I sometimes apply informal scientific method to determine how I want to proceed with stuttering therapy in the future. Would you be willing to share with me one of your scientific gedanken and/or informal/incomplete experiments if I shared one of mine with you?

First let me remind you of the summary scientific method by summary as applied to stuttering therapy and my experiment:

1. Make some observations about your therapy practice. “Some of my clients dug in their heals when I used the phrase acceptance of stuttering.”

2. Propose a hypothesis to improve the outcome. “Using a proper phrase may make for clumsier writing but would impart the information that I want to impart better.”

3. Use the back of the envelope to sketch and informally test the hypothesis on a very low number of clients. “I will use instead of acceptance the phrase acknowledgement with understanding that stuttering is not awful, catastrophic, unbearable, or make you a child of a lesser god. Note acknowledgement does not imply resignation to current severity.”

4. Can you see in your data trends that would lead you to accept or reject the hypothesis. “I saw definitely more lights go on and people buying into this concept, but it was clumsy to use.”

5. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis. “I will try to invent another shorter phrase.” Some suggestions could be tolerance of stuttering, acknowledgement of stuttering without prejudice, etc.”