JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

Ethical conversations

The ethics of entrepreneurship in speech-language pathology Patricia Bradd, Grant Meredith, and Trish Johnson

S peech pathology is a profession where new ideas and ways of practice are continually evolving and growing. Alongside this, the landscape in which professionals practice is also changing. We are living in a time that has been coined “the fourth industrial revolution” (Schwab, 2016) – the digital era – which is evolving into an arena of social connectivity through new and expanded means. Clients and families are better informed and have ready access to varied and detailed information within seconds. The evidence base for the profession is also continually expanding. Despite what is often perceived as turbulent and changing times (Altman & Brinker, 2016), this rich environment provides the conditions for speech pathologists to innovate and do things in different ways. Entrepreneurship is said to entail identifying opportunities, determining risks and benefits as well as formulating a plan of implementation. It is generally viewed positively (Phillips & Garman, 2006). Innovation is often linked with the concept of entrepreneurship. Snow (2007) defines innovation as “the introduction of a new product or service’ and entrepreneurship as ‘the founding of a new business” (cited in Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010, p. 106). Like entrepreneurship, innovation is a complex notion and in the health-care context can be defined as “the introduction of a new concept, idea, service, process, or product aimed at improving treatment, diagnosis, education, outreach, prevention and research, and with the long term goals of improving quality, safety, outcomes, efficiency and costs” (Omachonu & Einspruch, 2010, p. 5). In the clinical setting, innovation is essential for services to keep expanding and growing, and to ensure contemporary, relevant practice. From innovation comes the opportunity for entrepreneurship. Examples in the speech pathology context include the development of culturally responsive service delivery models, the provision of “virtual” clinical services, collaboration with other professions in models of care that are novel and pioneering, or development of a mobile app or web-based resources. With these opportunities, however, also come novel challenges, some of which have not yet been encountered by the speech pathology profession. For example, you have an idea for a mobile app. You have scoped its function and application and developed a prototype. You now want to commence testing in the real world. In this instance, what are the intellectual property implications? Is there evidence

of the effectiveness or efficacy of the product? What if another person has already developed an app similar to yours? What happens if these considerations are not addressed prior to development? The following scenario explores this dilemma. Application of mobile technology: Scenario 1. Tom has just graduated from university with a Master of Speech and Language Pathology degree. He has recently begun working professionally within a private clinic, is consulting with clients without supervision and is full of aspiration. In his spare time, Tom has developed a mobile app for people who stutter to assist with self-monitoring of dysfluencies. This app also includes a mini-game which randomly presents words to a user to verbally practice. Tom taught himself how to develop this app and has not actually formally tested it with the target audience in terms of validity, usability or applicability. He thinks he has come up with a great idea to market and intends to sell it for a small fee. He has failed to do a competitive analysis of existing similar products already available to consumers. As a result, unbeknown to him, there are apps already on the market that are very similar to his and are free of charge. Tom has quickly and proudly promoted his app across social media on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. He has identified his app as being highly effective for the treatment of stuttering in a new and innovative fashion. Despite this, Tom has often been involved in heated discussions online about the credibility of his app with potential consumers and their peer support groups. He has also been privately messaging members of some online groups offering a free appraisal of their speech problems and directing them to relevant services. During this process he is also actively selling his own app. During these promotions he is not reticent in declaring that he is a qualified speech pathologist, is a CPSP member of Speech Pathology Australia and that he is 100% sure his app will be effective. He has also been recommending his software to clients during consultations without the approval of his clinic. He suggests that clients should promote his app for him via their own social media links to enable his great product to be more widely known and used.

Patricia Bradd (top), Grant Meredith (centre), and Trish Johnson

93

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au