Inclusive Education and Personal Development

Author(s): Irene W. Leigh

Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 236-
245
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42658514
Accessed: 06-04-2020 15:52 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Inclusive Education and Personal Development

Irene W. Leigh
Gallaudet University

Open-ended questionnaires covering mainstream educa- affects identity and personal development. We need to
tional experiences and personal development of deaf and ask ourselves what it really means to be the only deaf
hard-of-hearing adults were analyzed. Half of the 34 deaf
child or youth in a hearing classroom in terms of self-
and hard-of-hearing respondents altered self-labels based
on changes in personal definitions rather than audiological
perceptions, social growth, and relationships. In es-
changes. Supportive school environments and coping skills sence, how does such an experience affect the deaf or
contributed to positive perceptions; nonsupportive school hard-of-hearing person's construction of an identity
environments and being treated as "different" were viewed
that takes into account perceived relationships with the
negatively. Everyone valued contact with hearing peers. Con-
larger society and the role of deafness in this relation-
tact with deaf peers depended on finding those with similar
values. Identification with Deaf culture was nonexistent. ship. This article reports an attempt to explore this
question through a survey of deaf and hard-of-hearing
Most noteworthy, 24 of 34 participants felt caught between
the deaf and hearing worlds, indicating the need for niches
adults regarding perceptions about schooling, identity,
in both. Implications for educators are that development of
and affiliation with Deaf and hearing communities.
self-confidence and comfort with identity may be enhanced
While this study is retrospective in nature, identity and
by validating the deafness dimension through opportunities
personal development are clearly products of past ex-
for contact with deaf adults and positive relationships with
both deaf and hearing peers. perience, and scrutinizing the perceptions of those past
experiences should enhance our understanding of the
Mainstreaming of deaf children and youths has been
impact of one's educational experiences in personal de-
around for quite a while, even before PL94-142 (Hig-
velopment as it relates to being deaf or hard of hearing.
gins, 1990; Moores, 1992). Recently, educators have
been giving increasing attention to inclusion, with its
Conceptualizations of Identity
emphasis on including children with disabilities, in-
cluding deafness, in regular classrooms for every edu-
Identity is basically the representation of the self (Bau-
cational activity (Stinson & Leigh, 1995). Althoughmeister,
the 1997). It is increasingly apparent that the self
implications of this educational philosophy are many,
is in many ways a complex social construction, evolv-
the focus of this article is on how inclusion potentially
ing out of various interactions with others in multiple
social contexts (Baumeister, 1997; Grotevant, 1992;
I thank Michael S. Stinson for his assistance in the development of sur-
Harter,
vey questions for this article and the Alexander Graham Bell Association 1997; Kroger, 1996). This evolution is a multi-
for the Deaf for its cooperation in recruiting survey participants. Corre-
dimensional, reflexive process involving psychological
spondence should be sent to Irene W. Leigh, Department of Psychology,
motivation, cultural knowledge, and the ability to per-
800 Florida Avenue N.E., Washington, DC 20002 (e-mail: Irene.Leigh
@gallaudet.edu). form appropriate roles (Fitzgerald, 1993). These roles
©1999 Oxford University Press. have been shaped by the individual's social positions,

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Personal Development 237

but at the same time they are significantly influenced
by the mediated environments in which most of us live
today. There is often a process of restructuring when
new information about oneself emerges. Hence, our
identity is very much influenced by the responses of
others and molded by past and ongoing experience, a
process that continues through the life span (Grot-
evant, 1992). As such, it is an aspect of psychological
functioning that is critical for a sense of well-being and
positive personal development (Waterman, 1992).
Woodward (1997) argues that identities are forged
through perceptions of difference and are frequently
constructed in terms of oppositions. This leads to the
establishment of classificatory structures that incorpo-
rate fundamental distinctions between "us" and "them."
For the purpose of this article, one is either hearing or
not hearing, and inherent in the meaning of "not hear-
ing" labels, whether deaf, hearing-impaired, or hard of
hearing, is the assumption of difference/ opposition to
a standard of normalcy as represented by the majority
group, in this case the hearing group (Davis, 1995;
Higgins, 1980). Although this dimension is only one
aspect of identity, it has profound implications for per-
sonal adjustment and connections with others (Hig-
lens of student narratives on race, gender, and aca-
demic engagement. Through her examination of ado-
lescent voices and perspectives, she reveals how iden-
tity and academic engagement are influenced not only
by societal and cultural forces but by ordinary, day-to-
day interactions and practices within educational set-
tings. Ultimately, schools and the interpersonal rela-
tionships that evolve within the school setting do make
a difference in the ways they contribute to the forma-
tion and reconstruction of identity as a process of per-
sonal development (Grotevant, 1992). Consequently,
the way a student engages in school activities also may
be associated with self-perceptions related to identity
In a review of the literature related to extracurricular
participation and adolescent development, Holland
and Andre (1987) find in general that such participa-
tion correlates with higher levels of self-esteem, in-
volvement in political/social activity in young adult-
hood, educational aspirations and attainments, and
feelings of control over one's life, among others.
The Deaf Dimension
For the deaf student in the mainstream setting, the ex-

gins & Nash, 1996; Leigh & Lewis, in press). It is a tent of participation within interpersonal contexts is
dimension whose labels tend to indicate choices about very much contingent on a multiplicity of factors, in-
self-representations. These labels also have the power cluding, but not limited to, communication skills, per-
to create perceptions of who the person may prefer to sonality and level of assertiveness, acceptance by peers,
socialize and connect with in terms of deaf-hearing di- academic achievement, and the like. The philosophy of
mensions. Specifically, "hearing impaired," "hard of inclusion presupposes that increasing the extent to
hearing," "deaf," and "Deaf" convey meanings about which deaf students are mainstreamed increases the

perceptions of hearing loss as well as the nature of con- likelihood that they will identify with hearing peers.
nections with hearing and deaf persons. For example, This leads to the implication that the definition of so-
persons who label themselves as hard of hearing will cial success is contingent upon "making it with hearing
create perceptions that they are more inclined to inter- peers." If one does not have hearing friends, "not mak-
act through spoken communication with hearing peers. ing it" with hearing peers will affect personal devel-
opment.
Stinson, Chase, and Klu win (1990) present evi-
The Role of the School
dence indicating that more contact with hearing peers
The school environment is a place where one learns does not necessarily result in closer relationships. In
about oneself within specific types of group settings panels of "successfully" mainstreamed deaf adoles-
and socialization experiences. Based on findings sug- cents, there continues to be a refrain of the struggle to

gesting potential relationships between educational gain acceptance and frequent need to deal with subtle
contexts and identity evolution, Davidson (1996), in a hearing biases against them at the very least, such as
study with hearing high school students, explores the interacting with them in school but often neglecting to
making and molding of identity in schools, using the include them in weekend activities not involving school

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
238 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4:3 Summer 1999

(Leigh, 1994). Meadow-Orlans (1996) maintains thatLanguage (ASL) is a foundation, adaptation to deaf-
deaf students in mainstreamed high school settings ness is not an "adjustment" to hearing loss or a handi-
whose communication needs set them apart from peerscap to overcome but rather a way of life and a way of
and who are "different" will have negative socializationrelating to others. Enculturation can take place at vari-
experiences that clearly will influence identity. A vari-ous stages of life since most deaf children are born to
ety of research studies (e.g., Greenberg & Kusche, hearing parents (Schein, 1989). Clearly, perceptions
1989; Ladd, Munson, & Miller, 1984; Moores, Klu- about self/identity and relationship experiences with
win, & Mertens, 1985; Stinson & Kluwin, 1996) dem- hearing and deaf persons will be associated with vary-
onstrate that variations in the perceived quality of so- ing degrees of gravitation toward the deaf community
cial experiences of deaf adolescents in local schools areand Deaf culture in particular.
relevant for identity and in turn for social adjustment.
Results from Stinson and Kluwin's (1996), study sug-
Understanding the Inclusion Experience
gest that structured activities within school programs
that bring deaf students oriented to and comfortable For deaf students, the push toward inclusion within ed-
with both hearing and deaf students together outside ucational settings means that a critical mass of deaf
of the classroom are a critical factor, in comparison topeers will sometimes not be available to provide social
students oriented to neither group or to hearing peers. choices and facilitate connections with the deaf com-
Additionally, shared ways of communicating with peers munity. This may be partly because of practices that
and the level of effective communication have profound place deaf students in local schools in which they are
implications for whether students connect with hear- likely to be the only deaf student. As noted earlier, suc-
ing and deaf peers. By extrapolation, taking into ac- cessful connections with hearing peers are possible but
count a life span perspective, these social experiences fraught with difficulties. Meanings of sameness and
within school settings are bound to influence later per- difference, the process of defining the self as related to
ceptions of self in interaction with others and prefer-hearingness and deafness, perceptions of communica-
ences for hearing or deaf peers. Moschella (1992) inter- tion skills as adequate or inadequate, and the nature of
viewed a group of deaf and hard-of-hearing adults from personal development are bound to be influenced by
spoken and sign language backgrounds and concluded this type of school experience.
that growing up in strictly oral settings had a profound We now have a large group of deaf and hard-of-
negative impact on deaf respondents in terms of their hearing adults throughout the United States and Can-
emotional well-being and self-esteem. Increased con- ada who were educated in an inclusion setting and
tact with deaf peers during early adulthood led to im- therefore are able to reflect on that experience. These
provement in general quality of life. reflections have the potential to help us understand
This increased contact with deaf peers indicates a what enhances and what detracts from positive per-
reaching out to the deaf community. For the purpose of sonal development within an inclusion setting and how
discussion, the deaf community is a very diverse entity these might influence current adult perceptions of
representing a broad spectrum of deaf and hearing per- identity and connection with others related to deaf and
sons connected in varying degrees because they see hearing communities. The purpose of the survey to be
deafness as a common bond of interest that draws them reported here was to get some idea of what these re-
together, whatever the reason (Corker, 1994; Higgins, flections might be with the hope of helping educational
1980, Humphries, 1993; Padden, 1980; Paul & Jack- systems facilitate personal development.
son, 1993; Schein, 1989). Recently, the existence of a
Deaf culture component within the deaf community
Method
has emerged into national consciousness (e.g., Padden,
1980; Padden & Humphries, 1988; Paul & Jackson, Participants. The Oral Hearing Impaired Section
1993). Within this culture, for which American Sign (OHIS) of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Personal Development 239

