Groupthink
Blackburn
the room” that maintains research in Deaf Education is rarely replicable because deaf people are
“special” or part of a special education system. This exceptionality model creates a population of
deaf students that are at risk of going unreported. Consequently, deaf students are characterized as
too small and heterogeneous a group for standardized scientific study.
It was this concept that confused me the most as a K-12 educator turned doctoral student,
and continued to baffle me until I engaged in postdoctoral research at the University of Arizona
and in a charter school setting. As a deaf educator, my teacher colleagues and I implemented a
“Universal Design” modus operandi of teaching before the term was coined. I found myself in a
wider scope of research where I could see best teaching practices in action when they addressed
deaf students as a group. Most astounding for me to this day is how hearing students could benefit
from the education of deaf students, which was the case in the Arizona charter school. The teachers
of the deaf out in the field do not have this opportunity. This means that faced with the obstacle of
having no “working curriculum,” teachers working with deaf students resort to making do with
the customary academic standards via the individualized education plan, or IEP. Strong and clear
guidance from the deaf education establishment is much needed.
Established Academic Writing Conventions Should be Retained and Built Upon (p. xv).
Cawthon & Garberoglio establish in-group guidelines early in the textbook, determining that
academic writing conventions that describe deaf students’ worldviews are, “both cumbersome, and
at times, nonsensical” (p. xvi). The editors also conclude that cultural identity is fluid and should
not be assumed by using English print conventions (i.e., persons who are medically deaf versus
culturally Deaf persons). Admittedly, I agree with their observation to a certain extent and have
had similar discussions within my own circle of researchers. My concern is that while setting the
stage for this textbook, the editors and authors determined that rather than objectively determine
alternatives and options that build upon or explain standard writing conventions, they unilaterally
discarded standard scientific practice that is observed beyond the field of Deaf Education to avoid
addressing discomfort or disharmony during the publishing process. When I read this information
in the textbook, I immediately lost trust as a reader in the works to follow.
Deaf Education Research is Not Educational Research (p. xiv). Deaf Education research
not nestled within Educational research overall is most unsettling for me. The first statement in
this textbook is, the subject matter addressed therein was originally declined as a panel presentation
proposal for an Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. On the contrary,
Deaf Education research if rooted at all, can be found within the fields of Communication
Disorders, Special Education and Educational Psychology. Considering the authors’ departmental
affiliations and research background provides important insight into the worldviews of the authors
who contributed to this textbook.
For example, Trezek and Wang (Chapter 13) attempt to implement randomized
experimental design (considered the Council of Exceptional Children’s “gold standard of
educational research design” for hearing children with special learning needs) to determine what
effective reading instruction should look like among deaf student populations. The outcome of
their literature examination resulted in an inclusion criteria that eliminated students instructed in
American Sign Language:
Studies reported the result of intervention research investigations that were
conducted in English were targeted for this review… Studies were excluded if the
intervention did not specifically target reading instruction such as those that taught
poetry or vocabulary in American Sign Language… (p. 282)
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
55