People reading this post likely fall into one of two categories: 1) You know exactly why I’m writing this, and you already have your “preach hands” up, or 2) You have no idea what I’m talking about, or why I would even open this discussion. If you fit in the latter category, I hope I can coherently explain the issue. I’ll give it a whirl...
 
Let’s start with the backstory:
​
Once upon a time, the field of speech–language pathology realized that in order to act in our clients’ best interests, we need to be using evidence-based practice (of course this has been an interdisciplinary, international thing, but for now we’ll discuss it only as it applies within our field). Traditionally, SLPs have done well with the clinical expertise and clients’ needs portions of this. They’ve done less well with taking research evidence into consideration. Why would that be? Perhaps because the research is so far away from us. It’s hard to get, it’s hard to wade through, and it’s time-consuming to interpret. Simply put, there are high (and numerous) barriers between clinicians and the evidence, with two of the big ones being access and utility. And to-date, we haven’t been all that honest with each other about those barriers. Ultimately, this lack of communication, lack of frankness, and abysmal acknowledgment of clinical reality has impeded our ability to make the “research” corner of EBP realistic and achievable.

​Most folks say “time”. Here and here they cite time as the biggest (or primary) barrier. Any time I go to a conference and participate in an EBP talk and somebody asks the audience this question, they always say time. Any time I go to a conference and nobody takes the question beyond time, I start to get a little cranky. Here’s why:
 
Time barriers are real, for sure. But “time” is a surface issue that hides what’s really going on.
 
And we need to start talking about the real problems.
 
What are the real problems? Clinicians, do an exercise with me, and you’ll see what I mean:

1. Imagine someone were to magically gift you time! (Happy dance!!!!) Imagine they gave you two hours per week. Forget EBP and research for a moment. What would do you do with that time? Most clinicians say: Catch up on paperwork, plan for therapy…
2. Now imagine someone gifted you four hours per week. What would do you do with that time? Most clinicians still say: Catch up on paperwork, plan for therapy… then they start adding in other things like collaborating with teachers for better carryover or push-in therapy. Or they start organizing their speech room. Or playing around on the internet and social media… (!) No judgment, I hear you—that’s what I’d do with free time too!
3. Now here comes the *get real* question: Why would you prioritize all those other things over reading research? Answer to yourself, honestly. Nobody’s listening, and nobody is here to judge your rationale. Well, I’m listening—I’ve conducted this exact “experiment” a million (ok fine, around 30) times with individual and small groups of SLPs, and I get a laundry list of responses. Some of the responses stem from misunderstandings of what our research has to offer clinicians. But most (all?) of them also carry at least some thread of truth. Truths that, quite frankly, not nearly enough of us have been talking about. Openly. So, today, I’m going to address one of the biggies. Just one for now, because you don’t want me writing a novel here! :)

 
***NOTE that the time I just gifted you, above, barely scratches the surface. Brackenberry et al., 2008 suggest it takes 3–7 hours to pose a question, research it, read the evidence, and pose a solution.
 
OK, so what’s this BIG, under-acknowledged barrier?

Answer each question, one at a time. After some of these steps, you may feel like, "I don't have time for that!?" Yeah, well, that's what clinicians say when they're told they need to know the research! (doh) Implementation requires all of our thoughtful efforts and service to the field! Let's get started. 
 
Was the intervention designed with clients’ and SLPs’ needs in mind?
If Yes: next step
If No: This blog post isn’t for you. No worries! If you’re still wanting to share your research, you likely need an alternative public engagement strategy, and your audience may not even be SLPs at all. We’ll chat about that another day… See you next time!

Could an SLP take your research, and immediately apply it to practice? Do your findings have the potential to change clinical practice? Currently?
If Yes: next step
If No: That's ok! It’s probably just not the purpose of your research. At The Informed SLP, we’re finding that about 90% of articles published each month in our field are not clinically applicable. For all sorts of reasons. And when they're not, your audience isn't SLPs. But, thank you for your scholarship, and come back when you have an article that is a "yes" to this question!
 
During the publication process, did you take steps to ensure that SLPs reading your article could understand it?
If Yes: next step
If No: OK, check it out: If you ascribe to the notion that SLPs must read research in order to engage in evidence-based practice, then the articles need to be written in language that is relevant to both scientists and SLPs. Next time, have an SLP read your article and ​give you feedback before you go through the entire publication process, yeah? Offer lunch; everybody likes lunch! This is a really easy step, but a step that not enough people do.