the Deaf (AGB) consists of deaf and hard-of-hearing than belonging to Deaf culture, 2 individuals said their
adults who typically depend on speech as the preferred hearing was definitely impaired, 2 felt "deaf" was the
mode of communication. Participants consisted of 34 easiest category for those with cochlear implants, and
individuals on an OHIS mailing list who were willing 2 felt that "hearing-impaired" reflected type of func-
to fill out the questionnaire. These individuals had tioning better than what they perceived to be the more
considerable experience in classes with hearing stu- limiting meaning of deafness.
dents. As indicated by the content of their answers, When asked whether they had always thought of
participants ranged from those near the end of high themselves in terms of their selected category or
school to senior citizens. whether their label had changed, 50% (17) of the re-
spondents reported their self-label remained constant
Instrument. For the purpose of this study, a 12-item while the other 17 reported on various reasons for label
open-ended questionnaire was designed to solicit per- change. For 3 it was an actual loss of hearing, whereas
ceptions about identity related to hearing loss, the roles 14 responded to new perceptions of different labels and
of school environments in this particular aspect of changed to what they felt worked better for them. For
identity development, current socialization prefer- example, one saw "hearing-impaired" as a new buzz
ences, and perceptions about Deaf culture (see the Ap- word; one changed from "deaf" to "hearing-impaired"
pendix). to "hard of hearing" and then went back to "hearing-
impaired" because of what the literature showed; one
Procedure. With the permission of the AGB, one out of predicated choice of labels depending on who was be-
every four OHIS members (100 in all) received a copy ing spoken to (i.e., "deaf" to a deaf person, "hard of
of the survey questionnaire together with an explana- hearing" to a hearing person); one went through iden-
tion covering the purposes of this study. Due to the tity crises related to struggles with being part of Deaf
time involved in qualitative analysis of written answers, culture as opposed to oral before choosing to be oral
it was not possible to include every member. Confi- first, deaf second (as disability), and so on.
dentiality was assured and participants signed a con- Twenty out of the 34 participants attended public
sent form if they were willing to have responses used schools during their middle and high school years. One
that might reveal their identity. Out of the 42 who re- reported attendance at a school for the deaf during
sponded, 8 were deleted since they were not deaf dur- those years while 13 went to private, parochial, or ei-
ing their educational years, resulting in a total of 34 ther one combined with public schools, or a school for
usable questionnaires. the deaf. Regarding the 33 who reported mainstream
experiences, 19 had no deaf or hard-of-hearing peers
and 14 indicated they had deaf or hard-of-hearing
Results
peers. Of those 14, 3 named deaf and hard-of-hearing
siblings as peers and 3 others saw 1 or 2 deaf or hard-
Of the 341 respondents, 16 labeled themselves as deaf,
of-hearing
four as hard of hearing, 12 as hearing-impaired, 1 as peers within the school but reported no
contact with them. Twenty-four participants com-
someone with a hearing loss, and 1 chose to be oral
mented on the school environment. Of these, five per-
first, deaf second. Four of the deaf respondents volun-
sons with public school backgrounds reported nonsup-
teered information that they were deaf rather than
Deaf (referring to Deaf culture) while 15 reliedportive
on academic or social environments. For example,
one felt labeled as defective, another commented on be-
definitions that were not audiological. Of note is that
ing made to feel "different," and one could not under-
there were 13 multiple classifications such as "hearing-
stand what was being said in classes. A majority of
impaired first, deaf second." Asked why they selected
those reporting supportive environments wrote about
their particular category, 19 provided audiological def-
initions while 15 relied on functional definitions. For
supportive teachers who provided needed attention
and friendly social environments. Challenging, disci-
example, out of the 15, 3 stated they were deaf rather

