Understanding Of Deafness Research Articles

Healthcare undergraduates’ perceptions of the barriers faced by deaf individuals when accessing healthcare services

Keywords: Deaf awareness; Healthcare education; Heathcare inequality Purpose: Deafness is one of the largest disabilities in the UK, with 12 million individuals being deaf and 900,000 being severely deaf (NHS England, 2017). Deaf typically experience poor access to health services, poor communication during consultations and poor access to health information. People who are deaf have several barriers to accessing healthcare and can be attributed to a lack of awareness associated with inadequate training. Identifying gaps in awareness and developing appropriate training resources may increase deaf awareness and has the potential to transform clinical service provision. This study explored healthcare undergraduates’ perceptions of the barriers faced by deaf individuals when accessing healthcare services. Methods: A semi-structured interview was adopted for a focus group design. Discussion topics included: previous experience and exposure, daily challenges for deaf individuals, barriers to accessing healthcare, challenges with assessment or treatment, best communicative methods, and educational ideas. Participants met the following inclusion criteria; being over the age of 18 years and a healthcare undergraduate student in their 2nd or 3rd year studying Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation and Exercise Science, or Radiography. The focus group was conducted online through ‘Microsoft Teams’ platform which was recorded to allow for transcription and data analysis. Data were analysed by thematic analysis and a second researcher confirmed the derived themes. To reduce bias a reflexivity account was provided by the researchers. Results: Nine undergraduate students participated, seven were on the Physiotherapy programme and two Rehabilitation and Exercise Science programme. One student was hard-of-hearing whilst all other students had limited or no exposure of communicating with deaf individuals. Three students had participated in a deaf awareness course prior to data collection. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) Exposure and Awareness, (2) Knowledge and Understanding, (3) Communication, (4) Education, and (5) Patient-Centred Care. Participants were overall empathetic towards deaf individuals. Students with limited exposure were able to recognise healthcare barriers, however demonstrated limited knowledge and understanding of deafness. Students with previous exposure demonstrated more insight and were more willing to lead the focus group discussions. Common misconceptions, such as the ability of the profoundly deaf to read in written English, arose from the focus group discussions. Overall, students were able to identify a gap in their knowledge and were willing to improve their future patient care by engaging in education. Conclusion(s): There is a need to implement deaf awareness training into undergraduate healthcare programmes. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of implemented deaf awareness training into healthcare undergraduate programmes. Impact: This research highlights an educational need and desire by healthcare students for deaf awareness education in order to deliver higher quality future patient-centred care to the deaf population. Funding acknowledgements: This project did not receive funding.

La alteridad compleja de la comunidad sorda argentina

Se desarrollan tres partes: una perspectiva general de las relaciones interétnicas y del prejuicio, una visión específica del grupo cultural sordo de la Argentina y, posteriormente, se recorta del tema anterior un núcleo vital para el entendimiento de las relaciones sordos – oyentes centrada en el sector de los hijos oyentes de padres sordos. Mediante un enfoque intercultural-interlingüístico nos interrogamos sobre las relaciones que se instauran entre los actores socioculturales en un espacio interactivo de comunicación. De tal manera, abordamos la confrontación política entre la comunidad sorda y sectores del Estado desde la perspectiva de la interculturalidad, cuyo núcleo es el componente de poder en la situación social porque reformula la multiculturalidad de los contrastes culturales como político-culturales.

An exploration of how health care professionals understand experiences of deafness

Findings from recent deaf education intervention programmes with health care professionals emphasise the importance of sociocultural dimensions of medicine, pointing to the need to further investigate health professionals’ current understandings of deafness. Situated within a social constructionist and critical realist framework, we investigated health professionals’ understandings of deafness and experiences of providing health services in Australia to d/Deaf people. Through an inductive thematic analysis of 18 individual interviews with medical or allied health professionals, we identified an overarching theme we labelled hearingness as privileged, whereby professionals accounted for the quality of the health services available to d/Deaf people in Australia. The professionals recognised the services as not good enough and, through relating their efforts to do the best they can, and describing how the situation could always be better, it was evident that the professionals were negotiating a larger health system that disadvantages the needs of d/Deaf people for the needs of people with hearingness. We discuss the implications of working within a system that privileges hearingness.

