挑战 "规范":对聋人听力对比研究的批判性审视。

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Leala Holcomb, Wyatte Hall, Stephanie J Gardiner-Walsh, Jessica Scott
{"title":"挑战 \"规范\":对聋人听力对比研究的批判性审视。","authors":"Leala Holcomb, Wyatte Hall, Stephanie J Gardiner-Walsh, Jessica Scott","doi":"10.1093/jdsade/enae048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study critically examines the biases and methodological shortcomings in studies comparing deaf and hearing populations, demonstrating their implications for both the reliability and ethics of research in deaf education. Upon reviewing the 20 most-cited deaf-hearing comparison studies, we identified recurring fallacies such as the presumption of hearing ideological biases, the use of heterogeneously small samples, and the misinterpretation of critical variables. Our research reveals a propensity to based conclusions based on the norms of white, hearing, monolingual English speakers. This dependence upholds eugenics ideas and scientific ableism, which reinforces current power dynamics that marginalize the epistemologies and lived experiences of deaf populations. Going forward, it will be imperative for deaf people to be included in meaningful roles in deaf-related research as active contributors who help define the whole research process. Without this shift, the research risks remaining detached from the very populations it seeks to understand.</p>","PeriodicalId":47768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging the \\\"norm\\\": a critical look at deaf-hearing comparison studies in research.\",\"authors\":\"Leala Holcomb, Wyatte Hall, Stephanie J Gardiner-Walsh, Jessica Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jdsade/enae048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study critically examines the biases and methodological shortcomings in studies comparing deaf and hearing populations, demonstrating their implications for both the reliability and ethics of research in deaf education. Upon reviewing the 20 most-cited deaf-hearing comparison studies, we identified recurring fallacies such as the presumption of hearing ideological biases, the use of heterogeneously small samples, and the misinterpretation of critical variables. Our research reveals a propensity to based conclusions based on the norms of white, hearing, monolingual English speakers. This dependence upholds eugenics ideas and scientific ableism, which reinforces current power dynamics that marginalize the epistemologies and lived experiences of deaf populations. Going forward, it will be imperative for deaf people to be included in meaningful roles in deaf-related research as active contributors who help define the whole research process. Without this shift, the research risks remaining detached from the very populations it seeks to understand.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究批判性地审视了聋人和听人比较研究中的偏差和方法缺陷,展示了它们对聋教育研究的可靠性和伦理的影响。在回顾了 20 项被引用次数最多的聋人与健听人对比研究后,我们发现了一些反复出现的谬误,如对健听人意识形态偏见的假定、异质性小样本的使用以及对关键变量的误读。我们的研究揭示了一种倾向,即以白人、听力正常、单语英语使用者的标准为基础得出结论。这种依赖性维护了优生学思想和科学能力主义,强化了当前的权力动态,使聋人群体的认识论和生活经验边缘化。展望未来,当务之急是让聋人在与聋人相关的研究中发挥有意义的作用,成为帮助确定整个研究过程的积极贡献者。如果没有这种转变,研究就有可能继续脱离其试图了解的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging the "norm": a critical look at deaf-hearing comparison studies in research.

This study critically examines the biases and methodological shortcomings in studies comparing deaf and hearing populations, demonstrating their implications for both the reliability and ethics of research in deaf education. Upon reviewing the 20 most-cited deaf-hearing comparison studies, we identified recurring fallacies such as the presumption of hearing ideological biases, the use of heterogeneously small samples, and the misinterpretation of critical variables. Our research reveals a propensity to based conclusions based on the norms of white, hearing, monolingual English speakers. This dependence upholds eugenics ideas and scientific ableism, which reinforces current power dynamics that marginalize the epistemologies and lived experiences of deaf populations. Going forward, it will be imperative for deaf people to be included in meaningful roles in deaf-related research as active contributors who help define the whole research process. Without this shift, the research risks remaining detached from the very populations it seeks to understand.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal integrating and coordinating basic and applied research relating to individuals who are deaf, including cultural, developmental, linguistic, and educational topics. JDSDE addresses issues of current and future concern to allied fields, encouraging interdisciplinary discussion. The journal promises a forum that is timely, of high quality, and accessible to researchers, educators, and lay audiences. Instructions for contributors appear at the back of each issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信