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
240 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4:3 Summer 1999
relaxed in contrast to socializing with deaf peers and
plined, and structured school settings appear to have
were guarded with new hearing acquaintances until
been conducive to positive perceptions of school expe-
signs of acceptance emerged. Transitions from being
riences, whether or not specific support services were
provided.
When asked about how school experiences affected
one's identity, 19 participants commented on positive
influences while 13 participants delineated negative
perceptions. Many positive comments related to over-
coming disability, accepting oneself as deaf, function-
ing comfortably in a hearing world, not being singled
out as deaf or "different," and good self-esteem. Ex-
amples of negative responses included the following:
wrestling with the idea deaf people cannot do what
they want, feelings of insecurity, dependency or self-
consciousness related to being the only deaf person and
getting special attention, perceptions of isolation and
catering to the dominant group, shy personality in con-
junction with rough experiences, lower self-confidence,
and difficulties in comparing oneself to hearing peers
since deaf peers were not available. Two respondents
reported more mixed perceptions such as being lonely
and going through tough times, combined with having
close friends and excelling in some areas. One wrote
about being intellectual, Catholic, and Black, stating
that being deaf was not a factor in identity development
per se but the ability to cope with a major disability
was. Another mentioned self-confidence and successful
oral identity. Most of the responses related to feelings
about oneself and one's experiences rather than being
specifically about identification with deaf or with hear-
ing peers.
Perceived relationships with hearing peers ap-
peared to be very good, with no responses indicating
rejection of such relationships. Sixteen participants
wrote about appreciating diversity in relationships,
having good relationships with hearing peers, socializ-
ing only with hearing persons, liking people based on
values rather than hearing status, and seeing these rela-
tionships as "my life." The other 18 individuals were
somewhat equivocal regarding such relationships. For
example, communication difficulties might interfere
and cause frustration, but there was potential for work-
ing these out. Group situations tended to cause feelings
of exclusion, which were compensated for by positive
relationships with individuals. Some saw relationships
with hearing peers as comfortable but never completely
This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
overanxious to greater self-confidence were reported,
particularly when respondents could rationalize rejec-
tion by hearing persons by, for example, calling them
"jerks."
In contrast, there were negative written descrip-
tions (eight participants) regarding feelings about rela-
tionships with deaf peers. These were related to lack of
accessible peers with similar values and rejecting or be-
ing rejected by deaf peers who are not comfortable with
oral values. Positive perceptions of interactions with
deaf peers were reported by 15 individuals. They felt
that deaf peers were like family; there was no need to
prove anything to them with the presence of a common
understanding about life experiences as deaf persons.
One described such associations as having "an element
of both relaxation and invigoration." Some indicated
positive self-perceptions coming out of these interac-
tions. Those who were more equivocal (11 participants)
strongly indicated problems with deaf persons who
objected to oral values and rejected them. Respon-
dents who could sign did not appreciate the militancy
of some Deaf culture components and preferred those
who were "open-minded." What they tended to ap-
preciate was the opportunity to connect with those
deaf peers having similar values.
When asked to state feelings about Deaf culture
specifically, respondents tended to be quite explicit in
their opinions. Sixteen respondents felt that Deaf cul-
ture was a foreign concept that separated deaf persons
from the mainstream and minimized interactive possi-
bilities because of negative attitudes toward hearing
and oral deaf persons. One felt that having an impair-
ment does not set one up for a separate culture. Others
said, "My hearing loss is part of who I am rather than
defining who I am," and "I abhor it. How dare anyone
place a value judgment on my choice to hear, listen, and
speak!" The four participants who viewed Deaf culture
more positively indicated in general that they saw Deaf
culture as a good place for signing deaf persons but not
for themselves unless they had sign skills. Fourteen
who were equivocal could see the advantages of Deaf
culture for signing deaf persons but felt it to be limiting
in terms of connections with diverse people and ex-

