Hearing Researchers: Why Do They Study Deaf People?

[Buffalo]

I came across this YouTube: YouTube - Hearing Researchers: Why Do They Study Deaf People? and I think this is very important for all Deaf to watch this. We have to be aware of possible motive behind the researchers. Think first before you participate in any survey or test. Best of all, show your support for researchers who are Deaf (culture-wise).

 

[doh]

Lost interest; no captions. Not everyone knows ASL (or lives in a country where it's taught).


Transcript, anyone?

 

[jillio]

I agree that research should definately include those that are deaf, not just as participants, but as researchers. Most major research institutions are now doing this. One of my major objections to the Washoe research is that it was done without the inclusion of native, fluent ASL signers. As a consequence, many flaws have been found in the research, and many erroneous conclusions were reached. I know U of CA Berkely is especially ethical when it comes to including deaf scholars in their research efforts. Any ethical hearing researcher, IMO, will include a deaf advisor in research done regarding deafness and its effects on people.

I also believe that the majority of educational and psychological research done regarding deafness is an attempt by hearing researchers to better understand deafness froma holistic viewpoint in order to better provide those services that directly benefit the deaf. For instance, much of Marschark's cognitive research was undertaken to better understand the way in which a deaf individual perceives and processes information differently than does a hearing individual in order to offer reccomendations for improvements in educational accommodations.

Having personally done some research myself, I know that my motive was to develop a better understanding of the cognitive processes. If I understand how and why a deaf individual processes information, I will know better how to present that information to them in a way that optimizes their abilities.

IMO.

 

[jasin]

Lost interest; no captions. Not everyone knows ASL (or lives in a country where it's taught).


Transcript, anyone?

I lost interest quick too. Just because its in Asl and I know Asl does not mean anything.

 

[Buffalo]

Lost interest; no captions. Not everyone knows ASL (or lives in a country where it's taught).


Transcript, anyone?

D'oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, I forgot about those ADers outside USA/Canada. Here is the transcript....

Why do the hearing researchers study deaf people? Before I tell my story, I want to emphasise this vlog's purpose is not to reject hearing researchers. I think it is important to start a discussion/dialogue in the deaf community. You know, for many years, there are the majority people studying the minorities. For example: Whites would be studying the Blacks. Men studying women. Could one ignore the social, culture, and political in this? No, it is important to consider all this when one do the study. It is the same for a hearing person who study deaf people, to think of all this issues as it is important. For example, if one want to study depression in the deaf population, it is important to know the deaf population's history of being oppressed, being prejudged, discrimination that they have experienced and was affected by all this and the possibility of the deaf person not trusting the hearing researcher. Would the deaf person be completely honest with the hearing researcher and that might render the study invalid? What if the hearing researcher went ahead and publish his study? The study may not be vaild because of the relationship between the majority and the minority.

There are some hearing researchers who are well-meaning and kind-hearted but the sad truth is that there are many hearing researchers who are self-interested. They are interested in the deaf study because of 1) tenure which is easy to get promoted 2) grant to study the deaf 3) prestige and name recognition as it is easy to look big in small community in comparision to a huge hearing community 4) with better usage of English, it is easy for them to take over deaf studies. It is sad fact that the University academia prefer English over ASL. Now a real good researcher got to give something back to the deaf community, not just statistic numbers but to help change the deaf community for better. A good researcher would help get a better recognition of ASL, volunteer or go to a deaf protest, always ready to help the deaf people (Not just stay at home and do nothing, only concerned with himself).

Those hearing researchers who got in the deaf studies for wrong reasons, may not have analyzed themselves throughly. That could lead to many errors in their studies and easily sterotyping the deaf people. That studies could be the base of all the future studies which really could hurt the deaf community. All because the hearing researchers didn't really understand the culture and political of the deaf people. That is dangerous. Also, importantly, the researchers tend to research two different groups like hearing and deaf, comparing those two groups which is not working so good for us. It would be better if they study just within the group (no comparsion as hearing/deaf are different as apples and oranges).

If you want to improve the deaf-related studies, it is high time for the deaf researchers to do the studies. There are many bright deaf people who would have brilliant ideas and they should go ahead with those studies. The Deaf researchers would understand the deaf community better because they also live through what they went through. Suppose if it is necessary for a hearing researcher to do the study, then it is a must for a deaf person to be a part of the study team. I am not talking about a group of researchers finished up a study and hand it over to a deaf person to read and give his opinion. I don't consider that a real deaf study. The deaf person must be part of the team, doing the lit. reviews, reviewing the articles, giving out opinions, doing the interviews and run the tests. The deaf person should be there during the analyzing and statistic stuff to make sure that all the data are valid. The deaf person can weed out any errors in the processing (because of his own deaf heritage) which hearing people might overlook. The deaf person must be in the discussions and end results. That would help the deaf community and that deaf person really does contribute greatly to the deaf community.

