Audism

GrendelQ said:
I think that's a very reasonable explanation. I like it a lot, Beclak, and I now see where you are coming from.

I think there's complexity introduced in that this definition requires a deep knowledge of and an agreement of what Deaf Culture stands for -- that seems not to be clear even within the deaf community -- to understand what audism can encompass.

It seems that while this definition may be clear to those already deeply familiar with Deaf Culture and who agree that Deaf Culture stands for all deaf, whether SL-using or oral or CI or HA-using or very-late-deafened, it might not be something that communicates well to a typical hearing person unfamiliar with the Deaf world or to someone who doesn't see a non-signing, oral deaf person as part of Deaf Culture.
Click to expand...

The Deaf have already agreed as to what Deaf culture stands for. It is the hearing that can't seem to come to an agreement. But then, their consent is irrelevent.
 
Their only motive is to answer questions.
Click to expand...

And to get tenure, and to get further research grants, and to make money from the sale of their books, and be provocative enough to get their name known, and...probably quite a few other things.

Not to be cynical, but I don't think there exists a person whose life can be completely divorced from the needs for income, recognition, and other such values. Everyone has some sort of agenda, just to get through the day. I don't mean that in a bad sense, just that we all have a sense of our purpose in life and we all follow our own path to find it. Even researchers.
 
Beach girl said:
And to get tenure, and to get further research grants, and to make money from the sale of their books, and be provocative enough to get their name known, and...probably quite a few other things.

Not to be cynical, but I don't think there exists a person whose life can be completely divorced from the needs for income, recognition, and other such values. Everyone has some sort of agenda, just to get through the day. I don't mean that in a bad sense, just that we all have a sense of our purpose in life and we all follow our own path to find it. Even researchers.
Click to expand...

He already has tenure.

The point is, academic researchers are not biased toward a particular philosophy because no matter the side the coins falls on, they still achieve tenure, still sell books, and are still provocative.:cool2:

Research coming from a CI manufacturer, however, has an inherent bias. Research coming from A.G. Bell has an inherent bias. Research coming from any organization that embraces a particular philosophy has inherent bias. And it is reflected in the research design. That is why I alway caution people to read the methods section of any research report.
 
jillio said:
He already has tenure.

The point is, academic researchers are not biased toward a particular philosophy because no matter the side the coins falls on, they still achieve tenure, still sell books, and are still provocative.:cool2:

Research coming from a CI manufacturer, however, has an inherent bias. Research coming from A.G. Bell has an inherent bias. Research coming from any organization that embraces a particular philosophy has inherent bias. And it is reflected in the research design. That is why I alway caution people to read the methods section of any research report.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that the academic researchers would recoginize their own bias and make sure that their research has safeguards against it.
 
deafskeptic said:
I would imagine that the academic researchers would recoginize their own bias and make sure that their research has safeguards against it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And are very upfront about limitations and generalizability of their studies as well. You don't find that often in non-academic research. That is why you have to read with a fine tooth comb to uncover it. But in most, it is pretty obvious.
 
I would imagine that the academic researchers would recoginize their own bias and make sure that their research has safeguards against it.
Click to expand...

Bless your innocent little heart. I wish that were always true.
 
I did, back in the day. Not too much any more. I read some academic research, especially in the fields of political science and foreign relations.
 
Beach girl said:
I did, back in the day. Not too much any more. I read some academic research, especially in the fields of political science and foreign relations.
Click to expand...

Then you should already know, if you were involved in academic research design and not just reading it, that bias is very strictly controlled for and a study containing obvious bias will not make it past the IRB.
 
GrendelQ said:
I think that's a very reasonable explanation. I like it a lot, Beclak, and I now see where you are coming from.

I think there's complexity introduced in that this definition requires a deep knowledge of and an agreement of what Deaf Culture stands for -- that seems not to be clear even within the deaf community -- to understand what audism can encompass.

It seems that while this definition may be clear to those already deeply familiar with Deaf Culture and who agree that Deaf Culture stands for all deaf, whether SL-using or oral or CI or HA-using or very-late-deafened, it might not be something that communicates well to a typical hearing person unfamiliar with the Deaf world or to someone who doesn't see a non-signing, oral deaf person as part of Deaf Culture.
Click to expand...

A non-signing oral deaf person is not part of Deaf culture because they usually only associate with hearing people. I should know because I was one.
 
jillio said:
Then you should already know, if you were involved in academic research design and not just reading it, that bias is very strictly controlled for and a study containing obvious bias will not make it past the IRB.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that research not is supposed to be biased, and that system work like you say. Woo don't last long when truly scholary work is involved. It's a reason Marschark have swifted his views, and can explain it with scholary terms.

But the biases limits us. That's where I'm with Beach girl a bit. It's the biases that stops us from exploring issues further or enter unventured teorrities. Science can't allways remove our biases. Marschark started with the bias that mainstreaming were best. He used ten years, to discover that this not were true. How much further couldn't a person without that bias venture? That journey he did, demands some respect, but it does not mean that he managed to tell the whole story. I say this, because I can sense some biases by the questions he hasn't raised.
 
deafskeptic said:
I would imagine that the academic researchers would recoginize their own bias and make sure that their research has safeguards against it.
Click to expand...

