I was just looking at what has been written lately about AIT-the Berard Method,or Filtered Sound Training which is my new development of it.
I was looking on the www and I had a thought: really, all the time that I have been doing AIT my colleagues were hammering me about the need for research to back the anecdotal evidence. They used this reasoning to persecute me and to attempt to block AIT in South Africa where I introduced it.
And now after fifteen years of work I am 'gob-smacked' to see that these same colleagues in SA as well as Ireland and even the UK are taking on-board the relatively 'un-scientific' and un-researched alternatives to AIT- including The Listening Programme (TLP), and Therapeutic Listening.
I would say that in the last analysis it didn't matter which was the better-researched method, or which one got the better job done the fastest.... in the end what mattered was that it was cheaper to get into these other methods, the training didn't cost so much nor did it demand such a high level of academic background.
Once the first storm had died down over the Tomatis method and the Berard Method, clinicians were able to quietly take on board the more affordable methods, and which had lots of client success stories to back them.
I think that we in AIT have taken our SLT and Audiology professions way too seriously, and have allowed them to hold AIT up to impossible and irrelevant standards, just as an excuse so they didnt have to make an effort and look into it any deeper. I think we published far too much research and could have had more fun with merely writing the client stories of success too.
So just this last week I heard about at least one Health Services Executive SLT service that even supplies clients with TLP ! This - after the HSE turning down AIT in Waterford despite excellent research outcomes and client satisfaction! Wouldn't it make you think!
Well, I say to fellow-AIT practitioners, the time is good to come out into the sunshine and play.