tremely constricting where politics was concerned. In
other words, there was no flexibility in terms of politi-
cal beliefs, and respondents did not appreciate that.
They felt more connected to hearing or oral deaf peers
with more similar outlooks on approaches to life.
Thirteen respondents reported no exposure to deaf
adults while in school. One expressed a wish that deaf
adults had been around during adolescence to serve as
role models. Several reported a positive influence upon
initial exposure as adults. Nineteen respondents whose
identities or self-perceptions were favorably influenced
by deaf adults made comments related to inspirational
aspects, increased self-acceptance as well as self-con-
fidence in dealing with significant obstacles and in in-
teracting with a hearing world, minimization of a sense
of isolation, and career mentoring. One deaf partici-
pant commented that while deaf adults who excelled
were admired, some were angry at parents pushing
them, did not accept their deafness, and appeared to
have chips on their shoulders. This was described as
"pretty sad!"
All respondents belonged to AGB with most re-
porting membership in OHIS as well. In terms of ad-
ditional organizational memberships, 20 respondents
listed one or more organizations related to deaf or
hard-of-hearing issues, resulting in a total of 14 local
and national organizations. Relevant to identity issues,
one deaf participant joined the National Black Deaf
Advocates for nominal reasons related to Black identity.
One felt that a one year membership in the National
Association for the Deaf was a "source of pain." The
Association of Late Deafened Adults was perceived by
one respondent as "more hearing oriented" than OHIS
and stimulating, while three participants felt Self Help
for the Hard of Hearing was the most relevant to their
needs, one specifying "in terms of giving wide recogni-
tion and identity to those who live with ambiguity" (see
below for clarification of ambiguity). Fifteen out of 34
respondents mentioned the great networking opportu-
nities with supportive peers in AGB/OHIS, which
were described as, for example, encouraging, strength-
ening, and inspirational, with positive influence on
self-perceptions. One deaf person who occasionally
crosses over into Deaf culture reported some conflicts
because of lack of support by AGB members for "cul-
tural difference."
This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Personal Development 241
When asked about connections with the hearing
community, a large majority of the participants (25)
saw themselves as belonging to that group. Eight re-
ported some ambiguity in terms of yes and no, not in
either hearing or deaf communities, or belonging to the
world. One person felt more connected to a "hard-of-
hearing" community. When asked about connections to
the deaf community, responses were more varied. Six
individuals reported feeling connected to the deaf
community, with four of these specifying individuals
with similar oral backgrounds. Nineteen said, "no";
one of them commenting that there should not be such
an entity as a deaf community. Three responses re-
flected ambiguity in terms of not belonging in either
the deaf or hearing communities. Two reported belong-
ing to the world in general.
In terms of reasons for or against connections with
the deaf and hearing communities, 1 1 saw themselves
as fully mainstreamed, with no relationships to the deaf
community, and very much valued relationships with
the hearing community. The perception that it was nat-
ural to associate with hearing peers was noted. One
member of this group equated success in interacting
with the hearing world as rationale for being entirely in
the hearing community. Four participants saw the deaf
community as synonymous with Deaf culture, an entity
they could not identify with, in contrast to 10 others
who could identify comfortably with both communi-
ties, primarily when the deaf community meant spe-
cifically persons like themselves who are more orally
inclined. For example, one participant felt affiliated
with both communities because of the ability to "think
English" in dealing with hearing persons and connec-
tions with oral deaf persons. An additional participant
commented on connections with either based on need
and availability. Two respondents wondered why we
needed to segregate the two communities and ex-
pressed dislike for group membership. Two felt they
were in the "shadowland between the hearing and deaf
communities," with one basing the answer on hearing
versus not hearing with hearing aids.
The last question related to the idea of deaf/hard-
of-hearing persons being sometimes between the deaf
and hearing worlds, whether it was true for the respon-
dents, and what the advantages and disadvantages of
this situation were. Five respondents who reported not
242 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4:3 Summer 1999

