Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning

Era of Epistemological Equity 35

can the new era be one of “epistemological equity” (Dei, 2010, p. 98)? Conceptu-

alizing and continuing this reflection from an epistemic stance involves raising the

following questions:

•   What is the status of (indigenous) deaf knowledge(s) versus science?

•   How can deaf knowers be conceptualized in science?

•   In what context are science and knowledge produced, and what is the value

of science?

•   How do deaf people construct their knowledge?

•   Is it legitimate for deaf people to claim knowledge, and why?

•   How can the wisdom and knowledge(s) of deaf people, which have been mar-

ginalized, contribute to the well-being of deaf people and all people around

the world?

•   Can deaf knowledge(s) be a source of inspiration for educational and social

transformation?

•   How can research practice provide room for deaf knowledge and partnership?

Drawing on the field of anthropology, which has inspired and legitimated the

cultural growth of deaf studies, and situating deaf epistemologies within the evo-

lution of the philosophy of science, I argue that deaf epistemologies is a feasible

alternative line of cognition and theorizing in an approach to science that is inclu-

sive of gender, sexuality, class, race, culture, language, religion, and disability. In this

chapter, I explore an interdisciplinary view of deaf studies and the social sciences

and humanities from a naturalist and critical perspective, employing a practice that

is both descriptive and normative.^3 The first, titled “Anthropology and the Devel-

opment of a noncolonial Science,” concentrates on a nonexclusive view of science

and a naturalized epistemology that describes human practices and functions in

3. I have relied on the literature on feminist epistemologies (e.g., Code, 2006; Collins, 1990; Davis,
   Evans, & Lorber, 2006; Duran, 1998; Tanesini, 1999). Feminist theorizing has evolved across a large
   number of publications containing a diverse range of views. Consequently, I am not able to cover all
   the theoretical issues. Code (2006) points out that metatheorizing was put on the feminist agenda rath-
   er late. Theories often refer to Sandra Harding’s (1980) distinction of three epistemological strands in
   feminist theorizing: feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theories, and feminist postmodernism.
   However, Harding’s classification has been criticized; for example, distinctions among these lines of
   inquiry cannot always be clearly drawn, theories cannot always be classified as such, and researchers
   often employ more than one line of thought at the same time. Despite this, the classification is useful
   for insight into deaf epistemologies, and the three lines of inquiry might provide inspiration for further
   metatheorizing in the field of deaf studies. Black and indigenous African/ African–centered epistemol-
   ogies (Asante, 2003; Dei, 2010; Higgs, 2008, 2010) are also inspiring.