A summary of findings of Nate Dutra's "Including the Deaf Child at the Dinner Table: When
and Why Hearing Parents Learn Sign Language" along with a few personal
notes regarding positive deviation.
Summarized by: William G. Vicars, EdD, 2024
According to Nathan J. Dutra, EdD, the key differentiator between parents that
learn ASL and those who do not is acceptance that their child is Deaf, which then
motivates parents to overcome barriers and learn ASL. However, societal,
medical, and personal factors all play roles in this complex decision-making
process. (Dutra, 2020)
Common factors that influence why some parents of Deaf children learn ASL while
most do not:
1. Acceptance: Acceptance of the child's deafness appears to be a
crucial factor. Parents who fully accept their child's deafness are more likely
to embrace ASL as a communication method.
2. Early intervention: Parents who start learning ASL within the few six
months of their child's diagnosis seem more likely to continue and succeed.
3. Exposure to Deaf adults and the Deaf community: Parents who have
positive interactions with successful Deaf adults are more likely to see ASL as
beneficial for their child's future.
4. Support systems: The availability of supportive individuals, mentors,
and resources can greatly influence a parent's decision to learn ASL.
5. Medical advice: Some medical professionals may discourage the use of
sign language, promoting spoken language or cochlear implants instead, which can
influence parents' decisions.
6. Misconceptions: Many parents may believe that using sign language will
hinder their child's ability to learn spoken language or to integrate into the
hearing world.
7. Time and effort: Learning a new language is challenging and
time-consuming, which can be a barrier for many parents.
8. Cultural and societal pressure: There may be pressure to "normalize"
the child by focusing on spoken language and hearing technologies.
9. Lack of awareness: Some parents may not fully understand the
importance of early language acquisition and the potential consequences of
language deprivation.
10. Hope for medical solutions: Some parents may focus on medical
interventions (like cochlear implants) in the hope of "fixing" their child's
hearing, rather than adapting to deafness.
11. Personal resilience and determination: Parents who learn ASL often
show high levels of perseverance and willingness to step out of their comfort
zone.
12. Educational background: While not a determining factor, parents with
experience in learning multiple languages seem to be more open to learning ASL.
Reviewed: The above summary was reviewed and approved by the Dr.
Nate Dutra on July 1, 2024.
References:
Dutra, Nathan J. (2020). "Including the Deaf Child at the Dinner Table: When and
Why Hearing Parents Learn Sign Language
." California State University, Sacramento. Retrieved: 6/28/2024, URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Dutra/publication/359849695_Including_the_Deaf_Child_at_the_Dinner_Table_When_and_Why_Hearing_Parents_Learn_Sign_Language/links/6254b39fcf60536e23564d4d/Including-the-Deaf-Child-at-the-Dinner-Table-When-and-Why-Hearing-Parents-Learn-Sign-Language.pdf
Pascale, R., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The Power of Positive Deviance: How Unlikely Innovators Solve the World's Toughest Problems. Harvard Business Press.
Additional notes by William G. Vicars, EdD:
As an experienced educator of Deaf youth, Nate had been concerned for many years regarding the problem of language deprivation and the role of parents.
Nate was considering formally studying why it is that the majority of
parents of Deaf children do not become fluent in sign language.
Together we explored the idea
that it is often
more effective to study what is working than try to figure out why
something "isn't" working and that it would likely be more
effective
to study
parents who actually did become fluent in ASL and find out what
motivations and characteristics they shared -- rather than studying
parents who didn't learn sign language.
I shared with Nate an example of a similar (but different) situation of a pair or researchers that helped a
society figure out why babies from poorer neighborhoods were thriving
while babies in other neighborhoods were not. The solution wasn't to study the lives and habits
of the parents whose babies were sick an malnourished but rather to
study the behaviors and environment of the babies who were thriving and
then try applying what works. It turned out that the families of
children who were thriving were feeding their babies "dirty" rice
or in other words rice that had mixed with various bits of protein and
greens. Families that could afford plenty of
"white" rice that was more pure and
supposedly more desirable were actually feeding their children a diet
that was less nutritious.
It was by studying what worked (not by studying what didn't work) that a
solution was found.
The specific study to which I was referring had to do with work
conducted by Dr. Jerry and Monique Sternin in Vietnam making use
of the concept of "positive deviance." They worked with the Save the
Children organization in the 1990s to address malnutrition in children. Instead of
just focusing on the families with malnourished children, they studied the
behaviors of families whose children were thriving despite being in poor
conditions. They discovered that these families were incorporating
nutrient-rich foods like small shrimp and crabs from the rice paddies
into their children's diets, along with sweet potato greens, which were
often ignored by others. This approach led to significant improvements
in child nutrition.
If the following link is still active, you can read about the research
https://web.archive.org/web/20160424021330/http://www.positivedeviance.org/about_pd/Monique%20VIET%20NAM%20CHAPTER%20Oct%2017.pdf
-------------
It was an honor and a privilege to serve on Dr. Dutra's dissertation
committee. If you are interested in this topic I encourage you to read
the dissertation for additional information.
- Bill
(William G. Vicars, EdD, 2024)
Also see: Positive Deviance
█
Notes: