Ethical Concerns in Voluntourism in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in short-term volunteering (i.e., volunteer tourism) to contribute to the development of speech-language pathology (SLP) and audiology (AUD) in global contexts. While this is exciting, professionals and students must be properly prepared for such trips to ensure cultural safety and avoid potential ethical concerns and pitfalls of neo-colonialist perspectives in working in resource-poor contexts. There is a burgeoning literature on volunteer tourism and medical tourism that can be used to assist us in planning and preparing for such work. Some examples from the first author's experiences in Malawi, Tanzania, and Kenya are used to illustrate some of the ethical concerns in SLPs' and AUDs' voluntourism. This article suggests that we attend to the motivations of volunteers, conduct training to ensure culturally safe and sustainable practices, and assist volunteers in coping with culture shock and re-entry shock. Research is needed to understand best practices in assessment and treatment in global contexts and best practices in pre- and post-trip training for SLP/AUD volunteers and students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".