Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works RIT Scholar Works

Presentations and other scholarship Faculty & Staff Scholarship

5-11-2020

Deaf Research Dissensus: Conflicts of Theory and Practice. Deaf Research Dissensus: Conflicts of Theory and Practice.

Michael E. Skyer Rochester Institute of Technology

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/other

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Skyer, Michael E., "Deaf Research Dissensus: Conflicts of Theory and Practice." (2020). Accessed from https://scholarworks.rit.edu/other/1001

This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff Scholarship at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Presentations and other scholarship by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact ritscholarworks@rit.edu.

DISSENSUSMichael E. SkyerPhD Candidate – University of Rochester

Senior Lecturer – National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology

Invited Talk at the behest of Dr. Matthew Dye – SPaCE Center & deaf x LabNational Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY (Via Zoom)

Monday, May 11th , 2020

Full text online: https://www.academia.edu/37112484/

STRUCTURE§ A philosophical framework for

understanding dissensus in deaf research

§ Conflicts undergirding dissensus in deaf education research

§ Theoretical approaches to conflict-mitigation regarding dissensus in deaf education research

§ Methodological approaches to conflict-mitigation regarding dissensus in deaf education research

§ References and resources for inquiry

Insufficient Research and Theory on Vision

in Deaf Pedagogy

Deficit ideologies that frustrate progress

Researchers and practitioners have different

goals, needs, methods

Theoretical obstruction: obscurity of vision

Dissensus

PHILOSOPHY:

§ In 1920, Vygotsky described deaf pedagogy theory and practice as unsystematic and implored change. One hundred years later, Swanwick and Marschark (2010) call our work unsuccessful.

§ Dissensus is manifested in the obstruction of productive theory; however, dissensus gives clarity relative to problems of axiology—§ the ethics and aesthetics which

regulate power in deaf education and research about it.

§ Deaf educational theorists need to develop ways to decipher the how and why of deaf visual pedagogy (Cawthon & Garberglio, 2017; p. ix)

§ “without an adequate research base, there cannot be effective practice. Without an understanding of the needs in deaf education, there cannot be research that supports effective practice." (p. xii).

Core Problem: Deafness breeds dissent – durable, structural conflicts disconnect researchers from teachers and deaf individuals from education and society. The lack of empirical research and empirical-driven theory on deaf visual pedagogy can directly harm deaf children in schools.

PHILOSOPHY:

§ Dissensus has two functions:

1) The AGONISTIC function allows us to recognize and name conflicts by revealing problems and making them available for inquiry.o antonym of consensus.

2) The CONTRASTIVE function allows us to compare and contrast divergent worldviews by placing together oppositional stances. o literally means two senses, brought

together.

§ Dissensus marks conflicts arising from competing ideologies in debates of science and philosophy. In deaf research, these conflicts are:§ the politics of the sensible§ the distribution of power

§ Conflicts arise from contrasting values:§ diversity in professional orientations,

disciplinary foci, paradigmatic variations, and researcher positionality.

§ Dissensus also allows us to generate new meaning by comparing and contrasting worldviews. Dissensus reveals conflicts about axiology: § valuation, ethics, bioethics, and

aesthetics.

Dissensus is a tool of philosophy useful for analyzing conflicts of power, in terms of political participation in democratic societies (Rancière, 2010; Ziarek, 2001). Analysis is achieved through comparing different sensory distributions, examining discursive conflicts, and analyzing power struggles (Concorran & Rancière, 2010).

CONFLICTS:

§ Example 1: Bifurcating the discursive coin: Communication and Language

§ Axiological conflict in deaf research leads to "a nearly insurmountable gap between researchers and practitioners" (Easterbrooks, 2017, p. 25).

§ Structural problems:§ marginal research on visual discourses in teaching

§ divergent sensory distributions = power disparity§ sparse research about aesthetic and ethical values in

research methodologies and teaching methods

§ Obstruction of progress:• lack of strengths-based educational research • no general theory of vision in deaf pedagogy• no vetted resources for using deaf visual pedagogy

• no replicable methods for analyzing visual pedagogy

Disagreements about value delimit our knowledge about senses, cognition, discourse, and power. Unresolved conflicts constrain researchers, educators, and deaf students and exacerbate already complex, extant problems related to deaf learning (e.g: deaf bilingualism, deaf multimodality, and vision in deaf pedagogy).

*Sacks, not Marschark, is correct in his classification.

CONFLICTS:

§ Teaching suffers: § a lack of understanding about

axiological values informing the practices of deaf deaf pedagogues

§ emergent potentiality of deaf-centric research on visual discourses in pedagogy.

§ Research suffers:§ insufficient theory about teaching and§ underdeveloped theory about

pedagogical praxis using visual modes.

§ Learning suffers:§ exacerbates already-complex problems

related to how deaf student learning is conceptualized and researched.

• Example 2: Graphic representation of Modality as Pendulum (From Lou, 1988, p. 76)

Researchers and pedagogues invested in deaf education are divided by conflicts of value. Unresolved ruptures in the axiology of deaf research preclude progress, stymie disciplinary innovation, and contribute to underwhelming academic achievement.

