602.02
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1997, Vol. 6, 2. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0602.02
Ten years ago, Gerald Siegel (1987)  wrote about the limits of science in our profession. His purpose was not to minimize the importance of science and scientific research but to emphasize that many of the decisions we make clinically can never be answered without examining social, economic, ethical, and political factors that extend beyond the reach of scientific exploration. Articles in AJSLP’s Second Opinion forum nicely illustrate Siegel’s point. Let’s examine a few of these published in the last year.
In the May 1996 edition of AJSLP, Rhea Paul (1996a, 1996b) presented evidence that young children with specific expressive language delays between 2 and 3 years of age show a tendency to score within the normal range in the first and second grade. Paul then outlined her position on public policy, an alternative to immediate intervention described as a “watch and see” approach. In the same issue, Marilyn Nippold and Ilsa Schwarz (1996a, 1996b) responded to Paul by questioning first her study (i.e., her science) and second her interpretation and policy suggestions.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access