There are often surveys and tests that they ask the deaf person to do. Often the deaf person would do them without questioning it. We shouldn't do them blindly but step back and question them about the study. Does it support ASL philosophy or oral philosophy? Would the study helps the deaf community or would it makes the deaf community look bad? Do try asking alot of questions. If you don't feel right about the study, don't participate in that study. That is a powerful way to make sure that the hearing people don't oppress us. Do participate in the deaf studies that will help the community. For example: Gallaudet is offering free genetics test for the deaf people who want to know if they have deaf genes to pass on to their children or not. After they took all the blood tests, what do they do with the data? Suppose they sell the data information to hospital or scientists. What they will do with that data information?? What if they decide to use the data against us as in sterilizating those who have deaf genes? We shouldn't support that kind of study. We have to think twice. That is why it is better for us to support deaf researchers because they are same as us.

I want to talk about journals and professional publications. When you read the name of the authors, one may not be concerned with the author being hearing or deaf. However, I think it is important for us to know if the author is deaf or not (the author can include a quick bio in the article). Some might say that it is not necessary and one should be 'color-blind' in this and that there is no difference between hearing authors and deaf authors. I think there is difference as I would want to know about the study done by whites on blacks and the study done by blacks on blacks as I want to see if both studies are the same or not. The whites doesn't really know exactly how the blacks feel/think. That is why I think it is important for a deaf author to state that he/she is deaf somewhere in the article, even at the bottom of the article so I can make the comparsion with other articles.

This is Buffalo speaking now ... please excuse my misspellings if any. I had to wait a long time for the video to download as I can afford only dial-up.

I checked out the genetics study and found that it is funded by NIH: Genetics Program - Gallaudet University I wouldn't go there if I were you because I am very suspicious of their true motive. Maybe their motive is not sinister now but it could change in the future.

 

[doh]

I've read the transcript (Thanks ! ) and I have a few questions:

How can hearing people understand Deaf culture if they're "not allowed" to study it? Sometimes it takes someone from an outside perspective to be able to give new insight and understanding. I wonder if it'd be possible for a Deaf researcher to explain everything in detail (would they miss something taken for granted that a hearing person might think critical to understanding?) to a hearing audience - let's face it, people are curious about different kinds of people.

I understand what they're talking about though. But the answer to the question ("Why do they study deaf people?") is: because they're curious. I just hope they don't use the knowledge for evil.

 

[Buffalo]

How can hearing people understand Deaf culture if they're "not allowed" to study it? Sometimes it takes someone from an outside perspective to be able to give new insight and understanding. I wonder if it'd be possible for a Deaf researcher to explain everything in detail (would they miss something taken for granted that a hearing person might think critical to understanding?) to a hearing audience - let's face it, people are curious about different kinds of people.

She is telling us to check out the researchers first before agreeing to participate in their study. There are some hearing researchers that really care about the Deaf people. I agree with her that we have to do our homework first before agreeing to anything. We need to weed out the bad hearing researchers. I want to add one more thing... we need to check out the deaf researchers as well. We need to find out how this researcher became deaf. If he was born deaf, then he is most likely to be in the Deaf Culture. If he is late deafened, he might not be for the Deaf Culture. Remember Alexander Graham Bell? He was the Chairman of the board of Scientific Directors of the Eugenics Record Office. Any researcher who supports that kind of view, should be avoid like plague.

I would love to see a deaf reseacher do the study on the hearing people. I want to know why certain hearing people think we are a burden on the society when it is the hearing people that really is a burden on the deaf society as in discrimination, prejudging us, etc.

 

[Bebonang]

She is telling us to check out the researchers first before agreeing to participate in their study. There are some hearing researchers that really care about the Deaf people. I agree with her that we have to do our homework first before agreeing to anything. We need to weed out the bad hearing researchers. I want to add one more thing... we need to check out the deaf researchers as well. We need to find out how this researcher became deaf. If he was born deaf, then he is most likely to be in the Deaf Culture. If he is late deafened, he might not be for the Deaf Culture. Remember Alexander Graham Bell? He was the Chairman of the board of Scientific Directors of the Eugenics Record Office. Any researcher who supports that kind of view, should be avoid like plague.

I would love to see a deaf reseacher do the study on the hearing people. I want to know why certain hearing people think we are a burden on the society when it is the hearing people that really is a burden on the deaf society as in discrimination, prejudging us, etc.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Buffalo]

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Interpretrator]

I want to add one more thing... we need to check out the deaf researchers as well.

Abso-freakin-lutely. ANY research shows the bias of the scientists involved. This is a useless standpoint:

Best of all, show your support for researchers who are Deaf (culture-wise).

You might as well say "if you're black you have to vote for Obama" or, my favorite I've been seeing, "you're a traitor to your gender if you don't vote for Hillary."

