LAUSR

What is this story about? Story of hope and recovery in a cultural–clinical borderland; SLP working differently alongside a woman with ASD and associated anxiety linked to social communication. Orientation Who is involved in the story; where did it take place and when? Two people (P.D. and I.W.): one with ASD and one without the diagnosis, who is an SLP/researcher; interactions taking place in a university clinic context; over approximately 5 years. Complication action(s) Then what happened? Working in a nontraditional way over time with accounts of communication dilemmas; issues related to a late diagnosis of ASD; and identity, all reflected upon, discussed, and acknowledged. Evaluation How did participants feel about what had happened? More accepting and realistic sense of self and identity for P.D., with a decrease in communication anxiety and an increase in hope. For I.W., a more rewarding, authentic way of working alongside people with ASD. Resolution What was the outcome? A positive trajectory of hope and recovery emerged within the flexible space of a cultural–clinical borderland, characterized by a relationship of equality and mutual respect. Coda What does it mean for now? Finding ways to create conversational spaces in speech–language pathology interactions, where hope and recovery as outcomes can be facilitated to emerge and be maintained. Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; SLP = speech-language pathologist. research article format, the coda can be the discussion or the conclusion of the arguments presented in the article. The notion of a cultural–clinical borderland proved useful in the context of the interactions and developments described in this article. The borderland was a space where it became possible to “bring communication between two different cultures into harmony” (Bogdashina, 2005, p. 260). Furthermore, the third culture—that of the more traditional or impairment-focused practice of speech and language pathology—was challenged and adapted as an activity in this borderland paving the way for a different way of working. Constructive engagement and true collaborative working in sharing and reconstructing of communication experiences characterized this therapeutic journey as person-centered. The participants experienced a different type of therapeutic relationship in this context of interaction. Core to the hearing and telling of experiences in a safe and respectful space are considerations of rapport and the relationship. Walsh and Duchan (2011) defined rapport as a cocreated and dynamic process that can render a more egalitarian tone to the therapeutic interaction. The uniqueness of the patient–clinician relationship is what paves the way for progress to be made but where the clinician remains “a symbol of hope” in Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 122 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/APRIL–JUNE 2018 a patient’s search for progress and healing (Shannon, 2011, p. e114). It seems, then, that speech–language pathologists should adopt what Glover (2005) termed an intent of hope. However, it is also apparent that such hopeful relationships do not happen until the power inequality is at least reduced and relationships are marked by a more considered mutuality (Deegan, 1996). Indeed, the fundamental relationship appears central to the hopefulness in this therapeutic emplotment, in which empowering experiences provided opportunities for learning and for gaining control over the difficult challenges of daily living (Zimmerman, 1990), of which communication is such an integral part. P.D.’s sharing of her communication experiences and ultimate hopeful aspirations, though certainly unique and personal to her, resonate with others’ accounts of communication challenges associated with ASD (i.e., Bridge, 2016; Higashida 2014, 2017; Nazeer, 2006; Wylie, 2014). Hope too emerges in Higashida’s (2017) reflection that “if we know there is even a single person who understands what it is like for us, that’s solace enough to give us hope” (p. 89). It seems crucial, therefore, to position hope as a valid focus in speech–language pathology contexts in working alongside people with ASD and, similarly, with others who may experience significant communication challenges. Moreover, clinicians need to “create the conversational spaces where reasonable hope rather than hopelessness is more likely to arise” (Weingarten, 2010, p. 11). This work can be jointly undertaken at the meeting of cultures such as those described in this article, where hope is not only an incidental by-product of interaction but emerges as a more realizable and attainable construct.