Historical and cultural influences on establishing professional legitimacy: a case example from Lionel Logue

In the film The King's Speech, the credibility of the king's speech clinician, Lionel Logue, is challenged. This article examines Logue's credentials in light of the credentialing standards and attitudes of Logue's time as well as those affecting today's practices. The aim is to show how standards of legitimacy change with the times.

Documents related to clinical qualifications and clinical practices are analyzed for the period in the early 20th century, when Logue practiced. They are then compared with how clinicians of today attain professional legitimacy.

Early 20th century clinicians drew their credibility from their home disciplines such as medicine, phonetics, elocution, and education. Some of their therapies originated in the home discipline. Other therapies were commonly used, regardless of one's disciplinary background. Lionel Logue's background and methods would not have been suspect in his time. He may have been faulted by some for his lack of scientific perspective, but another likely source for the challenges to his credibility were early 20th century British social biases against Australians and against those using Australian dialects. The comparative analysis revealed that early 20th century clinicians and clinicians of today have certain clinical practices in common, but they differ considerably in how they establish their legitimacy. This indicates that judgments about a clinician's legitimacy are both historically and culturally determined.