This study critically examines the biases and methodological shortcomings in studies comparing deaf and hearing populations, demonstrating their implications for both the reliability and ethics of research in deaf education. Upon reviewing the 20 most-cited deaf-hearing comparison studies, we identified recurring fallacies such as the presumption of hearing ideological biases, the use of heterogeneously small samples, and the misinterpretation of critical variables. Our research reveals a propensity to biased conclusions based on the norms of white, hearing, monolingual English speakers. This dependence upholds eugenics ideas and scientific ableism, which reinforces current power dynamics that marginalize the epistemologies and lived experiences of deaf populations. Going forward, it will be imperative for deaf people to be included in meaningful roles in deaf-related research as active contributors who help define the whole research process. Without this shift, the research risks remaining detached from the very populations it seeks to understand.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae048 | DOI Listing |
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
December 2024
Georgia State University P.O. Box 3965 Atlanta, GA 30302-3965, United States.
This study critically examines the biases and methodological shortcomings in studies comparing deaf and hearing populations, demonstrating their implications for both the reliability and ethics of research in deaf education. Upon reviewing the 20 most-cited deaf-hearing comparison studies, we identified recurring fallacies such as the presumption of hearing ideological biases, the use of heterogeneously small samples, and the misinterpretation of critical variables. Our research reveals a propensity to biased conclusions based on the norms of white, hearing, monolingual English speakers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSci Rep
July 2022
Psychological Science Research Institute (IPSY) and Institute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
The literature suggests that deaf individuals lag behind their hearing peers in terms of mathematical abilities. However, it is still unknown how unique sensorimotor experiences, like deafness, might shape number-space interactions. We still do not know either the spatial frame of reference deaf individuals use to map numbers onto space in different numerical tasks.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Psychol
May 2018
Deafness Cognition and Language Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Signers and speakers coordinate a broad range of intentionally expressive actions within the spatiotemporal context of their face-to-face interactions (Parmentier, 1994; Clark, 1996; Johnston, 1996; Kendon, 2004). Varied semiotic repertoires combine in different ways, the details of which are rooted in the interactions occurring in a specific time and place (Goodwin, 2000; Kusters et al., 2017).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
January 1998
Department of Psychology, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, USA.
The Deaf Identity Development Scale (Glickman, 1993) was modified to include hearing individuals and examine how hearing and deaf adults identify themselves. Statistical analysis based on 244 deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing respondents revealed a significant interaction between hearing status of self and parents on the hearing, marginal, and immersion scales of the modified version but not on the bicultural scale. Codas are more marginalized, less immersed, and similarly 'hearing' in comparison to deaf persons with deaf parents.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!