A resource for individuals in STEM

Still today, teaching and learning of deaf learners (students) are not entirely effective due to (11, 12):

• Lack of knowledge in identifying the needs and skills of deaf students by accessibility experts
• Poor quality of education before entering post secondary education
• Awareness of deaf culture is not known when working with deaf students
• Labour supply issues arise when including ASL interpreters and notetakers in the classroom
• The academy’s culture and discourse can be challenging for deaf students to follow
• Interacting with nonsigners is not always meaningful

You can use tools to ensure the experience of social isolating deaf students does not occur.

The four main themes that you can utilize are (6):

• Full communication access
• Developing a knowledge of deaf culture
• Teaching self-advocacy
• Have mentoring available

Those themes will be described further.

Full communication access

Starting with the basics in American Sign Language can strengthen relationships with deaf students. As a consequence of this, better communication is seen. Find and identify ASL classes taught by deaf teachers in the surrounding areas of the research institution or workplace you are located at (19, 23).

For example, mentors need to determine the appropriate times to communicate in ASL within the scientific context, such as in the laboratory, lectures (which could be scheduled regularly, mornings for example), discussions and presentations. In particular, the conversation/discussions can be formal and informal with other hearing students and an instructor/professor involved (21). Establish the practice of having at least two deaf students and a deaf colleague or monitor present in your research laboratory (15, 19).

In addition to learning work, access to ASL also needs to be incorporated into social engagements and events or extracurricular activities (8, 24). This is due to opportunities that arise through open days, career networking, counselling and interviews which lead to developing a network of contacts important for work opportunities in the future. In addition, social interactions that lead to friendships are known to not emerge from the classroom, rather it is the perceptions of hearing students that determine this success in the social domain on campus (2).

Be aware that scientific conversations need to be modified as information can be missed due to the attention required for the interpretation, as it is hard to capture everything. This missed information is due to hints that end verbal discourse, visual cues missed, delays in interpretation due to overlapping talk, quick turns, detours and not waiting for the interpretation to complete then allowing for responses equally by any participant. A common solution to ensuring information is not missed is for all participants to raise their hands as a visual cue to take turns in the conversations (20).

Both captioning (known as communication access real-time translation, CART) and ASL interpretation were found to be of no difference in retaining information by college students (25) subject to having reading proficiency. This means those two options should be decided by the deaf student, depending on the complexity and demands of topics to be discussed (the environment) (18).

Recognize that the training normally included may need to be modified. This is due to the visual acuity required to focus on multiple features, which is not possible for training by demonstration and talking at the same time (5). The solution is to start with materials to review before training, then focus on the technical nuances of experiments, reducing the number of things to observe. Allowing videos to be recorded of the training then permits the learning of techniques as needed afterward.

Of note, alternative communication approaches can include individual whiteboards, notepad apps and chat apps on smartphones. As participants have reported in Marchetti et al (16), those approaches were not always helpful in communicating or understanding the materials. Out of multiple features offered when accessing context to learn, videos in sign language were preferred and found to be correlated with better outcomes of learning (7, 8).

Developing a knowledge of deaf culture

Specific examples to share with your deaf students:

Question: Why were poster sessions included in scientific conferences?

A tale coming from chemistry describes the conference experience of a deaf biochemist scientist named Nansie Sharpless (19). The American Chemical Society started to have the conference meetings set up with poster sessions. Nansie could then communicate the research findings with peers one-on-one.

For discussion: What was the thinking behind the poster session? How is this an appropriate accessibility approach?

Question: You know, the phones we all have – did you know that a deaf scientist (Wladislav Zeitlin) trained in physics and engineering was involved in working out the television apparatus back in the early 1900s?

The work of Zeitlin had the vision to make broadcasting visual, from the television apparatus to the video phone that is common today (26). This kind of vision is possible through the concept of “deaf gain”.

For discussion: What is “deaf gain”? Where can we find more about “deaf gain” is this online?

Always recommend identifying or asking for deaf awareness course content at an institutional level (8), as this will clarify the unclear continuum of responsibilities that often reside in faculty and students (4).

Teaching self-advocacy

Identify resources within your post-secondary institution to access soft skills training for deaf students (14).

This can include:

• Relationship standards expected in the laboratory
• Email/meeting etiquette
• Conflict resolution approaches
• Navigating workplace politics

This kind of knowledge is not written down or communicated clearly. The assigned mentor needs to identify gaps or information the deaf student does not know. This can be done by sharing sociocultural knowledge by providing tales and triumphs of deaf scientists (14). See the deaf culture section for specific examples. Soft skills are often delivered as general pre-training for students before undertaking co-op terms. Could modify this training with a deaf lens framework.

If the deaf student already knows self-advocacy skills, they will identify the gaps to be filled in. Deaf students often ask for deaf awareness workshops to be provided within the laboratory where they work (6, 19, 23).

Have mentoring available

Find and identify an online mentoring platform where deaf students can log in and discuss research experiences, with mentors available for guidance (15, 19). A good starting point is the existing Deaf STEMist Network on atomichands.com

The decision to have peer mentors (fellow students) are to be utilized in the laboratory hinges on the allocation of additional time working with deaf students (6). Of importance is to work in pairs (23).

Mentors need to have a good understanding of cross-cultural dynamics (14). Examining the intersections of norms (accepted cultural behaviours) between hearing and deaf individuals can be a good way to prompt discussions and how to improve (1). It is observed that as long the mentor knows the deaf culture in depth, then the hearing status of the mentor becomes a non-issue.

Along with knowing the deaf culture, mentors can advocate for the deaf students they are working with (15). This advocate work comes to mitigate culture and language barriers in the environment the deaf student is working in (13). In a sense, access services to support the learning of deaf students should be established with the mentor involvement (1, 13). This comes with understanding how systems of accommodation work in the academic institution (13, 14). In particular, asking for communication preferences from the deaf student would be one of your first discussions (1). Do expect responses to preferences may take time or require presence in the laboratory or classroom so that solutions naturally emerge (14).

Other topics of note

Deaf student learning in the classroom

Introducing or applying teaching techniques will require feedback from deaf students (20). The feedback best practice when asking deaf students is to ask what they prefer given the teaching circumstances. Moreover, repetitive practice, active participation, interactive discussions and utilizing feedback for internalizing new knowledge or skills were found to benefit deaf students learning to solve problems in mathematics (17).

There is a line where the systematic view of the classroom can hinge between being a placement (students are responsible for their learning needs) or an inclusive (social interactions, cultural etiquette) framework (10). Generally, the needs and preferences of deaf students must be considered by the instructor/lecturer/professor. This is in a sense to have intercultural competence of attitudes, knowledge and skills in communication (10, 20).

A comment about conferences

Inviting students to conferences requires the communication interactions at the conference to be managed (19). Common requests of booking ASL interpreters or CART specialists by the conference organizer is the normal practice (23). This is with the knowledge that the processes of interpretation or translation should be understood by the participants (23). If booking interpreters, do not expect complete accuracy as the technical jargon is not common knowledge to generalist interpreters. Notify those presenting at the conference that submitted slides will be provided to the interpreters as preparatory material. Aim to provide allocated time at the conference for meetings with interpreters to discuss the context that will be interpreted (23). For more in-depth information, refer to Kasper et al (2024) for checklists as a starting point (9).

Benefits when working with deaf students

Once students are found to be prepared beforehand with the main items of:

• Communication flexibility provided
• Skills of learning
• Knowledge of the given information

Then it is predicted that academic success will be found (3).
Persisting on degree completion is found to be critical in obtaining monetary benefits (from being employed). In opposition, students who did not get a degree while enrolled in post-secondary compared to those who never went to post-secondary were found to be of no significant difference in monetary benefits (22).

So, understanding and removing barriers has led to positive outcomes for deaf students, including presenting scientific work at conferences or as authors in scientific journals (23).

References

1. Braun, D.C.; et al (2017). The Deaf mentoring survey: a community cultural wealth framework for measuring mentoring effectiveness with underrepresented students.
2. Brown, P.M.; Foster, S.B. (1991). Integrating Hearing and Deaf Students on a College Campus: Successes and Barriers as Perceived by Hearing Students.
3. Convertino, C.M.; et al (2009). Predicting Academic Success Among Deaf college students.
4. Foster, S.; et al (1999). Inclusive Instruction and Learning for Deaf Students in Postsecondary Education.
5. Gehret, A.U.; et al (2017). Approaching Undergraduate Research with Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
6. Gehret, A.U.; et al (2023). Experiential education of deaf and hard of hearing students in the lab with non-signing advisors.
7. Hashim, M.H.M.; Tasir, Z. (2020). An e-learning environment embedded with sign language videos: research into its usability and the academic performance and learning patterns of deaf students.
8. Hendry, G.; et al (2021). “I was isolated and this was difficult”: Investigating the communication barriers to inclusive further/higher education for deaf Scottish students.
9. Kasper, A.M.; et al (2024). Illuminating the deaf experience at STEM conferences.
10. Kermit, P.S.; Holiman, S. (2018). Inclusion in Norwegian Higher Education: Deaf Students’ Experiences with Lecturers.
11. Knox, S. (2006). Sign Language Interpreting in an Academic Setting: Preparation Strategies and Considerations.
12. Lang, H.G. (2002). Higher education for Deaf Students: Research Priorities in the New Millennium.
13. Listman, J.D.; Dingus-Eason, J. (2018). How to be a Deaf scientist: Building navigational capital.
14. Lynn, M.A.; et al (2020). A review of mentoring deaf and hard-of-hearing scholars.
15. Majocha, M.; et al (2018). “Everyone was nice…but I was still left out”: An interview study about Deaf interns’ research experiences in STEM.
16. Marchetti, C.; et al (2012). Crossing the Communication Barrier: Facilitating Communication in Mixed Groups of Deaf and Hearing Students.
17. Mousley, K.; Kelly, R.R. (1998). Problem-Solving Strategies for Teaching Mathematics to Deaf Students.
18. Napier, J.; Barker, R. (2004). Accessing University Education: Perceptions, preferences, and expectations for Interpreting by Deaf Students.
19. Pagano, T.; et al (2015). Undergraduate Research Involving Deaf and Hard of Hearing students in Interdisciplinary Science Projects.
20. Ross, A.; Yerrick, R.K. (2015). What I Taught My STEM Instructor About Teaching: What A Deaf Student Hears That Others Cannot.
21. Seal, B.C.; et al (2002). Deaf Students, Teachers, and Interpreters in the Chemistry Lab.
22. Schley, S.; et al (2011). Effect of Postsecondary Education on the Economic Status of Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
23. Smith, S.B.; et al (2016). Chemical and biological research with deaf and hard of hearing students and professionals: Ensuring a safe and successful laboratory environment.
24. Stinson, M.; Walter, G. (1997). Improving Retention for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: What the Research Tells Us.
25. Stinson, M.S.; et al (2009). Deaf and Hard of Hearing students’ memory of lectures with speech-to-text and interpreting/note taking services.
26. Zaurov, M. (2014). The deaf gain of Wladislav Zeitlin Jewish scientist and inventor.

Introduction

This guide will examine the following themes, where interpreted communication by the partnership between interpreters and deaf professionals have complex interactions (1, 2, 4, 13):

• Interpreter shortages
• Unequal language status (spoken vs signed, knowledge of interpreting services)
• Potential loss of agency
• Lack of awareness about the interpretation process

Interpreter shortages

Due to the shortages at the time of writing, the solution to booking interpreters is to schedule the bookings months in advance (1). This is accepted as a non-ideal situation and thought to be due to multiple factors including required accommodation laws (1). This is also impacted by the availability of benefits, mentoring and availability of work in video relay and remote video interpreting (9). Those 4 factors were expanded with 11 additional factors that add context to the interpreter shortage (9). This leads to a mismatch of needs from the deaf individual perspective (1). Given this ongoing issue, this should be acknowledged and considered in the decision-making process for interpretation.

Unequal language status

Sign language interpretation is offered in a similar context to other spoken language settings where interpretation is provided. Language-concordant services as an alternative approach are associated with better health outcomes even when interpreters are made available (2).

Moreover, the technical terminology or concepts that exist in each of the STEM fields do not always have the corresponding sign or concept in ASL. So the interpreter, often with sign language as a second language for the interpreter, has to take those technical concepts as academic jargon (8). In the interpreting process, such concepts if no sign is available instead are fingerspelled to the deaf professional. Usually, the interpreter and the deaf professional agree to a sign on the spot, known as a “home sign”, which is typically only valid for the interpretation process in the workplace, not outside. The lack of sign language availability for technical terminology in the STEM fields is due to sign languages being ‘minoritized languages’. Minoritized sign languages are due to two aspects: power differentials and stigmatization from exclusion by the academy and society at large (10).

Scientists and colleagues of deaf professionals are encouraged to explore learning ASL through online ASL classes taught by Deaf instructors. Scientific discourse then becomes passable as a potentially feasible solution.

Potential loss of agency

The concept of “translated/interpreted deaf self” or lived experiences through an interpreter in the communication process can be further defined as quoted by Young et al (2019a):

“…the socio-cultural impact for deaf sign language users of multiple, regular, lifelong experiences of being encountered by others and inter-subjectively known in a translated form i.e. through sign language interpreters”. (12)

Utilizing the interpreter is a trade-off between what is said (content) and who the person is (person knowledge). In a sense, a relationship is given up with a deaf individual to get what is being said by the same deaf individual. As a hearing colleague, means having to pay attention to your deaf colleague, capture the emotions, behaviour, and state of being and at the same time listen to the interpreter. This comes from those nonverbal cues that are not always taken in by the interpreter. This is often a result of the interpreting time lag or might go unnoticed.

This interaction can be influenced by other factors including how deafness is viewed as an intercultural and bilingual (outside the medical view of disability). The “interpreted self” can also be true for the hearing participant. The hearing participant can be less knowable or masked to the deaf participant through the interpretation process. As quoted by Young et al (2019b):

Hearing colleagues have “…the desire to know the person who is deaf.” This “knowing” can be detrimental or conducive to the interpreter, depending on the context and complexity of the information discussed (13).

To manage this a positive “relational” attitude is found to be helpful. This can be done with examples as Young et al (13) mention:

• Add social information to your work emails to Deaf colleagues
• Use of emoticons in text-based conversations
• Maintain eye contact with your Deaf colleague even though the source of the language comes from another body (i.e. the interpreter)
• Make small talk in informal spaces
• Introduce shared humour implicit or obvious between the hearing and deaf individuals

The need to access incidental information in the workplace is known to be very important (11). To understand this, a good example showing how the nonverbal aspects (language and tone) were critical to one’s work in awarding a fellowship for a doctoral student. Due to the meeting circumstances of a department vote that went against awarding a fellowship to the doctoral student, the Deaf faculty in this meeting was able to take the nonverbal language and tone of the fellowship director as implying the fellowship was still available for the student. Afterward, an appeal to the fellowship director was eventually successful and the fellowship was awarded after all. It was only when the interpreter captured the nonverbal language and tone that the Deaf faculty took the opportunity to appeal, as the information of the departmental working and institute system was actively mobilized in the interpretation process (11).

Lack of awareness about the interpretation process

The framework of interpretation is a social institution interlocked in complex ways with other institutions existing in one’s society (2, 5). Furthermore, the interpretation process has bilingual and bimodal aspects, which can lead to an imbalance in communication, placing more burden on the deaf participant (1).

In the STEM fields, the competencies of an ASL interpreter found important by deaf professionals were identified (3):

• Be able to adapt to the signing approaches (including transliteration)
• Content knowledge of the STEM discipline, to some degree but not at the level of content knowledge experts in the same STEM discipline.
• To identify interpreters via “specialty” credentials to ensure appropriate fit in the STEM field of context
• Understand the jargon of the discipline. This is considered one of the main challenges to providing interpreting services in the STEM discipline.
• Deciphering foreign accents. One possible solution is to have the same interpreter in the workplace setting with the participants over a range of time to manage this.
• Be willing to work in different work environments. From fieldwork to the laboratory, the context changes, and required gear or attire can change.
• Preparation for assignments and presentations by the deaf professional or professionals working in the same discipline.
• To advocate for interpreter needs. By collaborating, the Deaf professional and the interpreter can work together so that the interpreter’s needs are met.

Two approaches to interpreting that are known, and could be applied to the STEM fields, are identified as designated interpreter paradigm (6) and DEAM (translated from ASL as deaf, dream and team) (7).

The main concept of the role of designated interpreters is the term “intersubjectivity”. This is taken from cognitive linguistics within interpreting/translation theories. To have intersubjectivity present in the workplace, two main things need to be done – the interpreter is present in the workplace long term, with the given time to establish an effective partnership. In doing so, this allows the interpreter to have the same context understanding as the participants do in the bilingual interaction, so fewer assumptions are made. If the partnership is effective, this is evident when the Deaf professional focuses on what to say rather than worrying about how their self is being interpreted (6).

To utilize the designated interpreter paradigm framework, the following factors are required (4):

• An existing pool of qualified interpreters
• Administration buy-in at all levels
• The funding mechanism is identified
• There is a person responsible for solving technical issues
• Outreach/education within the entity
• Advocate for the Deaf professional.

The DEAM approach is being explored as a Deaf-centric process, with one modification to the usual interpretation process where the deaf participant is unable to know the spoken words the interpreter uses for the interpretation of the ASL signed by the participant. This modification is to add a 3rd interpreter to the team of two interpreters, whose role is to focus on what is interpreted by the team and feed the ASL translation (transliterator) back to the Deaf professional. In this way, the Deaf professional becomes part of the interpreter team and can modify the communication as needed, as verification is now possible (7).

References

1. Burke, T.B. (2017). Choosing Accommodations: Signed Language Interpreting and the Absence of Choice.
2. De Meulder, M.; Haualand, H. (2021). Sign Language interpreting services A quick fix for inclusion?
3. Grooms, C. (2015). Interpreter competencies in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics as Identified by Deaf Professionals.
4. Hall, W.C.; et al (2019). Designated Interpreters: A model to Promote the Diversity and Inclusion of Deaf Professionals in Academic Medicine.
5. Haualand, H.; et al (2022). Unpacking sign language interpreting as a social institution. The missing macro perspective?
6. Hauser, P.C.; et al (2022). Deaf professional/designated interpreter paradigm revisited.
7. Holcomb, T.K. (2018). Deaf Dream Team DEAM approaches to Interpreting.
8. Knox, S. (2006). Sign Language Interpreting in an Academic Setting: Preparation Strategies and Considerations.
9. McLaughlin, J. (2011). Sign Language Interpreter Shortage in California: Perceptions of Stakeholders.
10. Scott, J.A.; et al (2023). Flipping the Interpreter Script: Perspectives on Accessibility.
11. Smith, D.H.; Ogden, P.W. (2018). Through the Eyes of Deaf Academics: Interpreting in the Context of Higher Education.
12. Young, A.; et al (2019a). The translated deaf self, ontological (in)security and deaf culture.
13. Young, A.; et al (2019b). Hearing people perceiving deaf people through sign language interpreters at work: on the loss of self through interpreted communication.

Introduction

This guide will have you learn the following:

Deaf professionals face the following risk factors in the workplace (6):

1. Audism and linguicism
2. Networking challenges
3. Additional workload in managing one’s accommodation
4. Promotion limitations

Those risk factors directly come from the communication barrier, so that the lived experiences and cultural norms of deaf people are different from that of hearing people. This not unique to the study of Kurz et al 2016 (6) in the United States, as Napier (2020) has reported similar themes in Ireland, Scotland and Germany as part of an Erasmus+ programme-funded research project (13).

This project (abbreviated DESIGNS) had themes that have identified for deaf signers employed in the workplace (13):

1. Barriers to employment/to or because of interpreting provision
2. Strategies that were employed by key stakeholders
3. Positive and negative aspects of the familiarity of the job and with each other

Those themes have been identified in the usual employment pathways of 1:1 meetings, group meetings, progression, conflict and social settings. The underlying gaps have been identified as:

• In knowledge
• Organization culture
• Lack of experience
• Feedback mechanisms

To mitigate those risks, the protective factors have been identified for deaf professionals (6):

1. Social support
2. Role models
3. Optimism (translated from ASL as “Deaf can”)

Those protective factors along with identified gaps will be described further.

Protective Factor 1: Social support mechanisms

Consider those quotations from literature, as noted in Lussier et al (2000), quoted:

“Where there is a group discussion or conversations, both social or work related, I generally get left out, then get summary from one person later”…by an employee who is deaf.” (9).

As well as the title of Majocha et al (2018), with an 18-year interval between the two journal articles, as quoted:
“Everyone was nice…but I was still left out” (11).

A social support system needs to be in place as a protective factor (6). This is associated with the theme of relatedness need (as in Alderfer’s ERG theory) (9). This can be made available mainly in two ways: deaf colleagues (to avoid tokenism) or colleagues who are allies in the workplace (6, 8, 16).

This can be applied to the broad area of information sharing including incidental learning. A common example of incidental learning is the workplace chatter, which is limited to verbal communication (4, 6, 9, 10). Those who are generous with this information allows the deaf professional to be included in “watercooler” workplace chatter (as noted by Foster (1992) in 4, 6, 9).

Having a social support system (the protective factor) in place is essential to job satisfaction and integration with colleagues (as recognized by Foster (1992) in 4). Once it is emphasized that information sharing is important, then the networking that is set up allows the deaf professional to access this kind of information is enabled.

Protective Factor 2: Role models

Sharing critical information on how to function in the workplace can be learned through role models or mentors (5, 6, 8, 10). With the required assertive involvement by the Deaf employee to identify and recruit role models, this then leads to a network (this is the key part). Role models connected to such networks can then arrange meetings with other STEM professionals or hearing allies who can potentially be important advocates for the Deaf professional(s) (8).

Such advice that can be provided typically includes (4, 8, reviewed in 15, 16):

• Self-advocacy skills
• How to be a scientist (STEM knowledge)
• Social norms
• Develop ‘navigation capital’
• Accessibility requests

The advice shared above are also strategies shareable and applicable to the workplace (6).
Due to the phonocentric hegemony and limited awareness of ASL and deaf culture, the social norms in the academic STEM culture should be provided (7, 8, 17). An example is the capacity to identify cues and nuances of communication and behaviour in the environment (8, 17).

‘Navigation capital’ is a term identified by Listman & Dingus-Eason (2018) as the approach to prepare deaf professionals before entering academic STEM culture (8).

Ways to do this can include (8):

• Introductions in meetings with vendors of scientific equipment
• Share personal narratives that include challenges in accessibility

Listman & Dingus-Eason (2018) suggest that quality interpreting enables access to navigational capital in the academic STEM culture (8). The key here is to determine when to do feedback and share concerns or this was not working well as part of making requests for accessibility.

Lack of knowledge or information about accessibility (formally called duty to accommodate) was identified by Geyer & Schroedel (1999) as an important reason why lack of accessibility in the workplace was occurring.

This availability appears to vary due to factors (2):

• Type of occupation
• Education level
• Needs of the employee
• Size and type of employer

An excellent example of a developed strategy is describing Deaf culture in an applied anatomy module. This was developed for first-year medical students as part of training in cultural competence and communication skills to work with diverse populations. The approach taken was a panel of culturally deaf, hard of hearing and hearing children of deaf adults sharing experiences and perspectives in health care with challenges faced with communication and care (3).

As well, a lecture session was presented that included:

• Deaf culture
• ASL as a language
• How the brain processes both spoken and signed language
• Variable success of cochlear implants
• Language deprivation

This training demonstrated improvement in knowledge measured through surveys (3).
Moreover, this strategy can meet a curriculum requirement by the accrediting body of medical institutions (Liaison Committee on Medical Education). This requirement includes education on diverse cultures and belief systems, addressing health disparities for underserved populations and skills to provide care effectively to diverse patient populations.

Protective Factor 3: Optimism or “Deaf can”

This is optimism in a sense, to focus on thinking of the strengths you bring to the workplace (6, 9). Another perspective can also be taken, commonly termed “deaf gain” to reframe what deaf employees bring to the workplace (16).

One feature of deaf gain is that deaf people have persisted over thousands of generations and we are everywhere on Earth (1). This question can prompt us to discuss why this is so. Within the framework of genetics, it is known that the mutated Cx26 gene, the well-known deaf gene, is associated with individuals who have thicker skin (1, 12). This property has the benefit of protecting against bacterial infections and wounds are healed at a faster pace (1). This has to do with sweat hyperosmolarity with an osmotic environment not favourable for bacterial growth and is a stronger mechanical barrier that needs to be overcome (12).

Reflecting this genetic framework of being deaf shows the issues are social, as part of society’s frameworks in place. Moreover, to determine the contributions of deaf professionals, one can refer to literature for examples in your specific field. By 2023, there have been 809 doctoral degrees by deaf professionals, from the earliest doctoral degree in law by Charles Bonnet by 1743, available at tinyurl.com/deaf-docs (14).

References

1. Bauman, H.D.L.; Murray, J.J. (2014). Deaf Gain an introduction.
2. Geyer, P.D.; Schroedel, J.G. (1999). Conditions Influencing the Availability of Accommodations for workers who are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing.
3. Greene, S.J.; Scott, J.A. (2021). Promoting cultural awareness, professionalism, and communication skills in medicine through anatomy: The Deaf culture session.
4. Hauser, P.C.; et al (2022). Deaf professional/designated interpreter paradigm revisited.
5. Holgate, S.A. (2015). Strength in disability.
6. Kurz, K.B.; et al (2016). Work-related resilience: Deaf Professionals’ Perspectives.
7. Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World.
8. Listman, J.D.; Dingus-Eason, J. (2018). How to be a Deaf scientist: Building navigational capital.
9. Lussier, R.N.; et al (2000). Need Satisfaction of Deaf and Hearing Employees.
10. Lynn, M.A.; et al (2020). A review of mentoring deaf and hard-of-hearing scholars.
11. Majocha, M.; et al (2018). “Everyone was nice…but I was still left out”: An interview study about Deaf interns’ research experiences in STEM.
12. Meyer, C.G.; et al (2002): Letters to the Editor: “Selection for Deafness?”.
13. Napier, J.; et al (2020). Employment for deaf signers in Europe: Research findings from the DESIGNS project.
14. No author (accessed 18 July 2024). Deaf Docs, earned doctoral degrees, US and international.
15. Punch, R. (2016). Employment and Adults who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Current status and experiences of Barriers, Accommodations, and Stress in the Workplace.
16. Smith, D.H.; Andrews, J.F. (2015). Deaf and hard of hearing faculty in higher education: enhancing access, equity, policy, and practice.
17. Trowler, P.R.; Turner, G.H. (2002). Exploring the Hermeneutic Foundations of University Life: Deaf Academics in a Hybrid ‘Community of Practice’.