Try, try again.

If you have read our past few blog entries, you know that Alaina and I attempted another 'conversation' format.  However, as we wrote, neither one of us had been particularly jazzed about adding to the conversation (as indexed by the lack of content/progression of the idea).  Instead of pushing through the series, we discussed why it was not working.

We considered that perhaps the format does not work for all topics, or perhaps the format does not work given our current preferences for adding content to the blog.  Perhaps it did not work for another reason.  This small failure  (although I hesitate to label it a failure) reminded me of a piece of commentary I recently read (see Next Time, Fail Better by Paula M. Krebs).  For me, the article highlighted how difficult it is to value failure.  Specifically, Krebs discusses how some fields (i.e., computer science) lend themselves to repeated failure; failure is expected and is an integral part of the process of getting something right.  But for some, as  Krebs explains, failing can be humiliating and this may be because they have not learned to focus on the process. They have not learned to use the failure to be better in their chosen pursuit.    Krebs goes on to to describe how professors should teach this. I am still considering whether or not this can be explicitly taught or if there just needs to be room for multiple attempts as one approximates a goal (and THAT should be explicit).

As a Speech & Language Pathologist, I am still learning that I may not choose the right approach for a specific client the first time.  I may incorrectly assess a behavior pattern.  I may be too technical or too hurried in a conversation with a parent.  Through the experience of these small failures, I am able to reflect and refine my clinical skill set.   I guess I could say I am getting better. . . at failing.

A Quick Think About Being a Speech & Language Pathologist Part 3

Hannah: I think ideally I would want to capture the breadth of speech & language pathology but still make sure I have the opportunity to speak specifically about at least one population or one area in which I am developing my clinical expertise. That second part is important to me because it seems it would be a point for authentic advocacy. Time is a mitigating factor, at least in the context of the situation we are discussing. So, I wonder if it is better to spend the (short) amount of time speaking more generally? This would perhaps allow the greatest potential for connecting with your interlocutor based on their experience. Or perhaps providing a specific example . . .