Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works RIT Scholar Works

Presentations and other scholarship Faculty & Staff Scholarship

2-8-2019

Dissensus in Deaf Research: Scaffolding the Conflicts of Theory Dissensus in Deaf Research: Scaffolding the Conflicts of Theory

and Practice 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., "Dissensus in Deaf Research: Scaffolding the Conflicts of Theory and Practice" (2019). Accessed from https://scholarworks.rit.edu/other/989

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

ACEDHH 2019 Conference: “Connecting the Dots”Chicago, IL

Friday, February 8th , 2019

Slides available now, online: https://rit.academia.edu/MichaelSkyerFull text of proposal available 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 Deaf

Visual Pedagogy

Deficiency ideologies frustrate progress

Researchers and practitioners have different

goals, needs, methods

Theoretical obstruction: obscurity of vision in deaf

pedagogy

Dissensus in theorizing

PHILOSOPHY

§ In the early 1900s, Vygotsky described deaf pedagogy theory and practice as unsystematicand implored change. One hundred years later, Swanwick and Marschark (2010) call our work unsuccessful.

§ Dissensus is manifest 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). They continue: § “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 society more broadly. The lack of empirical research and empirical-driven theory on deaf visual pedagogy can directly harm deaf children in schools.

PHILOSOPHY

§ Dissensus has two analytic functions:

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

an antonym of consensus.

2) The CONTRASTIVE function allows us to compare and contrast divergent worldviews by placing together oppositional stances. o The contrastive function of dissensus

literally means two senses, brought together.

§ Dissensus marks the inevitable conflicts and disagreements arising from competing ideologies in democratic debate, scientific research, and philosophical discussion. Dissensus allows us to generate new meaning by comparing and contrasting worldviews.

§ Analyzing deaf education research reveals conflicts about axiology: valuation, ethics, bioethics, and aesthetics. In deaf research, these conflicts are the politics of the sensible and reflect its distribution among brokers of power.

Jacques Rancière (2010) and Ewa Ziarek (2001) describe dissensus as a tool of philosophy useful for analyzing conflicts of power, often in terms of political participation in democratic societies. Analysis is achieved through comparing different sensory distributions, examining aesthetic conflicts, contrasting discourses, and analyzing power struggles (Concorran & Rancière, 2010).

CONFLICTS

§ Deaf education and deaf education research suffer from insufficient theory about teaching and underdeveloped theory about pedagogical praxis using visual modes. The lack of theory and related research methods exacerbate already-complex problems related to how deaf student learning is conceptualized and researched.

§ Conflicts arise from diversity in professional orientations, disciplinary foci, paradigmatic variations, and researcher positionality. However, these conflicts are united by axiology. A dissensual reading of deaf research reveals:

§ a lack of understanding about the ethical and aesthetic values shaping the practices of deaf pedagogues and reveals to researchers the emergent potentiality of deaf-centric research on visual discourses in pedagogy.

§ Axiological conflict in deaf education research leads to "a nearly insurmountable gap between researchers and practitioners" (Easterbrooks, 2017, p. 25). Using dissensus as a lens in a critical synthesis of the literature on deaf education pedagogy uncovers structural problems, such as:§ the historical neglect of research related to visual

discourses in teaching§ differentials in power owing to divergent sensory

distributions§ sparse research about aesthetic and ethical values that

shape research methodologies and teaching methods

§ Axiological value conflicts stymie progress and obstruct:• strengths-based educational research • general theory of vision in deaf pedagogy• vetted resources for using deaf visual pedagogy• replicable methods for analyzing visual pedagogy

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

CONFLICTS

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

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

Axiological conflicts on deafness are different from but contribute to epistemological conflicts—e.g. disagreements about value delimit our knowledge about senses, cognition, language, communication, and power. Imbricated and unresolved conflicts constrain researchers, educators, and deaf students. They also exacerbate already complex, extant problems related to deaf learning, such as deaf bilingualism, deaf multimodality, and the role of vision in deaf pedagogy.

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

THEORY§ Vision acts as a boundary: vision is

comprehensible and fosters bilingual transfer via modal transduction (multimodal translanguaging). Vision is used extensively but research does not show how educators use, 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: 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/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

Learning and teaching with co-designed visual aestheticsRaike and colleagues (2009; 2014) use case study to demonstrate how deafeducators in teacher preparation programs use aesthetic principles for curriculumdesign via visual interfaces 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” (p. 404)

Deaf education &

visual aesthetics

Designing visual discourses and tools in technological communicationsMatiouk (2016) uses interviews, design workshops, and user-interface rubrics tohighlight the beneficent potentiality of visual, spatial, and embodied discourses as a

technological design resource in deaf education spaces..•“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” (p. 1123, citing Bauman and Murray, 2014, among many others)

Modulating power with vision in deaf education/ deaf cultural spaces• Davidson (2008), Humphries and McDougall (1999), and Kuntze and colleagues

(2014), use classroom observations to 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)

Vision as modulator of power in deaf

pedagogy

Deaf gains in visualcommunication

METHODOLOGY, METHODS

METHODOLOGY, METHODSPrinciples for designing and using deaf-centric, teaching-research methodologies are sparsely represented in the literature. The following images describe and synthesize a (multimethod) qualitative methodology using case study and grounded theory research designs.

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

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.

§ 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.