Abstract
This methodology textbook first describes a number of theoretical models, perspectives and related epistemologies of performing research about deaf people and deaf communities. Subsequently, its practical chapters describe ethical practices; sampling; narrative analysis; issues of interpretation, transcription and translation; and information and communication technology. The authors capture the diversity of perspectives on deaf people in research very well. This is the strength of the book: Young and Temple know the Deaf Studies literature and succeed in conveying this knowledge to their readers.
Deaf Studies as a field has existed for 40 years, and while its focus has varied from sign linguistics to psychology to education, one thing has remained constant: Deaf Studies is largely led by hearing people. This book, the first ever methodology textbook in Deaf Studies (despite this focus being downplayed to a subtitle), reproduces this pattern: both authors are hearing and one has, by her own admission, had little or no contact with the deaf community. Whilst they are aware that deaf people ‘have only recently begun to be accepted within academic life as producers rather than subjects of research’ (p. 6), they perpetuate this situation. Throughout the book they attempt to deflect potential criticism of their maintenance of this dominance by pointing at parallels between deaf people and women/feminism. But would a book written about feminist approaches to social research written by two men be published without being questioned? Young and Temple should have offered an in-depth discussion of why they felt there were no deaf academics able to co-author this book. By not confronting this issue, they are perpetuating the power imbalances in the field.
Their discussion of methods does not challenge the status quo in the discipline in the way the field of Deaf Studies requires. Young and Temple try to move past the traditional (outdated) medical, cultural and social models by describing deaf ontologies. However, recognition of ontologies must impact on research methodology too. What about methods that emerge from deaf ontologies, from inside the (thoroughly visual) experience of being deaf? What about data elicitation and dissemination in visual ways (signed quotes, websites, documentary film, photos)? Many researchers perform research in deaf communities other than their own, often in non-western contexts. How does this impact on methodologies and ethical considerations? A section on participant observation and ethnography is missing, as well as a more expansive discussion on ethics, particularly reciprocity to the deaf community, and how to disseminate findings accessibly. These are pressures and responsibilities that can possibly be felt more strongly by deaf than by hearing researchers in deaf communities, and Young and Temple’s lack of a deaf co-author is particularly telling here.
As a comprehensive encyclopedia of traditional Deaf Studies research methodologies, this book works very well and it is thus suitable for teaching Deaf Studies students; but it is so particularly if the book is complemented with a reading of recent texts on the above-mentioned subjects.