feeling between both worlds felt, however, that others

Discussion
may want to connect to deaf persons for various rea-
sons, perceived the deaf world as restricting, or The
felt individuals who responded to this survey form a
it easy to participate in either without being "inselect
be- and motivated group of persons who are already
tween." Three participants had insufficient informa-
affiliated with a national organization that supports the
tion about the deaf community and claimed connec-
auditory approach. The retrospective nature of the
tions only to the hearing world. Interestingly, 24data
out means that perceptions may have been influenced
of 34 participants acknowledged the validity of being
by the passage of time. Furthermore, the survey did
not
caught between both worlds and having to struggle to include a specific question about extent of main-
various extents. Advantages were related to ability to
streaming. Therefore, the results reported here cannot
be open-minded about issues related to either world,
be generalized to all those who are currently in inclu-
having the best of both worlds, getting support from
sive settings. However, within this particular sample,
educational placement appeared to be associated with
each with opportunities for a wider scope of friends,
social development and self-perceptions in ways that
perceiving a bicultural experience based on full partici-
pation in both cultures and thereby providing a special
have implications for educational settings.
niche, the opportunity to understand and be under-School experiences appear to influence feelings
stood in both worlds that enhances feelings of belong-
about oneself as a deaf person. Positive perceptions
apparently
ingness in both, appreciation of diversity, inspiration to were based on supportive school envi-
work harder for acceptance and success, and also pro-
ronments, self-acceptance, and the ability to cope or
viding hearing persons with insight into deaf issues.
assimilate, while negative perceptions were based on
Disadvantages were primarily in terms of despair nonsupportive
re- school experiences and feelings of being
lated to the divisiveness of two worlds, feelings of frus-
singled out relative to the deafness dimension in ways
tration relative to difficulties in fully participating in implied difference or deviance. While the general
that
either world or belonging anywhere, lack of under-
expectation is that one primary goal of adolescents is
standing from militants as well as hearing persons,
peer acceptance for which a considerable number have
both worlds not mixing very well, and difficulties
toin
struggle, the deafness dimension suggests that those
gaining full acceptance in both worlds. One participant
in inclusive settings have to go the additional mile in
reported no disadvantages, saying if others saw deaf
establishing such relationships to ensure some modi-
persons negatively, it was their problem. Another cum
said: of success or minimize feelings of failure. Com-
"Some of us may be misfits but we have great friends
munication difficulties, resiliency, and the extent to
and experiences in two worlds." Yet another reported
which educational settings supported individual needs
not necessarily "pingponging" between both worlds or have implications for the making and molding of
may
identities.
weighing involvement in either but instead making
choices based on common interests rather than hearing
In terms of identity, self-labeling related to the
status. One respondent explored the issue of ambiguity
deafness dimension clearly varied within this sample,
in depth and made the point that developing comfort
with the exception of Deaf culture labels, which no re-
with ambiguity and the world as an ambiguous place
spondent chose, as would be expected of AGB mem-
was critical but also difficult. As this respondent bers.
has The choice of specific labels was attributed to the
gotten older, patience for dealing with ambiguityperceived
has meanings attached to these labels and how
diminished, however, and retreat to a fixed groupthese
be- reflected individual functioning. Almost half of
comes more attractive. The realities of a hearing family
the sample changed labels, mostly because of changes
and social network complicate this retreat to a more
in perceived meanings. This can be interpreted to
deaf environment. Relevant to this process, "the iden-
mean that motivation to integrate new information
tity/identification issue requires unfolding, develop-
with self-perceptions as new experiences and informa-
ment, and change over time. It is not fixed." tion emerge is an integral part of ongoing identity for-

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

mation. Additionally, this implies the ongoing saliency
of deaf identity issues and the need to self-define one-
self in terms of difference (i.e., hearing loss) for a large
portion of this sample, even though most were not ex-
posed to deaf or hard-of-hearing peers during adoles-
cence. Despite this lack of exposure during adolescence
and limitations in availability of deaf adult role models,
a good number of participants recognized the need for
contact with other deaf peers with similar perspectives
in life. This contact could help achieve connections
with the deaf part of themselves (given the fact that
the entire sample generally valued contact with hearing
peers). Those exposed to deaf adults valued their con-
tribution in terms of facilitating life paths, learning
that anything is possible, and of realizing that they were
not "alone" in their struggle. The impetus for the in-
terest in deaf peers during adulthood expressed by
many participants appears to be reinforced by percep-
tions of no longer being "alone" in terms of what it
means to be deaf in hearing society. This interest in
deaf peers among these respondents who were in main-
stream settings seems to have been a change from their
experience in school, where there was not likely to have
been a critical mass of deaf peers from whom to choose
friends. Without this critical mass, deaf adolescents are
precluded from exploring various social options with
both hearing and deaf peers that may meet specific
needs at different points in time, unless there are such
opportunities outside of the school setting.
All of the participants in this sample continued to
maintain and value ongoing relationships with hearing
peers, and this held even for those who had to struggle
with difficulties in interactive situations. Interactions
with hearing peers appear to be a value reinforced by
mainstream/inclusion settings, where the majority of
social interactions are constructed around hearing con-
nections. The deaf community (as exemplified by Deaf
culture per se) is not a comfortable entity for this sam-
ple, who prefer to define their own ways of being deaf
that do not incorporate many Deaf culture values, such
as devaluation of both spoken communication and full
participation in hearing environments. Despite this,
some participants indicated they understood the need
of many deaf individuals for a Deaf culture and the ra-
tionale for that culture. When the deaf community is
This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Personal Development 243
specified as including oral deaf persons as well, affilia-
tion with such a community is positively regarded. Be-
cause of the selective nature of this sample, there was
no opportunity to survey those identifying with Deaf
culture who grew up in mainstream or inclusion set-
tings or to explore the relationship between such expe-
riences and current cultural affiliation.
The fact that a large majority of the participants
acknowledged feeling caught between deaf and hearing
worlds or the need to traverse both worlds, despite the
strong positive feelings about hearing community
affiliation, has profound implications for socialization
and identity aspects. The implicit message is that while
participation in the hearing community is a powerful
goal, the need for connections with some segment of
the deaf community cannot be denied as part of ongo-
ing identity formation and social support. Weinberg
and Sterriti (1986) report on a study of identity pat-
terns in adolescents with hearing impairments in which
dual identities (meaning deaf and hearing identities)
were associated with more positive adjustment out-
comes. As based on meta-analyses of self-esteem stud-
ies with deaf samples, Bat Chava's (1993) findings
strongly suggest that having a community of people
who share one's group membership, both in childhood
and in adulthood, protects deaf individuals from the
majority's negative attitudes. Moschella (1992), as cited
earlier in this article, notes the significant emotional
benefits that products of strictly oral environments de-
rive from contact with deaf peers in adulthood. These
studies, as well as the fact that a large number of parti-
cipants in this survey very much appreciated social net-
working opportunities within deafness-related organi-
zations that reflect their communication philosophies,
give credence to the need for validating deaf identities
to some extent and minimizing isolation from deaf
peers and deaf adults. By its very nature, implicit
within the inclusion approach is the danger that feel-
ings of marginality and ill-defined identities will be
created, particularly for those who may not be as able
to easily interact with hearing environments to the de-
gree this sample apparently does.
The survey did not include questions about family
involvement, which factors significantly in personal
development and identity formation (Leigh & Stinson,
244 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4:3 Summer 1999

