I can't speak to the hiring process, and your input does make a great deal of sense. However, I think that research is still an important part of an audiology degree. Do I think it is more important than clinical hours and experience? Not necessarily. But what separates AuDs from technicians is knowing not just WHAT we are doing, but also WHY we're doing it. With our field being relatively new and constantly growing, I think its very important as an AuD to understand the importance of research and how to apply it to your profession.
If you don't know what constitutes "good" research or don't know how to find it, how can you ensure that you are making the best decisions for your patients? This would be the equivalent to a doctor using old-fashioned methods and out-dated techniques when there are better things available. If you've recently graduated, then you're probably safe from this at least for awhile (depending on what sort of field you work in), particularly because most things aren't moving THAT quickly. If you work in a hospital or other group setting (and have a clinic director), it is likely that they are responsible for the protocol and standard procedures at your clinic. You could likely follow these pretty blindly if you wanted to. But if you open a private practice or are the sole audiologist somewhere, how are you going to make decisions like these? Are the hearing aids you're selling your patients everyday ACTUALLY proven to be effective in the situations you're telling the patient they will be? If you work in pediatrics, what do you recommend to a parent with a child you've just identified as hearing loss (i.e. what do you say when they ask you for the "best" technology, the "best" method of communication for their child, the "best" plan of attack for dealing with this hearing loss?). Even in diagnostics -- what is your test of choice for which situation, and why? Your clinical experience is very important in all of these cases, but that needs to be combined with research (evidence-based practice). We wouldn't be following these procedures if someone, somewhere down the line hadn't shown that they were more effective than something else in some way or another (at least for the most part).
To relate back to my previous point, I think that doing is a key part of understanding. Its one thing to sit in a lecture and have somebody tell you that research is important. But does that really get through to you? Can you truly understand the benefits and limitations of research if you don't actually do research of any sort? I suppose there will be varying opinions on this, but mine is that you can't. I'm not necessarily suggesting that research ever be done OVER clinical work (at least in an AuD program), or that programs take away tons of hours from clinic in order to have their students do research. However, if it can be included in the program, why wouldn't it be? I think a research project gives a new perspective and allows you to understand why its important as well as how it can be applied.
Clock hours are great, and obviously extremely important. However, at a certain point, after years of practicing, clock hours are somewhat of a moot point. The "magic number" for being an "expert" at something is 10,000 hours. If you work 5 days a week for 8 hours a day, that's ~2,000 hours a year. After 5 years you will have 10,000 hours. (Granted, for audiologists with busy schedules, it may not be that you will be doing the same exact thing all day everyday, so if you're seeing a wide range of patients and doing different diagnostics then this timeline will obviously be extended). The point being, though, that you'll reach a point at which additional clinical hours aren't going to set you apart from anyone or anything.
So as much as clinical hours help your clinical judgment, and are an important necessity upon graduation and thereafter, I think that's only one piece of the puzzle. There has to be a backbone there -- an understanding of what we're doing and why. "What" and "why" will constantly have to be modified due to the nature of our ever-changing and progressing field. If you're not educated in research, that is a real detriment to yourself, to audiology as a profession, and particularly to your patients to whom you would not be providing the best care at that point.
.
