Essay on Speech Pathology: Single Knowledge Perspectives Analysis

This essay delves into the field of speech-language pathology, examining its focus on communication disorders and their treatment. It highlights how the profession often operates from a single knowledge perspective, rooted in Western cultural imperialism, as acknowledged by Kathard & Pillay (2013) and Khoza-Shangase & Mophosho (2018). The essay discusses the dominance of a medical model and its limitations in understanding diverse populations, emphasizing the need for a population-based, equitable approach. It references the challenges clinicians face in identifying best practices, particularly when relying solely on research evidence, and underscores the importance of integrating client and family perspectives. The essay concludes by advocating for an equity-based, population-based approach to address critical issues and advance the collective interests of all populations, as highlighted by Dodd (2007).

Running head: SPEECH PATHOLOGY 1
Speech Pathology
Name
Institution

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 2
Speech Pathology
Introduction
Speech-language pathology can be described as a field of science that deals with the
study and treatment of communication and communication disorders among humans.
The professions of speech-language pathology indeed provide services based on single
knowledge perspectives. According to Kathard & Pillay (2013), the knowledge base in
speech-language pathology is characterized by imperialism thus implying that it was
created by western culture. Khoza-Shangase & Mophosho (2018) also acknowledge
that white history and white knowledge define and govern the profession of speech-
language pathology. It is also worth noting that the knowledge base in speech-language
pathology does not adequately help clinicians in appropriately identifying good practice
for all populations (Dodd, 2007). This essay explains why professions of speech-
language pathology provide services based on single knowledge perspectives.
Speech-language Pathology
For quite a long time most professions have described hegemonic foundation activities.
For speech-language, the medical model has been used to describe the knowledge
base in providing services. The emphasis on speech-language has been on an
individual perspective thus limiting a comprehensive understanding of populations.
Kathard & Pillay (2013) argue that the knowledge base in speech-language pathology is
characterized by theoretical imperialism. This means that speech-language pathology
was designed by powerful western cultures that prioritized their rehabilitation and health
perspectives.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 3
Since the westerners believed that they had a culture superior to everyone else, the
Western knowledge base has been promoted and championed as the universally
accepted perspective although it is in itself cultural and partial. This universal practice
has been imposed on several colonized countries including those that have very
different disorders and live realities of communication (Kathard & Pillay, 2013). This has
led to the development of traditional individualized practices of speech-language
pathology such as Ubuntu in South Africa. Through Ubuntu, people become
interconnected and exercise generosity, solidarity, care, and compassion. The single
knowledge perspective that drives the profession of speech-language pathology
emphasizes a population-based approach thus shifting the attention of clinicians from
the care of a single patient to care of an entire population.
Speech-language pathology and hearing professions in South Africa function within the
geopolitics of knowledge. This is where the professional culture is defined and governed
by white knowledge and white history. Khoza-Shangase & Mophosho (2018) ascertain
that the norm of white knowledge and white history governing cultural norms is very
important in situations where the knowledge base applied in speech-language
pathology does not include that of the context. Additionally, the current position in South
Africa excludes black African indigenous knowledge thus putting the profession of
speech-language pathology at the danger of being a single story that creates
stereotypes about the pathology of communication which may be untrue in the context
of South Africa.
Khoza-Shangase & Mophosho (2018) further state that the current definitions of
treatment strategies, assessment, and theories that surround speech-language

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 4
pathology are narrow and lack diversity, indigenous knowledge, and relevance as
required by the United Nations. This idea is further ascertained by Kathard & Pillay
(2013) in their argument that the professions of speech-language pathology are
hegemonic. Therefore, a population-based approach that is equitable must be
encouraged.
According to Dodd (2007), clinicians sometimes fail to appropriately identify good
practice for all populations due to the knowledge base in speech-language pathology.
Additionally, exclusively relying on evidence from research without the integration of
pieces of information from clients and their families makes the implementation of
evidence-based practice very difficult for speech-language pathologists. This is an
indication of the population being served and the kind of clinical science. It is important
to note that this evidence-based approach is fundamental in the development
requirements of the population being served as well as caring for the communication
needs of people with communication disabilities (Kathard & Pillay, 2013).
Naturally, population-based and evidence-based interventions are collaborative and
collective thus including people with communication disabilities in speech-language
pathology. Kathard & Pillay (2013) further state that it is important that speech-language
pathology should develop an equity-based approach that is population-based to help in
addressing critical issues that ask important questions based on a single knowledge
perspective such as ways of advancing the collective interest of an entire population.
Conclusion

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 5
Speech-language pathology deals with the study and treatment of communication and
communication disorders among humans. Professions of speech-language pathology
indeed provide services based on single knowledge perspectives. The knowledge base
in speech-language pathology is characterized by imperialism thus implying that it was
created by western culture. Additionally, white history and white knowledge define and
govern the profession of speech-language pathology. Finally, knowledge base in
speech-language pathology does not adequately help clinicians in appropriately
identifying good practice for all populations.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY 6
References
Dodd, B. (2007). Evidence-based practice and speech-language pathology: Strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Folia Phoniatrica et logopaedica, 59(3),
118-129.
Kathard, H., & Pillay, M. (2013). Promoting change through political consciousness: A
South African speech-language pathology response to the World Report on
Disability. International journal of speech-language pathology, 15(1), 84-89.
Khoza-Shangase, K., & Mophosho, M. (2018). Language and culture in speech-
language and hearing professions in South Africa: The dangers of a single
story. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 65(1), 1-7.