"DEAF AND DUMB" 
STIGMA, ST YPING AND STRANIT MANAGN-T OF TEM 
ADULT EXARING Imm AT W= 
(in two volumes. ) 
IVY 
Rutk Pindor 
Thesis prepared for subuismioz for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy at the Dep@Lrtmnt of Secie. 
logy, Brunel Univorsitys September 
1983 
The title was chosen since the phrase "Deaf and Dumb" 
in one of the comoner epithets used by hearing people 
when referring to the hearing impaired* "Dumb" is 
usmally employed in a PIDJorative rather than a lit. 
cral sense. 
"Itd never declare I was deaf on an application form.. 
They'd think you couldntt speak as well" 
(Miss C. G. ) 
"Being born deaf it Is not different. When you beoome 
deaf you pick up what deaf people feel anyway - behaviourg 
habits, feelings ... It's much easier for someone with 
acquired deafneSB to accept other deaf people" 
(Mr. H. H. ) 
-i- 
ABSTRACT 
This study investigates the perceptions different groups of hear- 
ing impaired adults have of the diffim., lties experienced in the acquis- 
ition and retention of satisfactory employment. A societal reactions per- 
spective is adopted: departures from 'standard' communicative competence 
which violate expected norms of interaction are heavily sanctioned in 
our society. Those who 'deviate' in this respect tend to be negatively 
categorised in a fairly uniform manner. Thus the mildly impaired suffer 
similar imputations of deviance as those more severely impairedg varia- 
tions being of degree rather than of kind, Despite this common categori- 
sationg however, the hearing impaired adopt differing strategies to deal 
with stigma according to their skill in achieving 'standard' communio- 
ative 'competencies', 
The semi-olosed field of employment was chosen as illustrative of 
my arguments, as the hearing impaired Must contend daily with a hearing 
environmento Participant observation activities were combined with in- 
depth interviewing of fifty respondentsq covering a diverse range of 
clinical loss, age of onset and commmication skills* 
1kr- - 
M, y major speculation was confirmed* Respondents, as a groupt felt 
under-involved, if not totally segregated from participation in economic 
goals by the stereotyping and stigma reactions their handicap was per- 
ceived to elicit from work colleagues and employers* Outoomesq howevert 
differed according to skill in communicative performanceg although the 
work- setting constrained options overall for successful strategy man- 
agement* Other findings include the power of informal labellers to in- 
stigate deviant outcomes; the situational and sequential nature of 
deviance defining; the legitimation of limitations extrinsic to a res. - 
pondent's handicap as intrinsic, and their rationalisation as 'insup- 
erable obstacles'; and adherence by respondents to the work ethic. 
An appreciation of the commonalities of the deviantising process 
as applied to different groups of the hearing impaired is a pre-requisite 
for suggested anti-discriminatory legislation: to proscribe overt stigm&- 
tising behaviour, and ultimately eradicate stigma's 'small beginnings' 
at the level of individual interaction* 
- ii - 
ACKNOWIZDGEMENTS 
My grateful thanks are due to Mrs. B. E. Langford, Specialist Team 
Leader, Hillingdon Social Services Department (now retired); Mr. Humphries, 
Kanager, Perivale Employment Rehabilitation Centre; Mr. Andrew Kenyon, 
Director, Breakthrough Trust; Dr. S. D. G. Stephens, Consultant in Audio- 
logical Medicine at the Royal National E. N. T. Hospital; Mrs. Maureen 
Beaumont and Mrs. Mack, lipreading tutors for the boroughs of Richmond 
and Hounslow; and Ms. Jackie Hartleyq Chief Audiometrioiant Audiology 
Department, Hillingdon Hospitalt for their permission for me to contact 
the range of hearing impaired respondents necessary for a comparative 
study. Similarly, my thanks go to the 'Big Four' organizations for the 
hearing impaired: the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British 
Deaf Association, the British Association for the Hard of Hearingp and 
the National Deaf Children's Society for their generous help and inform- 
ation; and to the Heads of the schools I visited: Oak Lodge, Holland Park 
Partially Hearing Unit, Heston School for the Deaf, and particularly, -'Dr. 
Montgomery of Donaldson's School for the Deaf, Edinburgh; who allowed me 
to take part in clags and gain an initial ? acculturation' into the deaf 
world. For an entree to the world of the deaf community, I owe an es- 
pecial debt of gratitude to the chain of introductions initiatedwith 
the help of Ms. Rachel Coombs, Specialist Social Worker for the Daaft 
Hounslow, and Ms. Linda Richardst Chairperson of C. H. I. V. S., and social 
worker for the deaf, Hillingdon. 
