The examples set forth here underscore the inherent problem when one relies too heavily upon "research" and "studies" to generalize about deaf children or to dictate how to raise any child, including a deaf child. When you eliminate personal observations and the knowledge that a parent has about their own child, one is excluding an extremely valuable resource. "Research" or "studies" can be good or bad, biased or objective, subjective and speculative or based on facts. It is one source, although in my opinion, one that pales in comparison to understanding one's own child and providing for your child's individual and unique needs rather than having your child's needs tailored to the findings and suppositions of "research" and "studies".
Hmmm. Guess you didn't bother to access and read any of the research, or you would have discovered which one actually was the result of parental interviews.
Remember these examples have been posted to support the allegation that oral deaf children, including those with cochlear implants have a greater incidence of "significant" social issues than their hearing and non-oral and non-implanted deaf peers.
Actually, no, that isn't why it was posted. That is supported time and time and time again through the life stories that are shared on this forum, in biographies, and in histories of the deaf. It was posted to refute the allegation that mainstreamed deaf children did not experience psycho-social difficulties because technology has made it possible for them to fully integrate.
"Many students who have a hearing loss and are educated in mainstream settings report feelings of loneliness and a lack of close friendships (Stinson & Whitmire, 1992)."
How many students? The entire population of deaf students? What was the population size of this study? Also, note that there is no differentiation between oral deaf and manual deaf students. No mention at all whether these students use Has, Cis or nothing at all. Most importantly where does it state that these mainstream students with a hearing loss report feelings of loneliness and a lack of close friendships greater than others? It does not.
Well, I suppose if you had of bothered to access and read the research, your questions regarding the number of students and their demographics would already have been answered for you. It is contained in the "Participants" section of the report. Likewise, in the methodology section, you will find the comparisons as applied to other groups.
"Most of these students are surrounded only by hearing individuals and generally have no deaf or hard-of-hearing peers (Stinson & Lang, 1994)."
Hardly need a study to tell anyone mainstreamed children with hearing losses are surrounded by hearing individuals. One would think that is self-evident. That these children "generally", one of many undefined terms, have no deaf or HOH peers is an observation, that in and of itself, proves nothing and is dispositive of nothing. It certainly does not support the allegation of "significant" social issues.
It most certainly supports it, as it is one of the most significant variables.
"This lack of contact with deaf peers may evoke feelings of being alone, different, or stigmatized (Evan, 1989) and may lead to negative self perceptions (Leigh, 1999)."
A subjective and speculative opinion that is being used as a fact. Note the key word: "may". Yes it "may", but then again it "may not". Also, nowhere does it state that the students they are referring to are oral or have cochlear implants. The statement can be applied to a Deaf student who uses a manual form of communication and who is mainstreamed.
An opinion based on empirical evidence that such appears to be true from the research studied and conducted. And it does break down the students' hearing status as well as their aided status, but then again, you have to be willing to access and read the whole research report.
"In addition to feelings of isolation, children who are deaf and mainstreamed face the task of orally communicating with hearing people most of the time. Oral communication poses the greatest difficulty in establishing and maintaining social relationships for children who have a hearing loss (Antia & Stinson, 1999; Aplin, 1987; Markides, 1989; Stinson & Whitmire, 1991). Although many children have the potential to hear and to speak orally with proper amplification and intensive speech therapy, not all have the capability to speak clearly or hear and understand other people's speech."
Agree, without oral communication skills, it is difficult to maintain social relationships with hearing children. However, the statement does not address the issue of those deaf children who do have those oral communication skills or distinguishes between them and those who do not. Also, note how old these studies are. Three of them are so old that they have no relevance to the deaf child of today who is getting implanted at a much earlier age. One disagreement is with the gratuitous labeling of all these deaf children as having "feelings of isolation". Where has that been established? How, if at all, are these "feelings of isolation" different than those experienced by virtually every other child at some point in their lives.
Again, yes, the study does address these issues. You really should refrain from stating what is included and what is not included in a document you have not even read. I have selected excerpts. It is by no means the entire research report. Nor have I ever claimed it to be. If one is so interested in this topic as to argue it so continually, it should be safe to assume that interest would lead to one actually reading the research.
One of the common criticisms of cochlear implants is that spoken language skills of implant users remain inadequate for full functioning within a hearing community (Crouch, 1997; Lane, 1997)."
"Common" criticism, really by whom? It is only a "common criticism" by those who oppose cochlear implants and have an anti-cochlear implant agenda. One of the "authors" of the study is Harlan Lane, a long discredited critic of cochlear implants with an unrepentative anti-cochlear implant agenda. Obviously biased "research" is being used here, thus destroying its overall credibility. Also note the term "full functioning" yet another undefined term slipped into to give the appearance of a negative. How do we know what the term means and if many hearing people would also not qualify as "full functioning"? We do not but why let that get in the way of a biased anti-cochlear work?
By whom? Citation is there. You are more than welcome to access exactly where that research came from. Terms that are used and that are important to the conclusions drawn and the variable being studied have all been operationally defined. But, once again, you will have to access and read the research to know that. Bias is the result of refusing to look at anything other than what you want to believe. Sound familiar?
Well that's it for now, more to come over the next few days. So far absolutely nothing has been shown to prove and/or support the alleged "significant" social issues being suffered by oral deaf children and cochlear implant users.
