Making room for words: people who stutter on the Internet
Abstract
We examined one month of listserv postings written by individuals who stutter and asked in what ways does the Internet provide a forum for collectivity, advocacy and (re)constructing selves among people who stutter; and in what ways do people who stutter contend with disability and stigma through Internet discourse. We used biographical, discursive and thematic strategies to interpret the threads of conversation dealing specifically with the self and stuttering. On the listserv, people who stutter meet to fluently communicate through writing. They share their feelings, thoughts and behaviours and (re)negotiate what it means to be a person who stutters. They reveal fluid and multiple selves and build a multifaceted understanding that challenges the stigma attached to people with disability. These are not passive individuals experiencing disability and stigma but active participants collectively confronting the important issues they face as people who stutter. The Internet listserv is a potential site for personal and social change.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Stoudt & Ouellette (2004) was categorized as having outsider positionality.
“| (Stoudt & Ouellette, 2004) | Outsider | - | It also aims to investigate the experiences, challenges, and strategies employed by people who stutter in online spaces. |”
From Insider/outsider dynamics: a reflexive thematic analysis of reflexivity/positionality in the <i>‘qualitative research in psychology’</i> journal (2025) · cites this paper as Stoudt & Ouellette, 2004
Cites
The Psychology of Life Stories
McAdams, D. P. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100 · Cited by 2,808 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Missing from the literature on stuttering is an understanding of persons as having fluid and multiple selves and identities that they can (re)negotiate and change, an understanding convincingly provided in many contemporary narrative studies of self and identity (e.g., McAdams, 2001).”
BackgroundWritten emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables
Smyth, J. M. (1998) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.66.1.174 · Cited by 1,294 · see citing works
Anxiety and Social Phobia in Stuttering
Mahr, G. C., & Torosian, T. (1999) · Journal of Fluency Disorders · doi:10.1016/s0094-730x(98)00027-8 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strunel, A.-M., & Cordoba, S. (2025) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2025.2505460 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stoudt, B. G., & Ouellette, S. C.
- Affiliations
- The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
- ORCID
- Stoudt, Brett G
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 175-194
- ISSN
- 1478-0887 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-0895
- OpenAlex
- W2041461262
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Research in Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Graduate Center
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- Keywords
- stuttering, disability, stigma, online communities, listservs, self-construction, advocacy, collectivity, disability discourse, online writing, social change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review