Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review of investigations into the specific disability of deafness in the field of sociology and other closely related fields.

After a pilot search using databases appropriate to social science research, we developed key search terms and, using an inductive approach, we identified major themes in the literature.

Our review shows that deafness has been investigated for a long time in sociology and other related fields, that there is a wide range of themes in scholarly work on the experiences of deaf communities and deaf people, and that conceptualizations of deafness and d/Deaf communities have changed over time. We organize this paper around six major themes we identified, and a few highlighted pieces of scholarship illustrate these themes along the way. We particularly focus on scholarship from the late 1960s through the early 1990s as emblematic of seismic shifts in studying deafness, although we do highlight little known nineteenth century work as well.

This paper captures the legacy of this past scholarship and reveals that deafness is a rich site of inquiry that can contribute to the field of sociology. It is also a valuable resource for any future sociological research into deafness, deaf people, and deaf communities. We conclude with a discussion of our findings, commentary on the extent to which previous scholarship on the sociology of deafness has or has not figured into current scholarship and suggestions for future research.

The Secretary of State for Social Services, in exercise of powers conferred by sections 56 and 85 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and section 57 of that Act as modified by section 8 of the National Insurance Act 1966 and section 5 of the National Insurance Act 1972, and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf, after reference to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, hereby makes the following regulations:—

Women with deafness are one of the vulnerable groups who experience sexual harassment. As a result, they experience psychological disorders such as stress, anxiety, fear and trauma. This problem is made worse because women with deafness have language and speech disorders. This paper aims to explore sexual harassment of women with deafness and develop Bisindo-based rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) to deal with sexual harassment against women with deafness.

Using the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation model of the R&D approach, this preliminary research study was carried out in four stages. The research respondents for the need assessment were 166 people with ten professional backgrounds spread throughout Indonesia. Respondents for model validation tests are ten people: REBT experts, psychologists, Bisindo experts, teachers, lecturers, Head of Women's Organization (WCC) and Head of the Deaf Community (Gerkatin) in West Sumatra. Data were collected by questionnaire.

The results showed that many women with deafness experienced sexual harassment. The handling model using REBT mediated by Bisindo is needed in further research to test its effectiveness. The validity test results show that the Bisindo-based REBT model has been declared feasible, helpful, accurate and practical to be used as a response model for sexual harassment in women with deafness.

The results of this study imply the need for the application of therapies that follow the characteristics of victims, such as Bisindo-based REBT for female sexual victims.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into the lived realities of d/Deaf prisoners in England and Wales, and to explore previous claims that they suffer disproportionately during their time in custody.

For the purposes of this study, a qualitative approach was taken. As part of this, 28 semi-structured interviews were carried out at seven adult male prisons in England with a sample of male hard of hearing/d/Deaf prisoners, and staff members who had worked with them. The interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone, and then transcribed as close to verbatim as possible. From this, the transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis. In addition to interviews, observations were made at each establishment, and later recorded in a fieldwork journal.

Findings from the study showed that the way a d/Deaf person experiences prison depends strongly on the way in which they identify with their d/Deafness. However, it was also shown that there is little room for either deafness or Deafness in prison, with severely deaf and culturally and linguistically Deaf prisoners commonly experiencing the pains of imprisonment more severely than their hearing peers as a result of the Prison Service’s inability to accommodate such difference.

This study fused together the fields of Deaf Studies and Prison Studies in a way that had not been done before, considering d/Deafness in prison on both an audiological and cultural level. Moreover, excluding small-scale unpublished undergraduate dissertations, it was the first empirical study about d/Deaf prisoners in England and Wales to carry out face-to-face interviews with these prisoners. Finally, as the most in-depth research is yet to be carried out about these particular prisoners in England and Wales, a greater level of insight was provided than previously available.

Deafness and hearing impairments have a very interesting and ancient history. The term hearing impairments is used here to refer to any dysfunction of the hearing organ, regardless of the etiology, degree of hearing loss, and service provision implications. The history of hearing impairments can be traced back to centuries before Christ (BC). For instance, around 1000 BC a Hebrew law provided those with deafness and hearing impairments limited rights to own property and marry. Nonetheless, although this law protected people with hearing impairments from being cursed and maltreated by others, it did not grant them full participation in rituals of the temple (ASLInfo, 2010). People with hearing impairments were considered to be “subnormal” by great philosophers of that time. For instance, between 427 and 347 BC, Plato's philosophy of innate intelligence was the vogue. It claimed that all intelligence was present at birth. Therefore, all people were born with ideas and languages in their minds and required only time to demonstrate their outward sign of intelligence through speech. People with hearing impairments could not speak and were therefore considered incapable of rational thoughts and ideas. Indeed in 355 BC Aristotle was reported to have claimed that those who were born deaf would become stupid and incapable of reason. According to him, people with hearing impairments could not be educated because without the ability to hear, people could not learn. Greek which was spoken in his society was considered the perfect language and all people who did not speak Greek including people with deafness were considered Barbarians (ASLInfo, 2010).

To understand how parents make the decision to implant their deaf young children with cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma.

I conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with the hearing parents or parent of children with cochlear implants. In all but two families I interviewed the primary caretaker which in all cases was a mother. In the remaining two interviews, I interviewed both parents together. Because of the relative scarcity of families with children with cochlear implants, and the difficulty in connecting with these families, I used a convenience sample, and I did not stratify it in any way. The only requirement for parents to be interviewed is that they had at least one deaf child who had been implanted with at least one cochlear implant. Although this is a small sample, the findings are transferable to other families with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in my study.

Parents in the study focused on three key concepts: normality, risk analysis, and being a good parent. Dispositional factors such as the need to be “normal” and the desire for material success for one's children appeared to moderate the cost-benefit calculus.

This interview project concentrated on hearing families who had implanted their deaf children with cochlear implants; it does not include culturally Deaf parents who choose to use American Sign Language (ASL) with their Deaf children. Understanding how Deaf families understand the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma would shed light on how a distinctly “abnormal” group (by a statistical conception of normal) – ASL-using Deaf people-explain normality in the face of using a non-typical communication method. One can learn a lot by studying the absence of a phenomena, in this case, not implanting children with cochlear implants. It is possible that the existential threat felt by some Deaf people, specifically the demographic problem presented by cochlear implants, led Deaf educators or parents to resist being the subject of research.

Overwhelmingly the sample was female, and white. Only two participants were male, and none of the participants were non-white. The lack of diversity in the sample does not necessarily reflect a lack of diversity of children receiving cochlear implants. Medicaid, which disproportionately covers families of color, covers cochlear implants in most cases, so low SES/racial intersectionality should not have affected the lack of diversity in the sample. However, the oral schools are all private pay, with few scholarships available, so low SES/racial intersectionality in the sampling universe (all children who attend oral schools), may have played a part in the lack of racial diversity within the sample.

Parents in this study were very specific about the fact that they believed cochlear implants would lead to academic, professional, and personal success. They weaved narratives of normality, medicalization, and stigma through their stories. Normality is an important lens from which to see stories about disability and ability, as well as medical correction. As medical science continues to advance, more and more conditions will become medicalized, leading to more and more people taking advanced medical treatments to address problems that were previously considered “problems with living” that are now considered “medical problems” that can be treated with advanced science.

This chapter's contribution to the sociological cochlear implant literature is it's weaving of narratives about normality, stigma, and medicalization into parental stories about the cochlear implant decision-making process. Most literature about the cochlear implant decision-making process focus on cost-benefit analysis, and logical decision-making processes, whereas this paper focuses on decision-making factors stemming from bias, emotions, and values.

December 6, 1971 Master and servant — Negligence — Noise — Deafness — Workman subjected to loud noise at work — Ear plugs providing inadequate protection — Ear muffs not supplied — No encouragement or persuasion to wear ear muffs — Whether negligence — Further loss of hearing resulting from continued negligence after statute‐barred period — Whether full damages recoverable.

This paper examines a premarital genetics program focusing on congenital deafness, conducted in Israel with a Bedouin minority group characterized by consanguinity, a religious ban on abortion, and high prevalence of genetic diseases. Building on interviews with counselors and counselees as well as observations of the interactions between them, the analysis describes the professional, communal, public and private arenas of negotiation that surround the process of genetic counseling.

Using life history interviews with 10 college-educated Deaf women, this chapter investigates how the women saw themselves “between worlds” and how they balanced being both workers and mothers. While considering Gabel and Peters’ (2004) call for a theory of resistance in the field of disability studies along with Garland-Thomson (2004) who argues for a feminist disability studies theory, the author argues that when theorizing about the construction of a worker, which is a fluid identity, it is necessary to consider notions of gender along with ability and to note places where individuals resist stereotypes placed on them by the larger society. The women of this study resisted ideas of deafness as a “disability” and did things to show they were a linguistic minority and part of the Deaf community. Teaching, in certain contexts, was a place where they educated people about their deafness and became, in their words, “lifetime educators.” Those who worked in hearing offices developed strategies such as being lifetime educators, self-advocates, volunteering in these offices, and often denying a part of their Deaf identity.

This article examines the educational decision-making of hearing parents for their deaf children born during a period (1970–1990s) before the introduction of new-born hearing screening in New South Wales, where the study was conducted, and prior to the now near-universal adoption of cochlear implants in Australia.

We present findings from an oral history study in which parents were invited to recall how they planned for the education of their deaf children.

We propose that these oral histories shed light on how the concept, early intervention – a child development principle that became axiomatic from about the 1960s – significantly shaped the conduct of parents of deaf children, constituting both hope and burden, and intensifying a focus on early decision-making. They also illustrate ways in which parenting was shaped by two key structural shifts, one, being the increasing enrolment of deaf children in mainstream rather than separate classrooms and the other being the transformation of deafness itself by developments in hearing assistance technology.

The paper contributes to a sociological/historical literature of “parenting for education” that almost entirely lacks deaf perspectives and a specialist literature of parental decision-making for deaf children that is almost entirely focussed on the post cochlear implant generation. The paper is distinctive in its treatment of the concept of “early intervention” as a historical phenomenon rather than a “common sense” truth, and proposes that parents of deaf children were at the leading edge of late-20th and early-21st century parenting intensification.