Informed Consent, Deaf Culture, and Cochlear Implants

While cochlear implantation is now considered routine in many parts of the world, the debate over how to ethically implement this technology continues. One's stance on implantation often hinges on one's understanding of deafness. On one end of the spectrum are those who see cochlear implants as a much needed cure for an otherwise intractable disability. On the other end of the spectrum are those who view the Deaf as members of a thriving culture and see the cochlear implant as an attempt to eliminate this culture. Rather than take a stance in this debate, we will argue that the informed consent process for cochlear implantation must include access to Deaf perspectives. Deaf individuals know best what it is like to be a member of the Deaf community; the reasonable person would put significant weight on the testimony of Deaf individuals when considering whether to undergo cochlear implantation. The reasonable person standard determines what information careproviders must present as part of the informed consent process; thus, informed consent for cochlear implantation requires access to the testimony of Deaf individuals.

McCay (“Mac”) Vernon (1928–2013).

McCay ("Mac") Vernon, the founding and preeminent psychologist in the field of deafness. Mac was born at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, DC, into a military family on October 14, 1928 and died on August 28, 2013, at the age of 84. Prior to Mac, research and clinical direction in the field were sparse. Mac became the icon for psychological services for deaf people, and his work extended into the education of deaf children, forensic and ethical practices with the deaf, and public understanding of deafness as a disability and of deaf persons as a psychosocial minority group. Mac will also be remembered for his sharp intellect, good humor, compassion, and advocacy for those who are misunderstood.

Neurosensory development and cell fate determination in the human cochlea

BackgroundHearing depends on correct functioning of the cochlear hair cells, and their innervation by spiral ganglion neurons. Most of the insight into the embryological and molecular development of this sensory system has been derived from animal studies. In contrast, little is known about the molecular expression patterns and dynamics of signaling molecules during normal fetal development of the human cochlea. In this study, we investigated the onset of hair cell differentiation and innervation in the human fetal cochlea at various stages of development.ResultsAt 10 weeks of gestation, we observed a prosensory domain expressing SOX2 and SOX9/SOX10 within the cochlear duct epithelium. In this domain, hair cell differentiation was consistently present from 12 weeks, coinciding with downregulation of SOX9/SOX10, to be followed several weeks later by downregulation of SOX2. Outgrowing neurites from spiral ganglion neurons were found penetrating into the cochlear duct epithelium prior to hair cell differentiation, and directly targeted the hair cells as they developed. Ubiquitous Peripherin expression by spiral ganglion neurons gradually diminished and became restricted to the type II spiral ganglion neurons by 18 weeks. At 20 weeks, when the onset of human hearing is thought to take place, the expression profiles in hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons matched the expression patterns of the adult mammalian cochleae.ConclusionsOur study provides new insights into the fetal development of the human cochlea, contributing to our understanding of deafness and to the development of new therapeutic strategies to restore hearing.

Sign, Play and Disruption: Derridean Theory and Sign Language

This article explores the relationship between critical theory, specifically Derrida's (1997) critique of phonocentrism, with the experience of deafness and the status of sign languages. The case is made for an interdisciplinary approach to deafness and Sign that draws on a range of disciplines to reframe deafness in non-essentialised ways. The Derridean concepts of the ‘sign’, ‘play’, ‘differance’ and ‘supplement’ are applied to historical and current understandings of deafness, with particular attention given to educational practices. Derridean theory is used to disrupt assumptions about the status of speech and sign language and to consider how this might change understandings of language and identity. Counterarguments that question the usefulness of Derridean theory are addressed and the implications for social practice are considered. Ultimately, it is argued that Derridean theory can be used to question taken for granted attitudes to language that have led to the discrimination and stigmatisation of deaf people.