It already does. It's a self-checking system where one researcher is always checking the merit of another researcher's finding. So even if the individual is flawed, the field itself is not biased.
 
So even if the individual is flawed, the field itself is not biased.
Click to expand...

I think that makes sense, generally speaking. Not talking about Marschark or any other researcher in particular, just giving credence to the idea that the field as a whole tends to correct the errors of any one specific person.

It can take a long, long time, though. Look how long it has taken to overthrow some of the Freudian theories about female sexuality. He thought that the stories of childhood abuse his Viennese women patients were telling him about just had to be fantasies, and thus he hypothesized the "penis envy" theory. It took decades for later psychologists to figure out that no, what these women were saying really happened, and there was no "envy" about it at all.
 
Beach girl said:
I think that makes sense, generally speaking. Not talking about Marschark or any other researcher in particular, just giving credence to the idea that the field as a whole tends to correct the errors of any one specific person.

It can take a long, long time, though. Look how long it has taken to overthrow some of the Freudian theories about female sexuality. He thought that the stories of childhood abuse his Viennese women patients were telling him about just had to be fantasies, and thus he hypothesized the "penis envy" theory. It took decades for later psychologists to figure out that no, what these women were saying really happened, and there was no "envy" about it at all.
Click to expand...

Heh... for me it was Robert Bakewall [famous for line-breeding] and Francis Galton [famous for eugenics.] Yes, you can breed for better traits in animals (and humans) and no diseases, but it took a few decades to figure out: "Hey, eventually sooner or later, you're going to run into inbreeding depression." I don't means recessive diseases and disorders, but rather: lowered fertility, rapid old age, and compromised immune system. Even though farmers knew one would need to outcross once in awhile, it took people almost two centuries to figure out why eugenics is wrong.
 
Not to derail this thread, but yes, you are so right. My poodle-loving friends talk about the challenges of breeding ALL the time, in regard to how much line-breeding is too much, what sort of COI (Coefficient of Inbreeding) is desirable, etc., etc. It's a very tricky business.

Not to get side-tracked, but just to add another piece of data onto the idea that changes against the accepted order of things can take a long time to be accepted, and that such changes almost always are debated by the various experts in the given field. Everyone can be equally well-intentioned, equally sincere and competent in research methodology, but it can take time for ideas and theories to be proven or disproven.
 
flip said:
I agree with you that research not is supposed to be biased, and that system work like you say. Woo don't last long when truly scholary work is involved. It's a reason Marschark have swifted his views, and can explain it with scholary terms.

But the biases limits us. That's where I'm with Beach girl a bit. It's the biases that stops us from exploring issues further or enter unventured teorrities. Science can't allways remove our biases. Marschark started with the bias that mainstreaming were best. He used ten years, to discover that this not were true. How much further couldn't a person without that bias venture? That journey he did, demands some respect, but it does not mean that he managed to tell the whole story. I say this, because I can sense some biases by the questions he hasn't raised.
Click to expand...

Of course biases limit. That is why an academic researcher points out bias and limitations of the study in the report. It is required by the IRB. No study can be completely without bias because no study can be without human input. However, the academic studies are the least biased, and the least likely to produce faulty conclusions.
 
Beach girl said:
I think that makes sense, generally speaking. Not talking about Marschark or any other researcher in particular, just giving credence to the idea that the field as a whole tends to correct the errors of any one specific person.

It can take a long, long time, though. Look how long it has taken to overthrow some of the Freudian theories about female sexuality. He thought that the stories of childhood abuse his Viennese women patients were telling him about just had to be fantasies, and thus he hypothesized the "penis envy" theory. It took decades for later psychologists to figure out that no, what these women were saying really happened, and there was no "envy" about it at all.
Click to expand...

Changing psychoanalytic theories have virtually nothing to do with bias in research.:roll:

And you have a drastically incorrect idea of what "penis envy" is. It has nothing to do with what you are attempting to relate it to.
 
souggy said:
Heh... for me it was Robert Bakewall [famous for line-breeding] and Francis Galton [famous for eugenics.] Yes, you can breed for better traits in animals (and humans) and no diseases, but it took a few decades to figure out: "Hey, eventually sooner or later, you're going to run into inbreeding depression." I don't means recessive diseases and disorders, but rather: lowered fertility, rapid old age, and compromised immune system. Even though farmers knew one would need to outcross once in awhile, it took people almost two centuries to figure out why eugenics is wrong.
Click to expand...

As knowledge is gained, perspectives change.
 
jillio said:
Of course biases limit. That is why an academic researcher points out bias and limitations of the study in the report. It is required by the IRB. No study can be completely without bias because no study can be without human input. However, the academic studies are the least biased, and the least likely to produce faulty conclusions.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are in agreement regarding biases. Damn. Hope to find something to disagree with you on one day ;)
 
Back
Top