Preface

We are in an age with a focus on evidence-based practice and continuing professional education in audiology. The content and delivery of professional training programs continue to evolve and be informed by evidence-based practice. The current climate in audiology, unlike many other health professions, does not acknowledge or foster the development of reflection within evidence-based practice.

As an educator, academic researcher, and a clinician, I am faced with the daily challenge of balancing my own “vision” of audiology with the realities that students and new clinicians who graduate from our program face in the “real world.” We have seen major advances in science and technology, and these have had a major influence on the current focus of practice in audiology. These advances also have had a major influence on the content and methods used in our training programs. With a strong focus on the technological aspects of practice, a philosophy and vision for audiology may be left behind. We have seen a move away from hospitals as a major employer of audiologists to a predominance of private practice hearing clinics. In these challenging economic times, more than ever, audiologists are faced with balancing evidence and ethics with the major thrust from industry and the financial realities of practice. We do not know what the future will bring, and we need to be open to evolving the philosophy, content, and delivery of our training programs to meet the needs of whatever the next phase in the evolution of audiology will bring.

This special issue of Seminars in Hearing represents a starting point in examining audiology beyond its disciplinary “silos” to examine a philosophy and vision that consider our collective role and look to the broader social and health care context within which we are positioned. It challenges us to think beyond the borders of audiology to gain knowledge from other health disciplines; it challenges us to consider our own assumptions about reality and knowledge acquisition; and it challenges us to look in the mirror to examine our professional identity. The authors highlight and explore a multitude of challenges that we face within the audiology community, and they challenge us to think more creatively about our collective futures. The authors challenge us to examine our beliefs about sources of knowledge and the assumption that one is more “credible” than another, and the implications of this to knowledge generation and to practice. Importantly, they challenge us to consider the implications of minimizing the credibility of clinical knowledge and experience in favor of research evidence.

In the first article, Ng starts the dialogue by providing an introduction to the theoretical bases of reflection and reflective practice. Implications for audiology education and practice and client care are postulated. The implications of reflection to knowledge development and its potential to enhance current approaches to evidence-based practice are described.

The second article by Meston and Ng provides an overview of the history, methods, and potential of the various schools of grounded theory (one qualitative research methodology) to advance knowledge in audiology research. This article provides a background for the development of a grounded theory described in the following three articles, RESPoND: Reflection in the Education and Socialization of Practitioners: Novice Development. The role of reflection in novice development and the concept of reflection as a window, as a tool for student and novice development, and as a developing behavior as novices develop and socialize into the profession are described. This work provides us with a glimpse into the complex process of becoming an audiologist and being an audiologist engaged in lifelong learning, the evolutionary journey from audiology student to novice audiologist, the development of reflective behavior within this process, and the intertwined processes of reflective and professional development as audiologists are educated and socialized toward professional practice.

The final article provides a critical reflection of five audiologists (Crukley, Dundas, McCreery, Meston, and Ng) upon three main considerations for the continued growth of the field: collaboration, hierarchy, and transparency. The result gives us much to think about related to the current and future challenges we face in audiology. I hope that this special issue is not only a starting point, but that it will foster further dialogue on these important issues.