Appendix
1991). Some respondents voluntarily reported on the
value of family support and acceptance. Clearly, valida-
Survey Questions:
tion and support from parents and other family mem-
bers are critical in providing deaf children and youths 1 . Do you consider yourself deaf, hard of hearing,
with the emotional wherewithal to go into nondeaf ed-
hearing-impaired, or some other category? Why do you
ucational settings and develop good coping skills. think you belong to that particular category?
As indicated by this sample, supportive and struc- 2. Have you always thought of yourself as being in
tured school environments serve to enhance the in- this category, or has it changed?
clusion experience. Educators need to be aware that 3. What kind of high school/middle school did
merely placing a deaf or hard-of-hearing child in a you go to? When? What was that school environment
classroom will not necessarily be conducive to personal
like? Were there other deaf or hard-of-hearing students
development without careful attention to the child whothere or were you the only one?
is "different." Educators have to understand that 4. How did this school experience affect your iden-
schools do make and mold identity, self-perceptions,
tity (what you think about yourself)?
and perspectives on life, although the passage of time 5. How do you feel about your relationships with
and new experiences will reshape all these aspects.hearing
If peers? What do you like about these relation-
minimal attention is given to the social needs of the
ships? What do you not like about them? How does that
deaf or hard-of-hearing child who struggles to be affect
in- your feelings about yourself?
cluded in interactive opportunities with hearing peers,6. How do you feel about your relationships with
social isolation is more likely (Stinson & Leigh, 1995).
deaf peers? What do you like about these relationships?
Social support and interaction opportunities need toWhat
be do you not like about them? How does that affect
programmed into educational planning. Inclusion pro-
your feelings about yourself?
grams cannot ignore the deaf identity dimension, since 7. What are your feelings about Deaf culture? How
it is part of the individual who has a hearing loss and
do you feel connected to it? How do you not feel con-
nected to it?
therefore perceives the world through a somewhat dif-
ferent lens. Even though the deaf dimension varies in8. What influence have deaf adults had on your
saliency for each deaf person, schools would do wellidentity,
to if any?
ensure that teachers understand this personal perspec- 9. Do you belong to organizations for deaf or hard-
tive on deafness and the need to make meaningful of-hearing
so- people? If so, which ones? What influence
cial connections to others who are deaf or hearing. It is they had on your identity?
have
desirable for teachers to structure interactive learning10. Do you consider yourself as belonging to the
experiences that incorporate participation by deaf chil-
hearing community?
dren in ways that foster a positive sense of self without 1 1 . Do you consider yourself as belonging to the
singling them out as different in a negative sense.
deaf community?
Bringing deaf adults into the classroom whenever pos- Please explain your answers to 10 and 11.
sible will enhance role model opportunities. Above all, 12. What do you think about the idea that deaf/
the voices of those deaf and hard-of-hearing adults who
hard-of-hearing persons are sometimes caught between
have gone through inclusive educational settings must
the deaf and hearing worlds? Is this true for you? What
be recognized. These individuals should be viewed are
as the advantages and disadvantages of being in this
situation?
desirable consultants in formulating school programs.
Educators who follow up on these recommendations
will enhance positive personal development and iden-
Note
tity formation in deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.
1. Numbers of respondents answering each survey question
will reflect the fact that not all questions were answered by each
respondent.

