Deaf Qualitative Health Research: Leveraging Technology to Conduct Linguistically and Sociopolitically Appropriate Methods of Inquiry

Abstract

One of the most understudied health disparity populations in the United States is the Deaf community-a sociolinguistic minority group of at least 500,000 individuals who communicate using American Sign Language. Research within this population is lacking, in part, due to researchers' use of methodologies that are inaccessible to Deaf sign language users. Traditional qualitative methods were developed to collect and analyze participants' spoken language. There is, therefore, a paradigm shift that must occur to move from an auditory data schema to one that prioritizes the collection and analysis of visual data. To effectively navigate this shift when working with Deaf sign language users, there are unique linguistic and sociopolitical considerations that should be taken into account. The current article explores these considerations and outlines an emerging method of conducting qualitative analysis that, we argue, has the potential to enhance qualitative researchers' work regardless of the population of focus.

“They’re Not Willing To Accommodate Deaf patients”: Communication Experiences of Deaf American Sign Language Users in the Emergency Department

“…This study applied recommended linguistically and socio-politically appropriate methods for working with Deaf ASL-users (Anderson et al, 2018). Specifically, we included coresearchers and community members who are Deaf, collected data in a culturally appropriate modality without the presence of the interpreter, and disseminated findings to the Deaf community prior to the scientific community.…”

“…Specifically, we included co-researchers and community members who are Deaf, collected data in a culturally appropriate modality without the presence of the interpreter, and disseminated findings to the Deaf community prior to the scientific community. However, translation between languages and modalities (i.e., from ASL to written English) occurred before data analysis which may have inadvertently introduced translation bias (Anderson et al, 2018). Although we implemented specific procedures to increase the rigor and trustworthiness of data, the findings of this study should be interpreted with regard to the limitations of the sample and design.…”

A Scoping Review of Approaches to Improving Quality of Data Relating to Health Inequalities

“…This should result in an improvement spiral, driving a demand for better-quality data that in turn creates more interest in the intelligence based on that data [ 19 , 29 ]. Several papers reported the deliberations and recommendations of multidisciplinary groups created specifically to address issues in data quality in specific areas such as disability [ 38 ], paediatrics [ 57 ], deaf communities [ 18 ], and COVID-19 and ethnicity [ 65 ], or more broadly [ 68 ]. These examples demonstrate the value of multidisciplinary groups in informing efforts and developing effective solutions for improving data collection and analysis efforts.…”

Using Archival Data to Examine Interview Methods: The Case of the Former Slave Project

“…In comparison, contemporary methodological literature provides insight into methodological issues and strategies relevant to the conduct of cross cultural interviews and research (Best, 2003;Chilisa, 2012;Dunbar et al, 2002;Ryen, 2008) or working with special populations such as elders (e.g., Peel & Wilson, 2008;Russell, 1999;Wenger, 2002) or deaf communities (Anderson et al, 2018). While there is no shortage of advice, researchers must reflect on and account for their practices in the field on a case-by-case basis.…”