THEORY: § Vision acts as a boundary:

§ Vision, not hearing, delimits learning and teaching. Vision is comprehensible and fosters bilingual transfer via modal transduction (multimodal translanguaging). Research does not show: § how educators use it, why they use it, how they evaluate it, or

how to empirically measure it§ Garcia & Cole, 2014; Kress, 2011; Kusters, et al. 2017; Sutherland & Rogers, 2014

§ Dissensus is productive: § Dissensus collocates distal world-views to productively

analyze conflicts. The “distribution of the sensible” introduces aesthetics in relation to power in deaf visual pedagogy using visual discourses and tools.§ Ranciere, 2010; Reagan, 2011; Roots, 1999; Wrigley, 1996

§ Growing theory: § There exists an urgent need for a positive, creative

pedagogy inclusive to nonlinguistic modes of discourse that centralize vision in deaf research and teaching; leveraging visual strengths in biosocial interaction. § (e.g. cognition, literacy, learning, language, signacy, etc.)§ Bauman & Murray, 2014; Easterbrooks, 2017; Kuntze et al, 2014; Vygotsky, 1993; Wang, 2010

Vision delimits deaf

pedagogy

Dissensus is a critical mode of thought

Construction of new theory is imperative

synthesis of theory =sensitizing concepts to open inquiry

Problems=

Opportunities

THEORY: § Postulates from Dissensus in Deaf Research

§ Visual images, like languages, generate power; that power can be productive or destructive in deaf education. § Cherryholmes, 1999; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006; Ranciere, 2010

§ A positive and creative deaf pedagogy capacitates deaf students’ based on their visual strengths. § Bauman & Murray, 2014; Raike, Pylvänen, & Rainò 2014; Vygotsky, 1993

§ Deaf-centric research methods must be designed for educational inquiries that explicitly value vision in teaching and learning (e.g. ocularcentricity, multimodality, translanguaging)§ Kress, 2010; Sutherland & Rogers, 2014; Skyer 2020

Co-designed visual aesthetics in learning and teaching Case studies demonstrate how deaf educators in teacher preparation programs

use aesthetic principles in curriculum design and interactive discourse environments.

•“research in [co-design] lacks examination of the relation between Deaf people and interfaces in their social context, that is, how Deaf people constitute meanings in relation to their social milieu, how these meanings affect the aesthetics of these interactions, and how to organize results in a way that reflects the world as deaf people perceive it” (Raike et al. 2009; 2014, p. 404)

Deaf education &

visual aesthetics

Designing visual discourses and tools• Interviews, design workshops, and user-interface rubrics highlight the

beneficent potentiality of visual, spatial, and embodied discourses as deaf educational resources.

•“in addition to the extensive research on visual cognition there were certain psychological and social benefits of deaf signers documented, such as the benefits related to interpersonal relationships originating from the maintaining of eye-contact, or embodiment of reciprocity when together with others navigating through space” (Matiouk (2016) p. 1123, citing Bauman and Murray, 2014, among many others)

Modulating power with vision in deaf education/cultural spaces• Classroom observations analyze how deaf educators empower students with

emic cultural practices centered on visual modes and literacies. •“with bio-power, the optical is invested with an ability to govern and control quite apart from its relation to the senses” (Davidson, 2008, p. 178) (c.f. Humprhries & MacDougall 1999/2000; Kuntze et al (2014)

Visual powerin deaf

pedagogy

Deaf gains in visualcommunication

METHODOLOGY/METHODS:

METHODOLOGY/METHODS: Deaf-centric methodologies for reaching teaching are sparsely represented in deaf ed. The following images synthesize a (multimethod) qualitative methodology using case study and grounded theory research designs.

Unit of Analysis: Interactions and Definition of Cases (right) Methods (left)

DEAF RESEARCH DISSENSUS & VISION § Dissensus as problem

§ Conflicts create power differentials that (historically) disadvantage deaf learners, disempower teachers, and inadequately support researchers.

§ Dissensus as opportunity§ Analyzing dissensus

generates new productive powers for research, teaching, and learning, especially in domains that have been hidden by conflict, such as visual aesthetics and the ethics of deaf pedagogy.

§ As Vygotsky (1993) reminds us:

§ “We must proceed until every elementary teacher can teach even the deaf child and until each elementary school becomes simultaneously a school for the deaf ” (p. 91).

§ the center of gravity must shift (p. 208).

§ “These are the practical, theoretical, and methodological challengesof our time, which will be resolved, but only given our enthusiasm, optimism, and creativity” (Skyer, 2020, p. 589).

REFERENCES: § Bauman, H-D. L. & Murray, J.J. (2014). Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

§ Cawthon & Garberglio, (2017). Introduction to research in deaf education. In S.W. Cawthon and C.L. Garberglio (Eds.) Research in Deaf Education. (pp. ix-xvii). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

§ Charmaz, K. (2016). Constructing grounded theory. Second Edition. SAGE: Los Angeles, CA.

§ Cherryholmes, C. (1999). Reading pragmatism. Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

§ de Clerck, G.A.M. (2007). Meeting global deaf peers, visiting ideal deaf places: Deaf ways of education leading to empowerment, an exploratory case study. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 5-19).

