Durham E-Theses
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Deafness, discourse and identity:: critical issues in deaf education Estee-Wale, Ricardo Solario How to cite: Estee-Wale, Ricardo Solario (2004) Deafness, discourse and identity:: critical issues in deaf education, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3058/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Abstract It has long been acknowledged that the main problem associated with deaf education is one of language. To remedy this issue, education polices and methods have focused on the children's inability to communicate effectively in the majority language and have imposed strict regimes within schools aimed at enabling deaf children to talk. This thesis offers a critical examination of such methods and also of the relevant discourses influencing deaf children within education. This thesis argues that the problems associated with deaf children's experience within education starts, not at their point of entry into formal education, but at birth. My research highlights the fact that deafness is not primarily the deprivation of sound; it is the deprivation of a functional language. The arbitrary imposition of particular language policies within schools be it sign or spoken languages do not really address the underlying issues. This thesis is primarily a critique of the relevant discourses which are complemented by the experiences of the deaf children highlighted in my sample. This thesis show that without the consideration of deaf children's views and experiences the problems inherent within deaf education will not be addressed adequately Deafness, Discourse and Identity: Critical Issues in Deaf Education Ricardo Solario Estee-Wale A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Education University of Durham School of Education 2004 1 3 JUN 2005 Contents Chapter 1 Can You 'Hear'/See Me? 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Genesis of the Discourses 3 1.3 Why Deaf Studies? 4 1.4 My Sample 5 1.5 Gender 6 1.6 Ethnicity 7 1. 7 Hearing Loss 7 1.8 Organization of Chapters 8 Chapter 2 Constructing Deafness 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 The Social Construction of Deafness 12 2.3 The Construction of the Deaf Student 27 2.4 Policy and the Construction of Deafness 34 2.5 Conclusion 37 Chapter 3 The Culture and Community of the Deaf: A Critique 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 Community, Culture and Identity 41 3.3 Educational Provision 52 3.4 Conclusion 59 Chapter 4 Recording and Observing 'Silence' 4.1 Introduction 61 4.2 Methodology 61 4.3 Issues of Power relating to Research and Methodology 65 4.4 The Process 67 4.5 Triangulation 69 4.6 Data Collection 70 4.6.1 School Prospectuses 71 4.6.2 Interviews with Head Teachers 72 4.6.3 Interviews with Heads of Year 75 4.7 Participation 77 4.7.1 Video Interviews 81 4.7.2 Focus Groups 82 4.8 Narrative Analysis 83 4.9 Grounded Theory 86 4.10 Summary of Methods Used 87 4.11 Headline Findings 88 4.12 Conclusion 89 Chapter 5 The Process of Deaf Education 5.1 Introduction 90 5.2 The Career of the Deaf Child 97 5.3 The Pre-Patient Phase 98 5.4 The In-Patient Phase 111 5.5 Conclusion 123 Chapter 6 Discourse and Identity 6.1 Introduction 125 6.2 Redefining Deafness 127 6.3 The Post-Patient Phase 133 6.4 Communication Methods within Deaf Education 136 6.5 Oralism 137 6.6 Total Communication 141 6.7 Sign Bilingualism 144 6.8 Is BSL the 'Mother Tongue' /First Language of Deaf Children 147 6.9 The Acquisition of a Mother Tongue 150 6.10 The Development of Literacy 151 6.11 The Way Forward 153 6.12 Conclusion 155 Chapter 7 Conclusion 7.1 Introduction 158 7.2 The Story So Far 161 7.3 Further Research Needed 164 7.4 Policy Recommendations 165 7.5 Conclusion 166 Bibliography 171 Appendix A Letter to Schools Appendix B 2nd Letter to Schools Appendix C Interview Schedule with Deaf Students Appendix D Interview Schedule with Head Teachers Appendix E Interview Schedule with Heads of Year lLiist olf Fiigures and 'falbnes Table 1.1 Gender and Ethnicity 6 Table 1.2 Academic Attainment of Students in relation to Ethnicity 6 Table 1.3 Degree of Hearing Loss 7 Table 2.1 GCSE Results for School A 30 Table 2.2 GCSE Results for School B 31 Table 2.3 GCSE Results for School C 32 Table 4.1 Participating Schools 68 Table 4.2 Interview Schedule 87 Table 4.3 Methods used in individual Schools 88 Figure 5.1 The Process of Deaf Education 98 Table 6.1 The Post-Patient Phase 127 Figure 6.1 The Goal of Oralism 137 Figure 6.2 The Goal of Total Communication 141 Figure 6.3 The Goal of Bilingualism 143 Acknowledgements My sincere thanks Prof. Mike Byram for his support and guidance during the first part of the doctoral programme, to Prof. Bill Williamson for his constructive feedback and understanding during the final stages of the thesis and to David Brien for his invaluable support and critical review of my work. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the following people who in their own unique ways played an integral part in helping me complete my studies in the way that I did: Prof. Keith Morrison, Dr. Jill Tidmarsh, Su-Chen Hung, Marja Korhonen, Angela Penny, Ann East, Chris Lewis, Lynne Morrell, the Administrators in the School of Education: Li Shan Sung, Anita Shepherd, Carrie Beattie and Jane Watkinson, Jeanette Robinson, the Librarians Mary Herbert and Susan McBreen, George Iddon, Wendy Martin, Susan Cunningham and Amanda Hartley. This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Ana Maria Milheiro Pires, for her help and encouragement she gave to me even when she was ill Declaration I declare that this thesis, which I submit for the degree of Doctor of Education at the University of Durham, results entirely from my own work and has not previously been submitted for a degree at this or any other university. Statement of Copyright Copyright© 2004 by Ricardo S. Estee-Wale The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation or data from it should be published without his prior written consent and information should be acknowledged Chapter 1 Can You 'Hear'/See Me? 1.1 Introduction The voice of Deaf people of the modem age is one of cultural explicitness and self-consciousness and a centeredness around a signed language that is not reflected in previous images of the Deaf self. However, the tension within communities of Deaf people across the country reflect that, as always (Humphries, 1996, p.l 00). Deaf children, on average continue to achieve markedly lower academic attainments than their hearing counterparts (Powers et al 1998). This study demonstrates that the reasons for low academic attainment amongst deaf children in general, have been due principally, to the dominant discourses that have influenced and constructed their lives which, over time, and until recently have remained unchallenged. Within this framework a further key problem emerges, that is, the 'voice' /views of the deaf children themselves, have not been properly heard, but inferred by people who themselves are not deaf. This has resulted in educational experiences of deaf children which at best could be described as unsatisfactory. My thesis argues that the educational discourse has constructed deaf children as failures without acknowledging that the origins of the problems deaf children face is located within the discourse itself. The discourse is part of the problem. The challenge in a study like this is to see how we can go beyond the existing discourses. This can be done, I argue by, acknowledging that deafness is a social construction. If deafness is a social construction then it can be re-constructed by allowing the views and experiences of the deaf child to be considered and taken seriously. A key challenge is to listen to what deaf children are saying about their own views and experiences. This will be a marked departure from the existing discourses. 1 Deaf education has been championed by ideological competing discourses each claiming to be the 'holy grail' of deaf education. What is evident from these debates and research is that the 'voice' /hand of the deaf child is often not heard or seen. This invisibility or silence according to Friere (1970) is a feature of oppressed groups. There have been biographies written about the experience of deaf students within education but these have normally been after they have left school and have often been claimed by the competing discourses in the furthering of their own causes.