Archives

by monzo

The impact of COVID-19 on deaf students and accessibility in higher education

Mette Sommer Lindsay, Rachel England & Chijioke Obasi

Previous research has revealed institutional issues for both disabled and deaf students in higher education (Hendry et al. 2020, Kermit et al. 2018, Lang 2002, Dolmage 2017). In pre-pandemic times, deaf students experienced several challenges and barriers concerning communication and accessibility. For example, universities changing teaching schedules with minimal notice led to difficulties in guaranteed interpreter availability and ensuring interpreters were appropriately matched to students’ needs. As well as this, the use of incredibly poor automatic captions for videos or films shown in lectures affected deaf students. Additionally, studies have shown that the level of lecturers’ ‘deaf awareness’ impacts deaf students’ experiences during higher education (Lang 2002; Kermit et al. 2018; Hendry et al. 2020).

The recent pandemic has highlighted new and complex experiences and issues regarding accessibility for disabled students, including deaf students in higher education (DSUK 2020). The presentation will be based on our research project: “Unmasking inequalities: the impact of COVID on deaf students”. The research empirically investigates the impact of COVID on deaf students through data interviews with 60 deaf/HoH students, 40 academics/managers, 15 access and inclusion staff members based at universities, disability advisors and self-employed interpreters, notetakers and speech to text reporters.

Initial findings from our study have shown that the pandemic exposed complexities regarding accessibility and competing accessibility needs. An example of this was that many interview persons reported the issue of students having their camera off. Some deaf students had asked the other students in their class to turn their cameras on, but often their peers were not comfortable with this. However, refusing to turn the camera on might be about other accessibility issues, for example poverty.

Our study also identifies the difficulties faced when challenging this. One example shown was when some interpreters asked the lecturer to ask hearing peers to be in a less noisy environment while participating in online learning. However, this request would limit the hearing students’ mobility in an already exhausting situation such as that of the pandemic.

Another finding was that the transition from online teaching during lockdown to face to face teaching presented novel issues for signing deaf students. As reported by both students and disability advisors, it is challenging to find interpreters for entirely face-to-face lectures at short notice. Nevertheless, online interpreting was available. One disability advisor resorted to asking the lecturer to teach online, to ensure accessibility for deaf students (due to the interpreter only being available online).

However, there were some positive examples of accessibility identified, such as captions being provided during online or pre-recorded lectures. Students, academics, and disability advisors have reported that some universities are recommending captions for pre-recorded lectures, not only for deaf students, but also for those who use English as a second language. This highlights some positive examples of how the pandemic has changed opportunities for accessibility.

We will discuss the meaning of accessibility and how making access requests can be a sensitive issue. In addition, we will highlight discussions of differing perspectives on linguistic injustices and accessibility, as well as issues of race and diversity that occurred within our mixed research team of deaf, hearing, black and white individuals.

References:
Lang (2002): Higher Education for Deaf Students: Research Priorities in the New Millenium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 267–280.

Kermit, P & Holiman, S (2018): Inclusion in Norwegian Higher Education: Deaf Students’ Experiences with Lecturers. Social Inclusion 6(4), 158-167

Hendry, G; Hendry, A; Ige, H; McGrath, N (2020): “I was isolated and this was difficult”: Investigating the communication barriers to inclusive further/higher education for deaf Scottish students, Deafness & Education International, 1-28

Dolmage 2017: Academic ableism: disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press

DSUK 2020: Impact of the pandemic on disabled students and recommended measures. Disabled Students Union UK.

by monzo

Pass or Punish? An examination of the lived experiences of Irish-speakers and Irish Sign Language Users in the Irish Criminal Justice System

Dr Gearóidín McEvoy

In this paper I explore how Irish-speakers and Deaf Irish Sign Language (ISL) users interacted with the criminal justice system (CJS) in Ireland, and how the use of their language impacted their right to a fair trial. This paper presents analysis of data collected in semi-structured interviews with Irish-speakers and ISL-users who experienced the CJS as accused persons, lawyers who had experience representing such persons, employees of the Irish police service and academic experts. 