By all means, investigate the background of any researcher, as it will give you great insights into their work and any potential biases. But automatically giving preference to Deaf (or hearing) researchers solely on the basis of their culture does science an enormous disservice.

 

[Buffalo]

By all means, investigate the background of any researcher, as it will give you great insights into their work and any potential biases. But automatically giving preference to Deaf (or hearing) researchers solely on the basis of their culture does science an enormous disservice.

Yeah, do the research on the researcher to see how much of the truth they are presenting to us. Dump the ones (deaf or hearing) who made outlandish claims. The fact is that we do need deaf researchers that will show the truth about the deaf population from the deaf point of view. The problem is that the hearing people is not going to listen to the deaf researchers. Maybe they will listen (more likely objecting to it) if they do the research on the hearing population.

 

[flip]

There is so much shitty research done out there, by all kind of people, deaf and hearing, it's essential to learn how to evaluate research. I'm not sure if I belive in focusing on who did what research or start to support research coming from deaf people with deaf parents only. Science and results is not THAT accidental, but understand the concerns of the vlogger.

Wonder what animals would say about research on them done by homo sapiens if animals could read?

 

[jillio]

There is so much shitty research done out there, by all kind of people, deaf and hearing, it's essential to learn how to evaluate research. I'm not sure if I belive in focusing on who did what research or start to support research coming from deaf people with deaf parents only. Science and results is not THAT accidental, but understand the concerns of the vlogger.

Wonder what animals would say about research on them done by homo sapiens if animals could read?

True. All research needs to be evaluated critically, no matter the hearing status of the researcher. I have said that over and over, and have been criticized over and over for pointing that out.

 

[Interpretrator]

The problem is that the hearing people is not going to listen to the deaf researchers.

How do you know that? Do you have any examples of research performed by deaf scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals that was rejected by hearing scientists solely on the basis of the deafness of the researchers?

 

[Buffalo]

How do you know that? Do you have any examples of research performed by deaf scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals that was rejected by hearing scientists solely on the basis of the deafness of the researchers?

Sorry, I have no examples of research papers to prove that. I am just speaking from my gut due to my lifetime experiences. I just knew that there are some people out there won't listen to the deaf researchers. I just knew that.

 

[flip]

True. All research needs to be evaluated critically, no matter the hearing status of the researcher. I have said that over and over, and have been criticized over and over for pointing that out.

Yeah, like Marschark, the editor of Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educuation once pointed out at a lecture, there will allways be research that the one or other camp disagree on, we have to look at the hard facts, and put some of our belifs aside sometimes.

Keep up your great work posting evaluated research, we all know that fanaticism and careful, strict research aren't the best friends

 

[flip]

Sorry, I have no examples of research papers to prove that. I am just speaking from my gut due to my lifetime experiences. I just knew that there are some people out there won't listen to the deaf researchers. I just knew that.

Agree, they are everywhere. Audism!

 

[Interpretrator]

Sorry, I have no examples of research papers to prove that. I am just speaking from my gut due to my lifetime experiences. I just knew that there are some people out there won't listen to the deaf researchers. I just knew that.

You cannot combine a discussion about scientific research with what you know "in your gut." Scientists disagree with each other all the time for many valid reasons. It's how science gets done. Disagreement does not equal discrimination. If you do not have proof of audism against deaf researchers then it is irresponsible to claim it has happened or, even worse, "might happen."

Besides, given that research and other writing done by Deaf social scientists like Sam Supalla and Ben Bahan is held in such high regard among both hearing and deaf researchers, I'd say your statement has already been refuted. Of course if you do find evidence to the contrary I'd be very interested to know.

 

[Buffalo]

You cannot combine a discussion about scientific research with what you know "in your gut." Scientists disagree with each other all the time for many valid reasons. It's how science gets done. Disagreement does not equal discrimination. If you do not have proof of audism against deaf researchers then it is irresponsible to claim it has happened or, even worse, "might happen."

Besides, given that research and other writing done by Deaf social scientists like Sam Supalla and Ben Bahan is held in such high regard among both hearing and deaf researchers, I'd say your statement has already been refuted. Of course if you do find evidence to the contrary I'd be very interested to know.

I am not a scientist. I didn't know of Sam Supalla and Ben Bahan and thank you for telling me of them. I am not able to find their papers online. Where do I find their papers? I, too, would love to find out if there are some people who would disagree with those researchers. I won't be surprised if there is at least one researcher who disagree with them and that rebuttal might not be online or public. I am sure whatever one says and there is bound to be somebody else who disagrees with the first person.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, like Marschark, the editor of Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educuation once pointed out at a lecture, there will allways be research that the one or other camp disagree on, we have to look at the hard facts, and put some of our belifs aside sometimes.

Keep up your great work posting evaluated research, we all know that fanaticism and careful, strict research aren't the best friends

Awww...thanks, flip! Marc Marschark is a very well respected researcher in his own right, as well as a wonderful and insightful editor. We could use more like him in the field.