2009
DOI: 10.1002/dei.269
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two cultures, one programme: Deaf Professors as subaltern?

Abstract: Deaf instructors of American Sign Language have taught ASL in formal institutions of higher learning for several decades now, yet little is known of the challenges they face within those contexts. In this study, interviews with instructors of fi ve ASL -English Interpreter Programs (AEIP) and four Deaf Studies Programs (DSP) in Canada identifi ed a number of common themes in particular to

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some ASL programs adopt “no voice” policies in their classrooms, and instructors and students are expected to follow those policies throughout. As noted earlier, the no voice rules are in line with general norms of Deaf culture and are often espoused by Deaf instructors (McDermid, 2009). However, such rules are sometimes relaxed by hearing teachers in certain circumstances (e.g., during office hours, during a one-on-one encounter with a student, or even during class time if a student may not be understanding a key point made by the instructor).…”
Section: Other Aspects Of Asl Instructionmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Some ASL programs adopt “no voice” policies in their classrooms, and instructors and students are expected to follow those policies throughout. As noted earlier, the no voice rules are in line with general norms of Deaf culture and are often espoused by Deaf instructors (McDermid, 2009). However, such rules are sometimes relaxed by hearing teachers in certain circumstances (e.g., during office hours, during a one-on-one encounter with a student, or even during class time if a student may not be understanding a key point made by the instructor).…”
Section: Other Aspects Of Asl Instructionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The teaching of ASL is superposed on the socio-cultural history of the Deaf community—a history that has been influenced greatly by interactions between Deaf and non-Deaf (i.e., hearing) people. Deaf people have endured much oppression by hearing people over the years (whether or not the purported oppression has been deliberate or not), and the complex dynamics of the interactions between the two communities have involved issues of disability, social capital, and general power differentials (Ladd, 2003; Lane, 1999; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan 1996; McDermid, 2009). 7 In many cases, Deaf instructors feel that they are subject to discrimination that is not evident in the experiences of their hearing colleagues (McDermid, 2009).…”
Section: The Socio-cultural Environment Of Asl Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A summary of nine scholarly arguments, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s when the status and academic value of ASL was being debated, is presented below. Arguments for and against ASL's acceptance as a for-credit foreign language are presented in conversation with each other in order to emphasize the complexity of the issue, which, in many cases, has been driven by audist beliefs (McDermid, 2009) and conflicting language ideologies rather than by evidence (Reagan, 2011). In the context of this dissertation, these arguments were embedded in the daily life of teachers, learners, administrators, the sign language community, and surely more, as part of a shared and ongoing history about the place of ASL in broader society.…”
Section: The Acceptance Of Asl As a Foreign Languagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examinations of Deaf and hearing cooperative workplaces and programs of research (where Deaf and hearing people are employed equally as staff members or researchers) highlight the entrenched (oppressive) nature of Deaf-hearing relations and the complexity of addressing the social, institutional and structural factors which serve to perpetuate the privilege of hearingness and oppression of deafness (e.g., Dickinson & Turner, 2008;McDermid, 2009;Young & Ackerman, 2001). Study 2 created the opportunity for health professionals, who interact with the health system on a frequent basis, to identify the barriers and issues they experience offering health services to people living with hearing loss or deafness.…”
Section: Studymentioning
confidence: 99%