Planning an Ethnography, Research Paper Example

Acceptance of Hearing Educators in the Deaf Classrooms and Community

Abstract

During the course of this paper, we will examine the ethnography of the Deaf community in America, propose methods for coping and gaining acceptance as a hearing Educator of the Deaf and member of the Deaf community, and explore a few more statistics, facts, and challenges that wield influence over the personal decision regarding continuance of a career in Deaf Education.

The Field of Study

An understanding of the exclusivity of the Deaf community requires the explanation of the Deaf culture’s history, development, legacy, and current state. All of these factors impact the ethnography and the Deaf Educator’s leadership within the community.

Because deaf people have always been in the minority throughout the world, communication has always been the Achilles heel of the Deaf community. For one, the deaf population was segregated and segmented. Seventy-eight percent of deaf children live amongst a hearing family (Haggerty 2007). In the early 1900’s, parents of deaf children had two choices: send their children to one of a few schools for the deaf or maintain the isolation of their deaf child in the hearing world (Rosen 2008). The Deaf schools were often intolerant of sign as a form of language and often used offensive terms, such as “deaf-mute” in their title. The Martha’s Vineyard, French, and homemade American variations of sign language were the most common forms of gestural communication, and it was not uncommon for deaf students to be altogether illiterate (Moore and Levitan 2009).

Ethical Issues

The Deaf community has often been treated as a sociological and educational test tube. Feeling within the Deaf community is very much against the ideological leanings of society at large, because they have often pressured deaf citizens in ways that were contrary to the fundamental beliefs of Deaf culture.

Baynton (2006) and Plann (2007) objectively examined the historical perspectives of Deaf education. Romantic Protestant beliefs around the time of the Civil War overestimated the realities of deaf employment given the technological limitations of that time period; when Alexander Graham Bell condemned the use of sign and Darwinism and natural selection gained favor there was a lengthy time period in which deaf capabilities were severely underestimated (as cited by Rosen 2008). In the mid twentieth century, Deaf culture and education, in particular, came full circle and began to emphasize the “Bilingual-Bicultural” approach which incorporated some of the original techniques of standardized American Sign Language and the ideological and technological shifts since ASL’s conception (Moore et al. 2009). These three main shifts represent three time periods in the development of the attempts to mainstream the Deaf community: romanticism, modernism, and postmodernism (Rosen 2008).

Sampling

For this particular study, either qualitative or quantitative studies will not suffice to accurately depict the shifts within the Deaf community. While observation of guesses at what exactly is occurring is invaluable during many qualitative studies, there is no short-term and ethically-sound option for acceptance. Present-day leaders are emerging as proud Deaf citizens. Quantitative studies would provide statistics and numbers to give a more conceptual framework through which to view Deafness and leadership, but it would leave key points uncovered. The struggles of the past and the attitudes of the past are both beyond poeticizing and beyond numbering.

With such a situation, the quantitative aspects of sampling would be most effective in the early stages of data collection. After reviewing the information, the qualitative questionnaire would be informed enough to revise the suggested beginning points as presented in the Data section of this paper. The most accurate method of gathering information would be to select twenty deaf or hard-of-hearing students at the grade level which one desires to teach and provide them with a questionnaire with space for specific and open-ended answers.  It is imperative that permission from their parents is obtained and also that an explanation is provided- that the information is intended for use in the improvement of Deaf Education.

Preliminary Questionnaire

1. Are you deaf or hard-of-hearing?
2. How do you prefer to state this fact? What wording(s) offends you?
3. In the past, how many of your teachers have been deaf or hard-of-hearing?___ On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent, how would you rate each teacher and why? (Names are not necessary.)
4. In the past, how many of your teachers have been hearing? ___ On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent, how would you rate each teacher and why? (Names are not necessary.)
5. Regardless of hearing/ not hearing status, what are the qualities that you most value in a teacher?
6. Please list up to ten examples of leaders in your community of which you are aware. If known, please also list whether they were hearing, deaf, or hard-of-hearing.
7. Do you prefer a mixed emphasis on sign and speech recognition or a solitary emphasis on either sign or speech recognition? Why?
8. Are there any areas in which you feel that your education is unduly biased because of your differences as a deaf or hard-of-hearing child? Please explain.
9. Are any members of your family deaf or hard-of-hearing also? If yes, how many?