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Personal Development 245

References Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1996). Socialization of deaf children and

youth. In P. C. Higgins & J. E. Nash (Eds.), Understanding
Bat Chava, Y. (1993). Antecedents of self-esteem in deaf people:deafness socially : Continuities in research and theory (pp. 71-
A meta-analytic review. Rehabilitation Psychology , 38, 221- 95). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
234. Moores, D. F. (1992). An historical perspective on school place-
Baumeister, R. (1997). The self and society: Changes, problems, ment. In T. N. Kluwin, D. F. Moores, & M. G. Gaustad
and opportunities. In R. D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), (Eds.), Toward effective public school programs for deaf students:
Self and identity (pp. 191-217). New York: Oxford Univer- Context, process, and outcomes (pp. 7-29). New York: Teach-
sity Press. ers College Press.
Corker, M. (1994). Counselling: The deaf challenge. London: Jes- Moores, D. F., Kluwin, T. N. & Mertens, D. M. (1985). High
sica Kingsley. school programs for deaf students in metropolitan areas, Progress
Davidson, A. L. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools. report: Year 1. Washington, DC: Center for Studies in Edu-
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. cation and Human Development, Gallaudet Research Insti-
Davis, L .J. (1995). Enforcing normality: Disability , deafness, and tute, Gallaudet College.
the body. London: Verso. Moschella, J. G. (1992). The experience of growing up deaf or
Fitzgerald, T. (1993). Metaphors of identity. Albany, NY: State hard of hearing: Implications of sign language versus oral
University of New York Press. rearing on identity development and emotional well-being.
Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (1989). Cognitive, personal, and Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University/New England
social development of deaf children and adolescents. In Graduate School, 1992. Dissertation Abstracts International,
M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of 53-1 IB, 5989.
special education: Research and practice. New York: Pergamon. Padden, C. (1980). The deaf community and the culture of Deaf
Grotevant, H. D. (1992). Assigned and chosen identity compo- people. In C. Baker & R. Battison (Eds.), Sign language and
nents: A process perspective on their integration. In G. R. the deaf community (pp. 89-103). Washington, DC: National
Adams, T. P. Gullota, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent Association of the Deaf.
identity formation (pp. 73-90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from
Harter, S. (1997). The personal self in social context. In R. D. a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity (pp. 81-105). Paul, P. V., & Jackson, D. W. (1993). Toward a psychology of deaf-
New York: Oxford University Press. ness. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Higgins, P. O. (1980). Outsiders in a hearing world: A sociology of Schein, J. D. (1989). At home among strangers. Washington, DC:
deafness. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gallaudet University Press.
Higgins, P. (1990). The challenge of educating together deaf and Stinson, M. S., Chase, K., & Kluwin, T. (1990, April). Self-
hearing youth: Making mainstreaming work. Springfield, IL: perceptions of social relationships in hearing-impaired adoles-
Charles C. Thomas. cents. Paper presented at the American Educational Re-
Higgins, P. C., & Nash, J. E. (1996). Understanding deafness so- search Association Convention, Boston, MA.
cially: Continuities in research and theory. Springfield, IL:
Stinson, M. S., & Kluwin, T. N. (1996). Social orientations to-
Charles C. Thomas. ward deaf and hearing peers among deaf adolescents in local
Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extracurricular public high schools. In P. C. Higgins & J. E. Nash (Eds.),
activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to Understanding deafness socially: Continuities in research and
be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437-466. theory (pp. 113-134). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Humphries, T. (1993). Deaf culture and cultures. In K. M.
Stinson, M. S., & Leigh, I. W. (1995). Inclusion and the psy-
Christensen & G. L. Delgado (Eds.), Multicultural issues in chosocial development of deaf children and youths. In B. D.
deafness. White Plains, NY: Longman. Snider (Ed.), Inclusion? Defining quality education for deaf and
Kroger, J. (1996). Identity in adolescence. New York: Routledge. hard of hearing students (pp. 153-161). Washington, DC: Col-
Ladd, G. W, Munson, H. L., & Miller, J. K. (1984). Social inte- lege for Continuing Education, Gallaudet University.
Waterman, A. S. (1992). Identity as an aspect of optimal psy-
gration of deaf adolescents in secondary-level mainstreamed
programs. Exceptional Children, 50, 420-428. chological functioning. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, &
Leigh, I. W. (1994). Psychosocial implications of full inclusion R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation (pp.
for deaf children and adolescents. In R. C. Johnson & O. P. 50-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weinberg, N., & Sterriti, M. (1986). Disability and identity; A
Cohen (Eds.), Implications and complications for deaf students
of the full inclusion movement (pp. 73-77). Washington, DC: study of identity patterns in adolescents with hearing im-
Gallaudet Research Institute Occasional Paper 94-2, Gal- pairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 31, 95-102.
laudet University. Woodward, K. (1997). Concepts of identity and difference. In
Leigh, I. W. & Lewis, J. W. (in press). Deaf therapists and the deaf K. Woodward (Ed.), Identity and difference (pp. 7-50).
community: How the twain meet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
University Press.
Leigh, I. W. & Stinson, M .S. (1991). Social environments, self-
perceptions, and identity of hearing impaired adolescents.
Volta Review, 93, 7-22.

This content downloaded from 197.226.68.140 on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:52:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms