54 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
Deaf epistemologies have called value neutrality and objectivity in science into
question. The diverse lives and experiences of deaf people should be the method-
ological basis for research. Criticizing audism in the practice of science, scholars
who practice deaf epistemologies have looked at old problems from different angles
and contributed to a more appropriate science (see also nader, 2006). I argue for
multiple perspectives in the evaluation of research (see also Campbell, 1989) and a
reflexive stance on the dynamics of (linguistic and cultural) power relations in the
academy (Bourdieu, 1990, 1998).
Deaf studies has become institutionalized predominantly in Western countries,
and, as anthropological and sociological studies indicate, a critical perspective to-
ward cultural bias in notions of deaf identity, deaf culture, deaf empowerment, and
deaf education is needed. The naturalized epistemological stance discussed in the
present chapter calls for cross-cultural comparative research, which may provide a
basis for a posteriori universals and for a study of deaf (indigenous) knowledge and
practices that can contribute to this project. The deaf studies debate on essentialism
can be conceptualized as an epistemological one, challenged by the naturalized
stance expressed in this chapter. Essentialized notions of deaf identity should be
situated as particular constructions of multiple identities in a time and place. Taking
into account “structural violence” around the globe (Farmer, 2010) among axes
of difference, intrinsic diversity in clusters of identity, and an orientation toward
human flourishing (nussbaum, 2006), the approaches of Sen (2006) and Appiah
(2005) are inspirational for dealing with the complex notion of identity in deaf edu-
cational contexts. As an alternative to politicized notions of identity, Sen emphasizes
the role of reason and choice in identity formation, while Appiah emphasizes that
identity formation is an interactive and situated learning process.
Deaf scholars, particularly those from minority groups, are still underrepresented
in the field of deaf studies. Developing different lines in metatheorization is vital to
the future of deaf studies and the lives of deaf people. Joint intercultural and inter-
disciplinary research projects between deaf and hearing scholars will foster method-
ological reflection and exploration.
A democratic, pluralistic society should encourage individuals and groups to
acquire the power to live according to their own views. Thus, deaf people, individually
and in association, should be able to organize education according to their own needs
and chosen solutions (Andersson, 1991). These include multilingualism ( Reagan &
osborn, 2002; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008) and multiple deaf epistemologies. In a di-
verse world with equal languages, cultures, and human beings ( Skutnabb-Kangas,
1990), multiple literacies change standard views on reading achievement in favor of
validation of deaf people’s contextualized and sign language literacy (Brueggemann,
1995, 2004) and a notion of education that looks further than the classroom to in-
clude (indigenous) deaf ways of learning (e.g., De Clerck, 2007).
While recognizing that different factors may explain the educational “failure”
of deaf students documented in research, genuine bilingual education for deaf
students in ideal conditions is still scarce (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990, 2008). To pro-
vide deaf people with the best circumstances and chances to live up to their poten-
tial, diverse forms of knowledge, scientific and indigenous, may be needed (see also