Entry and Leadership

As a role model, teachers who are accepted into the Deaf community are specifically well-positioned to observe deaf or hard-of-hearing students at their best and worst and to identify warning signs of possible problems. When the American Annals of the Deaf published a study on sexuality and education in the deaf student body, it found that, of the more than 80% of sexually active students, 11% claimed to have had 10 or more sexual partners and two out of three deaf students did not use a condom when they last had sex—often expressing their faith in a monogamous partner or the ability to withdraw before climax.  They also incorrectly answered about fifty percent of the questions regarding HIV, conception, and birth control (Moinester, Gulley, & Watson 2008). Teachers are among the first lines of defense against such high-risk behaviors, but these role models can do nothing from outside the community, and students often have reservations about asking questions that they need to have answered if they do not fully respect their teacher.

The leadership capabilities of a hearing Educator of the Deaf comprise their qualifications, their competency in American Sign Language, storytelling, and, above all, their attitude toward the Deaf community. The first step is the recognition that a different skill set will be required than is utilized in all-hearing classrooms. The Pennsylvania Society for the Advancement of the Deaf reported that their training program emphasizes empowerment, professional development, and decision making skills. Many other notable programs have also emphasized advocacy. Training typically consists of learning about role models, team building, group development, and learning leadership theory and assessment techniques (Kamm-Larew and Lamkin 2008).

For the Deaf community, the strength of their culture lies in their differences. Regardless, Buchanan decried the link between Deaf identity, language, and education (as cited by Kamm-Larew and Lamkin 2008). The nature of a career in Deaf Education is such that- precarious though it may be to navigate- it is a position that is vital to the future of the Deaf community. Pity is an insult to the unique capabilities of the Deaf community, and, according to Kamm-Larew and Lamkin’s 2008 “Survey of Leadership Programs: Valued Characteristics of Leadership Within the Deaf Community”, this pity is among the barriers which prevent the Deaf children’s embrace of their culture and their potentialities.

For Deaf citizens, Deafness is a cultured way of life- not a disadvantage. A hearing individual intent on acceptance and leadership in the Deaf community should recognize that they may never be accepted by some. Still, a service-centered approach is appreciated as long as it does not assume that the Deaf community needs outside help. As stated earlier, pity has historically resulted in more disadvantages to the tight-knit Deaf community. This emphasis on the collective interests of the Deaf community has also been divided into countless associations, funds, advocacy and youth programs, etc. As within mainstream American culture there is a wholeness which encourages development by- and on the behalf of- specialized groups often along unique religious, ethnic, or gender lines. Consequently, there are countless opportunities to serve the Deaf community and to be proactive.

The environment among a strictly-Deaf audience is typically more relaxed and employs American Sign Language more than Signed English. In ancient Greek poetry, they were patronized but noble characters. Between the extensive history and the expressive nature of sign language which uses facial markers to punctuate, the performance arts are particularly characteristic of the Deaf way of life. Because so much of Deaf culture is visual, it logically follows that visual storytelling is a significant part of the engaging nature of an Educator of the Deaf. The students and the community value this relationship. “Being a skilled storyteller becomes an influential leadership trait in the Deaf community as storytelling is embedded in the American Sign Language (ASL) linguistic base” (Haggerty 2007).

Advocacy and service, American Sign Language, storytelling, and attitude will be the educator’s greatest assets in the attempt to enter into the Deaf community. A commitment to being among them cannot be stated; it must be shown. The Deaf community values doing, and Deaf Educators who wish to be accepted must learn by doing. The more that is done in the service of the community, the more practiced the skill set which will aid in acceptance.

