Hearing Researchers: Why Do They Study Deaf People?

Buffalo said:
I am not a scientist.
Click to expand...

But you are discussing scientific studies and researchers. You know what science is. You know what proof and support are. You know that "I feel this in my gut" is neither of these things.

It doesn't matter that you are not a scientist, but if you're going to participate in a discussion about scientific research and researchers then you need to provide appropriate proof and sources about very damning statements like "Hearing researchers won't listen to deaf ones" to a better extent than "I just think it'll happen."
 
Interpretrator said:
But you are discussing scientific studies and researchers. You know what science is. You know what proof and support are. You know that "I feel this in my gut" is neither of these things.

It doesn't matter that you are not a scientist, but if you're going to participate in a discussion about scientific research and researchers then you need to provide appropriate proof and sources about very damning statements like "Hearing researchers won't listen to deaf ones" to a better extent than "I just think it'll happen."
Click to expand...

While I'm no scientist, I agree that you need to provide evidence and sources and any good research has to take bias into account. Any good scientist has to factor any possible bias in the research. Most hearing in my experience tend to be biased toward speech.

Most hearing are not scientifically trained and they are in the majority and they will discount studies simply because it counter their views. I've noticed that the majority of the Hearing oralists on this site will discount other deafs' experience with oralism because it's at odds with their views. The deaf oralists have never claimed it was easy.

It doesn't say much for our education system that so many hearing don't understand how to evaluate research.
 
deafskeptic said:
While I'm no scientist, I agree that you need to provide evidence and sources and any good research has to take bias into account. Any good scientist has to factor any possible bias in the research. Most hearing in my experience tend to be biased toward speech.

Most hearing are not scientifically trained and they are in the majority and they will discount studies simply because it counter their views. I've noticed that the majority of the Hearing oralists on this site will discount other deafs' experience with oralism because it's at odds with their views. The deaf oralists have never claimed it was easy.

It doesn't say much for our education system that so many hearing don't understand how to evaluate research.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more. Critical thinking skills seem to have flown out the window! And yes, bias, as well as research design and methodology are all figured into the evaluation process. Limitaitons, as well, are always reported. It is only those who are not familiar with the process of evaluating research that object to these things being pointed out.
 
deafskeptic said:
While I'm no scientist, I agree that you need to provide evidence and sources and any good research has to take bias into account. Any good scientist has to factor any possible bias in the research. Most hearing in my experience tend to be biased toward speech.

Most hearing are not scientifically trained and they are in the majority and they will discount studies simply because it counter their views. I've noticed that the majority of the Hearing oralists on this site will discount other deafs' experience with oralism because it's at odds with their views. The deaf oralists have never claimed it was easy.

It doesn't say much for our education system that so many hearing don't understand how to evaluate research.
Click to expand...


Sad, isnt it?

I took Jolie's thread about the girl with austism as an opportunity to use as a reference if I work with children with austism in the future because that letter was written by someone who knows what it is like to have it and knows what works for her. No, it may not work for all but it is nice to value her experience and help me understand. That's why I dont understand why the oralists discount our experiences with the oral-only programs. :roll:

Need more deaf people to research but in truth, all researchers should be unbiased! :)
 
shel90 said:
Sad, isnt it?

I took Jolie's thread about the girl with austism as an opportunity to use as a reference if I work with children with austism in the future because that letter was written by someone who knows what it is like to have it and knows what works for her. No, it may not work for all but it is nice to value her experience and help me understand. That's why I dont understand why the oralists discount our experiences with the oral-only programs. :roll:

Need more deaf people to research but in truth, all researchers should be unbiased! :)
Click to expand...

What thread was that, shel. I must have missed it, and I'd like to read it.
 
deafskeptic said:
Most hearing are not scientifically trained...
Click to expand...

Wait a second...wasn't this about scientific studies done by hearing and deaf researchers? Isn't that the point?

I don't expect Joe Schmo off the street to accept or understand research about the deaf community (although it would be nice if he did), but comparing posters on this board with a scientific community is like comparing apples and moose.
 
Interpretrator said:
Wait a second...wasn't this about scientific studies done by hearing and deaf researchers? Isn't that the point?

I don't expect Joe Schmo off the street to accept or understand research about the deaf community (although it would be nice if he did), but comparing posters on this board with a scientific community is like comparing apples and moose.
Click to expand...

That is what I was saying "The problem is that the hearing people is not going to listen to the deaf researchers" in my post #11 in this thread. I said 'people' not 'researchers'. As you continued in this, you got me thinking of Galileo and the Catholic Church and how deep in trouble Galileo was with the Church. It is the case of Majority versus Minority. If the deaf researcher come up with something that many of the deaf people can relate to but the hearing people might not like. Maybe, just maybe, one or two hearing reseachers can attempt to rebut the deaf researcher's finding by researching only the deaf members of AG Bell. I just won't be surprised if there is at least one hearing researcher who has a negative view of the deaf population. Maybe this researcher decided to do nothing or do something.

Why are you upset with what I've said? I am pretty sure that you know about the discriminations the deaf people face daily. Didn't you read the part where I said that we should dump the researcher (hearing or deaf) who made outlandish claims? Did I misunderstood you or what?
 