A Deaf Knowingness

“Deaf.” How do we learn what we know about being deaf and about deafness? What’s the difference between “being deaf” and “deafness” as a particular kind of (non) hearing? Which would you rather be, deaf or blind: children commonly ask this question as they make their early forays into imagining the lives of people different from them. Hearing people cannot know what it is like to be deaf, just as deaf people cannot know what it is like to hear ... or can they? Finally, how can we tell fresh and authentic stories of “being deaf” and the state of “deafness” that disrupt our familiar—perhaps even caricatured—patterns of understanding? In this special “deaf” edition of M/C Journal we wanted to create a body of work in which deaf writers and thinkers would have their say. Mindful that "Deaf history may be characterized as a struggle for Deaf individuals to 'speak' for themselves rather than to be spoken about in medical and educational discourses" (Bauman 47), we were particularly keen to place the contributions of deaf writers and thinkers alongside the mainstream hearing culture. This is why we have chosen not to identify each writer in this edition as deaf or hearing, preferring to leave that biographical auditory detail to the writers themselves.

Summary and Prologue: Perspectives on Deaf Epistemologies

Summary and ProloguePerspectives on Deaf Epistemologies Donald F. Moores and Peter V. Paul This final article in the epistemology series represents a first step and is not, in reality, a summary or conclusion or end point, but rather the end of the beginning. When we, the editors, began planning the series, we saw it as the first phase of what hopefully would evolve into a more comprehensive consideration of the concept of d/Deaf epistemologies and how this impacts on our understanding of deafness. Given the complexities of the issues and the different perspectives, even over the meaning of the word “epistemology” itself, our goals for the series were modest; we wanted eight articles written by professionals with different experiences and world views to express their opinions on the concept of a d/Deaf epistemology, or epistemologies, and its relation, if any, to a standard epistemology. It was also our hope that these discussions would proffer insights into possible approaches for understanding and improving the educational and social welfare of individuals who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. In essence we envisioned a brief overview of a range of topics and perspectives within the framework of d/Deaf epistemologies. We were aware that eight articles would only scratch the surface of such a complex subject, one that had received relatively little attention in the field. We also had to impose space limits on the contributions, a difficult restriction because of the richness and variety of ideas presented by the authors. In fact, many of the first drafts were longer than the final articles and decisions about what to cut and what to include were difficult; decisions with which no editor or author is comfortable. Inevitably, space limits mandated that much material of significance be eliminated. We envisioned the present series as a building block for a text that would continue the dialogue in greater detail and with more participants. The core would be most or all of the current articles, expanded into chapter length and treated in more breadth and depth than was possible in the present case, supplemented by perhaps an equal number of additional contributors who would provide even more diversity and perspectives. Along with the contributors to the current series, and a like number of new contributors, we have begun work on a more comprehensive text that hopefully will expand consideration of d/D epistemology or epistemologies. Within this context, we perceive the present article as essentially a prologue for future [End Page 493] work and the present series as a work in progress. This series has both d/Deaf and hearing contributors. Their professionalism and knowledge established an environment for the scholarly exchange of ideas within an atmosphere of mutual respect, something that is all too rare in our field. We, the editors, have many areas of commonality and some differences ourselves. We both went through the same PhD program at the University of Illinois, albeit at different times, and were exposed to similar emphases. We were inculcated predominantly with the positivist notion that there is a standard objective epistemology, and we were taught that there is an external reality attainable through value-free hypothesis testing and refinement. We were also exposed to Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) and his treatment of a shared research paradigm, consensus, and, eventually, paradigm shift, as well as reactions to his views. It is possible to approach the questions we raise in different ways. As discussed in Paul and Moores (2010), there are the familiar medical/clinical and social/cultural paradigms, with all the implications for school placement, instructional modes, first language usage, and the various directions that theory, research, and practice should take. In our opinion it is more productive to explore questions from an epistemological viewpoint. In fact, all the means and ends of epistemological problems should be explored, weighed, and debated—all means and ends to educational and social situations are relevant. There is no “God’s eye view of epistemology.” As we have noted before, we share a belief in a multiparadigmatic reality, based mostly on science, and we are acutely aware of the complexities of the issues. One may think of...