I will present two tropes arose which arose in the data to contextualise the experiences of Irish-speakers and ISL-users. First is the ‘créatúr’, coming from the Irish word meaning pitiful one, wretch or creature. It applied to Deaf people who were not seen as autonomous, competent beings. Secondly is the ‘slíbhín’ or the sneak or troublemaker. This trope applied to both Irish speakers and Deaf people. Those interviewed were not seen in light of their true identities and this impacted their journeys through the CJS. 

In terms of the effect of these tropes, interviewees were faced with either having to ‘pass’ or to be ‘punished’ when engaging with the CJS. They had to pretend not to be an Irish-speaker or a Deaf person, to ‘pass’ as ‘normal’ in order to be fairly treated. This process of passing is known to impact the self-image and esteem of people, by telling them that who they are is bad, wrong or even criminal. Otherwise, interviewees could display their true identities as Deaf or as Irish speaking and then suffer punishment. What this shows is that marginalised people can be forced to change who they are in order to experience fairness,  in spite of human rights, constitutional safeguards and legislative provisions which are supposed to guarantee fairness of trial, irrespective of language.

Keywords: Irish, Irish sign language, Deaf, ISL, criminal law, police, interpreter, language, identity, passing, punishment, crime

by monzo

The right to sign language as the right to an interpreter?

Hilde Haualand, Maartje De Meulder

Communicating to linguistically diverse audiences, including deaf people, is best achieved by using native languages and communication styles (Di Carlo et al 2022, Xu et al 2021, Pollard et al 2014). Although both deaf people, sign language interpreters and service providers experience considerable limits in communication even  with an interpreter  present, sign language interpreting services (SLIS) have become tied with ideologies of ‘access’ and ‘inclusion’ for deaf people (De Meulder & Haualand 2021). Notwithstanding  the legal recognition of sign languages in an increasing number of countries, governmental language policies  still often confine the right to sign languages as a right to SLIS, not as a right to access to language-concordant public services (De Meulder 2015).  Since the outbreak of Covid-19, there has been a rapid increase in the presence of sign language interpreters  at public briefings, but few governments have made an effort to provide public information in sign language outside these interpreted briefings. As such, the pandemic has probably contributed to reinforcing the ideology  of interpreting as accessibility and inclusion. In this presentation we will first discuss if a discourse that equals SLIS with “access” actually obstructs language-concordant information and service provision for deaf people. Then we will discuss if and how deaf associations contribute to this discourse by framing language rights as a disability and accessibility issue. It may be that this framing has been an efficient strategy to increase the presence of sign language in public settings, but with the unintended and detrimental consequence that the right to sign language is confined to interpretations of spoken language provided by mostly hearing second language users of sign language. 

De Meulder, M., & Haualand, H. (2021). Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion? Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 16(1), 19-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18008.dem

De Meulder, M. (2015). The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 498-506. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0018

by monzo

From Principles to Practice: Language Rights of Deaf Professionals

Wyatte C. Hall, Bill Millios, Kelby Brick

The past 50 years has seen American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting in the United States shift from community-based development (Deaf clubs, churches, and family members) to formal education, training, and professional standards. As this professionalization progressed, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act was an inflection point that created legal requirements for interpreters in a wide variety of everyday settings. This enabled more access to advanced education and professional opportunities for Deaf people. Organic growth and demand has led to over 140 interpreter education programs in the United States. The rapid increase of Deaf professionals in advanced fields, however, outpaces development and typical ASL interpreter qualifications. As institutions experience an influx of Deaf professionals in various academic, corporate, and clinical roles, they are often left without guidelines and practices tailored to Deaf professional work that will enable quality access in these high-stakes environments. One such institution with a large concentration of Deaf professionals is the University of Rochester Medical Center. In response to this, an effort to restructure Deaf professional interpreting services under its Office of Equity & Inclusion with a centralized budget for institution-wide access needs was undertaken. This restructuring included surveys, interviews, and focus groups with a wide variety of individuals that use, provide, and oversee interpreting services. A list of 10 foundational principles to provide high-quality access within a Deaf-centered language equity framework emerged from this stakeholder-driven process. Through these Principles, adverse and affirming practices were identified and some historically-viewed “best practices” were discovered to have adverse effects. Instead of practice driving principles, principles must drive practice. This work demonstrates that a committed institution can uplift marginalized language minority communities as fully-included members of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. We will share the principles, and discuss their application in various professional environments with Deaf people around the world.