Interpretrator said:
Wait a second...wasn't this about scientific studies done by hearing and deaf researchers? Isn't that the point?

I don't expect Joe Schmo off the street to accept or understand research about the deaf community (although it would be nice if he did), but comparing posters on this board with a scientific community is like comparing apples and moose.
Click to expand...

True, but even researchers have bias and that has to be factored into the research so the results of the research doesn't lean toward the bias of that researcher. Most hearing tend to have a bias to speech and a lot of deaf (myself included) have a bias toward sign so both biases have to be factored into research involving deaf ed.

My point is that a lot of people even though they may have a vested interest in those studies (ie parents of deaf children who are pro-oral) tend to discount them because they hope their child can speak and that the CI will somehow make them different. Others like the tobacco industry didn't like the studies linking their products to lung cancer and I'm sure some of them tried to discredit or discount studies concerning their product.
 
deafskeptic said:
True, but even researchers have bias and that has to be factored into the research so the results of the research doesn't lean toward the bias of that researcher. Most hearing tend to have a bias to speech and a lot of deaf (myself included) have a bias toward sign so both biases have to be factored into research involving deaf ed.

My point is that a lot of people even though they may have a vested interest in those studies (ie parents of deaf children who are pro-oral) tend to discount them because they hope their child can speak and that the CI will somehow make them different. Others like the tobacco industry didn't like the studies linking their products to lung cancer and I'm sure some of them tried to discredit or discount studies concerning their product.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. We have seen examples of valid research being discounted on this board because it did not fit the pro-oral stance.
 
I feel that hoh kids should at least have the availablity of a deaf program in a mainstream school becuase then they can learn to function in both the hearing and deaf worlds. Most hoh of children do accquire speech skills, but often their speech is like mine - mumbo jumbo out of our mouths because we hear mumbo jumbo going in our ear.

For the longest time I had trouble with certain words like spaghetti, library, public, bathing suit, and others.

I did have speech therapy to a certain extent, but resources were limited during my elementary years, and dont get me started on the fact that my FM system was taken away because Johnny felt jealous.

Looking back - I wish my parents had put me in a area public school that had a deaf program during my early school years. Then around middle school age when I had become fluent in both languages (ASL and English) then they could have enrolled me into ASD. Im a visual person, its how I learn. I think is this so because Im not auditory like the rest of my family. Sometimes I dont think they realize exactly how I hear and I know its nothing like they hear.
 
Buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it's important that people know this department is run by deaf people. We just had a presentation on genetics in one of my classes last week, and Kathleen Arnos talked about the genetics lab where they have free testing as the video described. I think that was a bad example for a "hearing studying deaf" video, because there are deaf people running the lab! Probably hearing people work there too, but I think the majority are deaf. I believe deaf students are assistants there too.

This doesn't mean their motives may or may not be sinister...just means that it was a bad example for a video about hearing people studying deaf people.
 
Etoile said:
I think it's important that people know this department is run by deaf people. We just had a presentation on genetics in one of my classes last week, and Kathleen Arnos talked about the genetics lab where they have free testing as the video described. I think that was a bad example for a "hearing studying deaf" video, because there are deaf people running the lab! Probably hearing people work there too, but I think the majority are deaf. I believe deaf students are assistants there too.

This doesn't mean their motives may or may not be sinister...just means that it was a bad example for a video about hearing people studying deaf people.
Click to expand...

NIH is not run by the deaf people. I wonder if NIH do get data since NIH fund this project. What if somebody demand the information from the Genetics Program?? Carrie vs. Buck was never struck down and what if the laws after one that was struck down and make the Carrie vs. Buck legal again. The tide could change easily. I am trying not to be alarmist but I am being realistic.
 
Buffalo said:
NIH is not run by the deaf people. I wonder if NIH do get data since NIH fund this project. What if somebody demand the information from the Genetics Program?? Carrie vs. Buck was never struck down and what if the laws after one that was struck down and make the Carrie vs. Buck legal again. The tide could change easily. I am trying not to be alarmist but I am being realistic.
Click to expand...
No, the Gallaudet genetics lab is run by deaf people. Funding does not mean the same as operating. Nor does it mean owning the results. Government funding is just funding: giving money to worthy research. The information collected is owned by Gallaudet. The decisions are made by Gallaudet. When a drug company funds testing, they have a corporate interest in getting specific results. But we are talking about NIH, not a corporation. I disagree that the tide could change easily; there are thousands of government-funded studies at universities around the world, and they all operate the same way.

Gallaudet has the right to decide what is done with the data. NIH cannot "demand" it just because they paid for the research. The purpose of NIH is to provide funding, not DO research or USE research.

Then again, I also don't believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11. Some people believe that it was. I could certainly see those people being suspicious of this situation. YMMV.
 
True Researchers,say Docs or scientists that do not have a disability such as hearing loss,do not consider or classify themselves as hearing people studying deafies with an agenda.Theyre just researchers studying.Who made who?
 
Makes me feel like a bug under a microscope, lol.....
 
Back
Top