Once successful penetration into the Deaf community has been accomplished, the qualitative and quantitative information to be included in the study would consist of two, related parts: education and risk behaviors. The educational information entails effective lesson planning, behavior management, common weaknesses and strengths in the curriculum,  and technological advances which benefit the deaf students; the risk behaviors information entails an accurate grasp on your studied school’s levels of reported premarital pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. Obviously informal evaluations will be invaluable, because the reported levels underestimate the problem. Only one year of observations focusing on one school should be completed, because once an intimate bond has been formed it is ethically unsound to attempt to impartially observe the study.

Sources of Information

Sign language was traditionally limited to more intimate settings. Today’s brave new world has significantly broadened the resources available to both deaf citizens and hearing people with careers in Deafness. Today the Internet provides an excellent introductory resource. A search of key words, such as leadership, Deaf community, learn American Sign Language, or Deaf Education, will turn up a variety of useful information, including videos, personal statements, certification information, and even coursework.

It proves difficult to build contacts within the Deaf community that are not in opposition to a conscientious application of ethical considerations. Contacts with other hearing teachers of the Deaf are recommended. However, the exclusion of most Deaf individuals from leadership within their own community has demonstrated the need for a cooperative approach, and, although more resistance can be expected, hearing and deaf proponents alike should be consulted regarding class strategy theory, implementation, and execution.

Data

In America, the percentage of citizens of any age who “have hearing problems” is 8.6. According to the 1990 census information, Gallaudet University estimates that the approximate number of deaf or hard-of-hearing citizens is 20,295,000- not counting children who are not enrolled in school. Of these numbers, 421,000 of the deaf or hard-of-hearing lack any hearing in either ear. The National Center for Health Statistics, on the other hand, recorded the number of people with “a little trouble hearing” to be over 25 million, while estimating that just over 6 million people are, in fact, deaf. The Project HOPE Center for Health Affairs only considers 500,000 Americans to be deaf (Harrington 2007).

In the leadership training of professionals working closely with the Deaf community, seventy-five percent of these programs contained a sizable amount of information on role models and their contributions to the Deaf community (Kamm-Larew and Lamkin 2008). In essence, a hearing teacher has to constantly learn and do to gain the opportunity to be accepted enough to make a difference.

Analysis

If the data seems contradictory, it is. This is because there are no functional operative parameters established for the terms deaf and hard-of-hearing. Audiological- and other medical- fields prefer to define D/HOH as reaching a certain numerical threshold of perception of sound. Yet most census data uses the vague terminology of “little or no hearing”.

Conclusion

Just as the contributions of Deaf leadership in mainstream America are often unacknowledged so are the contributions of hearing leadership in the Deaf community. In the 1960’s, strides made on the Deaf community’s behalf were mainly facilitated by hearing Americans (Kamm-Larrew and Lamkin 2008). While being deaf or hard-of-hearing may be indistinct abstract terms, Deafness is not. It is a lively culture which must be embraced if one expects to be a leader and a role model within the Deaf community.

References

Haggerty, L. (2007). Storytelling and Leadership in the Deaf Community. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association (JADARA), 41 (1), pp. 1-27.

Harrington, T. (2007, October). Faq: deaf population. Retrieved from http://library.gallaudet.edu/Library/Deaf_Research_Help/Frequently_Asked_Questions_(FAQs)/Statistics_on_Deafness/Deaf_Population_of_the_United_States.html

Kamm-Larew, D., & Lamkin, M. (2008). Survey of Leadership Programs: Valued Characteristics of Leadership Within the Deaf Community. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association (JADARA) , 42 (1), pp. 1-23.

Moore, M. & Levitan, L. (2003). For Hearing people only. 2003-06-30.

Moinester, M., Gulley, S., & Watson, S. (2008). The Nature of Risk: HIV/AIDS and the Deaf Community in the United States. Disability Studies Quarterly, 28(4), 12.      Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Rosen, R. S. (2008, March). Descriptions of the Deaf Community, 1830-2000: Epistemic Foundations. Department of Health and Behavior Studies , pp. 1-14.