Perspectives on Deaf Epistemologies

This final article in the series represents a first step and is not, in reality, a summary or conclusion or end point, but rather the end of the beginning. When we, the editors, began planning the series, we saw it as the first phase of what hopefully would evolve into a more comprehensive consideration of the concept of d/Deaf epistemologies and how this impacts on our understanding of deafness. Given the complexities of the issues and the different perspectives, even over the meaning of the word epistemology itself, our goals for the series were modest; we wanted eight articles written by professionals with different experiences and world views to express their opinions on the concept of a d/Deaf epistemology, or epistemologies, and its relation, if any, to a standard epistemology. It was also our hope that these discussions would proffer insights into possible approaches for understanding and improving the educational and social welfare of individuals who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. In essence we envisioned a brief overview of a range of topics and perspectives within the framework of d/Deaf epistemologies. We were aware that eight articles would only scratch the surface of such a complex subject, one that had received relatively little attention in the field. We also had to impose space limits on the contributions, a difficult restriction because of the richness and variety of ideas presented by the authors. In fact, many of the first drafts were longer than the final articles and decisions about what to cut and what to include were difficult; decisions with which no editor or author is comfortable. Inevitably, space limits mandated that much material of significance be eliminated. We envisioned the present series as a building block for a text that would continue the dialogue in greater detail and with more participants. The core would be most or all of the current articles, expanded into chapter length and treated in more breadth and depth than was possible in the present case, supplemented by perhaps an equal number of additional contributors who would provide even more diversity and perspectives. Along with the contributors to the current series, and a like number of new contributors, we have begun work on a more comprehensive text that hopefully will expand consideration of d/D or epistemologies. Within this context, we perceive the present article as essentially a prologue for future work and the present series as a work in progress. This series has both d/Deaf and hearing contributors. Their professionalism and knowledge established an environment for the scholarly exchange of ideas within an atmosphere of mutual respect, something that is all too rare in our field. We, the editors, have many areas of commonality and some differences ourselves. We both went through the same PhD program at the University of Illinois, albeit at different times, and were exposed to similar emphases. We were inculcated predominantly with the positivist notion that there is a standard objective epistemology, and we were taught that there is an external reality attainable through value-free hypothesis testing and refinement. We were also exposed to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) and his treatment of a shared research paradigm, consensus, and, eventually, paradigm shift, as well as reactions to his views. It is possible to approach the questions we raise in different ways. As discussed in Paul and Moores (2010), there are the familiar medical/clinical and social/cultural paradigms, with all the implications for school placement, instructional modes, first language usage, and the various directions that theory, research, and practice should take. In our opinion it is more productive to explore questions from an epistemological viewpoint. In fact, all the means and ends of epistemological problems should be explored, weighed, and debated - all means and ends to educational and social situations are relevant. …

A sympathetic hearing?

More than three quarters of the public consider deafness to be a severe or very severe handicap according to a survey conducted for the Department of Health and Social Security. But just how great an understanding of deaf ness do people have and how practical is their sympathy? Ear lier in the year, the four principal national organisations for deaf people launched 'The Sympathe tic Hearing Scheme' with the aim of promoting greater public understanding of deafness and of providing practical help for deaf and hearing people to ease their communication problems.

Outsiders in a Hearing World: A Sociology of Deafness.

The deaf are outsiders in a world largely created and controlled by those who hear. Based on intensive interviewing, observation, and the personal experience of the author (whose parents are deaf), Outsiders in a Hearing World examines the lives of deaf people within a social and historical context. It examines the communities created by deaf people and the identities of their members, and describes and analyzes the everyday interactions between the deaf and the hearing. Drawing on the works concerning other outsiders, this book not only increases our understanding of deafness and the deaf, but of outsiders in general.