§ Davidson, M. (2008). Tree tangled in tree: Re-sitting poetry through ASL. In K.A. Lindgren, D. DeLuca, & J.D. Napoli, (Eds.). Signs and voices: Deaf culture, identity, language, and arts. (pp. 177-88). Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC.

§ Easterbrooks, S. (2017). Conceptualization, development, and application of research in deaf education: From phenomenon to implementation. In S.W. Cawthon and C.L. Garberoglio (Eds.) Research in Deaf Education. (pp. 1-34). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

§ Enns, C. (2017). Making the case for case studies in deaf education research. In S.W. Cawthon and C.L. Garberoglio (Eds.) Research in Deaf Education. (pp. 203-224). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

§ Garcia, O. & Cole, D. (2014). Deaf gains in the study of bilingualism and bilingual education. In H-D. L. Bauman & J. J. Murray (Eds.) Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity. (pp. 95-111). University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.

§ Guting, S.I. (2005). Professional concerns of beginning teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(1), 17-40.

§ Humphries, T. & McDougall, F.M. (1999). “‘Chaining’ and other links: Making connections between American Sign Language and English in two types of school settings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15(2), 84-94.

§ Konecki, K.T. (2011). Visual grounded theory: A methodological outline and examples from empirical work. Revija za Sociologiju, 41(2), 131-160.

§ Kress, G. (2011). “Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach.” In R. Rogers (Ed.). Critical discourse analysis in education (2nd Ed.). Routledge: New York, NY.

§ Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design, (2nd Ed.). Routledge: New York, NY.

§ Kuntze, M. Golos, D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: Broadening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Language Studies, 14(2), 203-224.

§ Kusters, M. (2017). Intergenerational responsibility in deaf pedagogies. In A. Kusters, M de Meulder, D. O’Brien (Eds.). Innovations in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars. (pp. 241-264). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

§ Lou, M.W-P. (1988). The history of language use in the education of the Deaf in the United States. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language Learning and Deafness, pp.75-98. Cambridge Applied Linguistics, Cambridge, UK.

§ Marlatt, E.A. (2002). Images of teacher, students, and the classroom held by preservice and in-service educators of students whoare deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 346-259.

§ Marschark, M., Paivio, A. Spencer, L.J., Durkin, A., Borgina, G., Convertino, C., & Machmer, E. (2017). Don’t assume deaf students are visual learners. Journal of Developmental Physical Disabilities, 29, 155-71.

§ Matiouk, S. (2016). Re-imagining deafness as a resource for design. In H. C. Mayr and M. Pinzger (Chairs): INFORMATIK 2016: Lecture notes in informatics (LNI), Gesellschaft fur Informatik, Bonn, DE.

§ Perniss, P. (2015). “Collecting and analyzing sign language data: Video requirements and use of annotation software.” In E. Orfanidou, B. Woll, and G. Morgan (Eds.). Research methods in sign language studies. Wiley Blackwell: West Sussex, UK.

§ Pizzo, L. (2013). Vocabulary instruction for the development of American Sign Language in deaf children: An investigation into teacher knowledge and practice. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Boston College Electronic Dissertation repository. http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3237

§ Raike, A., Pylvänen, S., & Rainò, P. (2014). Co-design from divergent thinking. In Bauman, H- D. & Murray, J., (Eds.) Deaf Gain:Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity, (pp. 402-420). University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.

§ Rancière, J., & Concorran, S. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK.

§ Reagan, T. (2011). Ideological barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking linguistic resistance. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 606-636.

§ Roots, J. (1999). The politics of visual language: Deafness, language choice, and political socialization. Carleton University Press: Ontario, Canada.

§ Sacks, O. (1990). Seeing Voices: A journey into the world of the Deaf. Vintage: New York, NY.

§ Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage: London, UK.

§ Skyer, M. E. (2020). Invited article: The bright triad and five propositions: Toward a Vygotskian framework for deaf pedagogyand research. American Annals of the Deaf, 164(5), 577–591.

§ Smith, M. (2010). “Opening our eyes: The complexity of competing visual demands in interpreted classrooms.” In, K.M. Christensen (Ed.). Ethical considerations in educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Gallaudet University Press: Washington, DC.

§ Sutherland, H. & Rogers, K.D. (2014). The hidden gain: A new lens of research with d/Deaf children and adults. In Bauman, H-D. &Murray, J., (Eds.) Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity, (pp. 269-284). University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.

§ Swanwick, R. & Marschark, M. (2010). Enhancing education for deaf children: research into practice and back again. Deafness and Education International, 12(4), 217-235.

§ Vygotsky, L.S. (1993). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities), Vol. 2. Plenium Press, New York, NY.

§ Wang, Y. (2010). Without boundaries: An inquiry into deaf epistemologies through a metaparadigm. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 428-434.

§ Wrigley, O. (1996). The Politics of deafness. Gallaudet University Press: Washington, DC.

§ Ziarek, E. P. (2001). An ethics of dissensus: Postmodernity, feminism, and the politics of radical democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.