I would further like to express my appreciation to Mr. Harry Moore, 
a University Psychologist (now retired) for his patient and untiring 
work in devising audiometric equipment for me and in the presentation 
of the data; to Mr. R. D. K. Storer, Headmaster, S. Peter's Collegiate 
School, Wolverhampton, and Professor M. Haggard, MRC Institute of Hear- 
ing Research, for their guidance and support in the many difficulties I 
encountered in this area. To Paddy Ladd of the National Union of the 
Deaf and Dot Miles of the British Daaf Association I owe an appreciation 
of the signing deaf militancy movement in the UK; and to the discussion 
time and reading advice made available to me by Dr. David Brien, Research 
Fellow, University of Darham - the Most dispassionate and sophisticated 
critic of my research from a worker in the field -I owe a particular 
debt of gratitude. For the encouragement to persevere when the outlook 
seemed bleak, my thanks go to the help and support of Dr. R. Conradj 
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford; Dr. Alan 
Thomas (previously) of North IA: )ndon Polytechnic; Dr. Patrick Westt MRC 
Medical Sociology Unit, Aberdeenj Dr. M. Oliver, Avery Hill College, 
Elthaml Ms. Suzanne Trevains, BJM Research Partners; and above all, to 
the efforts of my two supervisors, Mr. David Marsland and Mr. Ian Robinson. 
Most of all, my thanks are due to those _50 respondents 
without 
whom this research could not have been written, but who must, perforce, 
remain anonymous. They welcomed me into their homes and shared many of 
their most private and personal difficulties. And my most heartfelt 
thanks are due to those signing respondents who acted as "personal tut- 
orst to me, allowing me access to a world through sign with which no 
official introduction could have provided me. It is to these 50 men 
and women that this research is dedicated. 
- : 3.11 - 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
CHAPTER 1 ORIENTATIONS 1 
CHAPTER 2 DOING RESEARCH 22 
le Access to shared meanings? 24 
2, * Eatering the research situation: Partici- 26 
pant Observation 
(a) Gallaudet College for the Deaf 27 
(b) Learning to Sign 28 
(c) The Breakthrough Club 32 
3* Collecting my respondents 34 
(a) The Comparisons Controversy 34 
(b) Aocess to Bourees 41 
4* One side of the picture? The Snbjeotive 45 
Response 
5a Interviewing the hearing impaired: breaking 49 
all the Rules 
6.. Attempts at clasaification and measurement: 56 
Loosening the 'Objectivist' Grip 
CHAPTER 3 LABELLING THE HEARING IKPAIRED 71 
11 Deviance and hearing-impairment - The def- 73 
initions of others: The Power to Defile 
Stigma 74 
i. Hearing Aids as stigma symbols 77 
ii. The Lipreader as 'faulty inter- 78 
aotant' 
iiie 'Incompetent' speech 80 
iv. Sign Language 82 
(b) Stereotyping: 'Deaf, dumb and daft' 85 
2& The Ability to Resist: Stratemr Management go 
(a) Passing 92 
(b) Normalising 95 
i. Deviance Disavowal and Denial 95 
ii* Avoidance/Withdrawal 96 
iii. e Neutralisation and rational- 97 
isation 
ive A Note on Prior Disclosure 98 
Avowal 99 
i. Capitalisation 99 
ii. Capitulation 100 
iii, Confront at ion 100 
iv. The Deaf Community - collective 101 
confrontation 
(d) Politicization 
3-o Outcomes 
103 
105 
- iv - 
CHAPTER 3 contd. 
The definitions of others at work: additional 108 
obstacles, penalties, exposure, d curtailed 
bargaining powers 
CHAPTER 4 GAINING A FOOTHOLD: THE DIFFICULTIES OF OBTAINING A 117 
JOB 
1. Facing the world of work with unwanted 'stickers' 119 
2* 'Obstacles' to being hired 122 
(a) "They don't understand, It's like 122 
having fits" 
(b) A Preferenoe for 'Normals' 124 
(o) "Youl re a fire hazard" 125 
(d) "Jobs with a phone - they' re non- 126 
starters" 
3* Official Labels: Help or Hindrance? 128 
(a) A Diminished range of jobs: "There's 128 
no encouragement in the deaf world 
to expand" 
(b) Keeping in Line: 'Help' from the 134 
Statutory Placement Services 
i* The 'Stock response': "They're 137 
not geared to deaf people'# 
ii. Handling the System 139 
4* Facing a Prospective Employer 143 
(a) Prior Preparation - Application forms 144 
(b) The Interview 145 
i, To tell - or not to tell 147 
ii. Excuses - and rejection 152 
iii. To rely on a helping hand or 154 
manage alone? 
5* Being Out of Work: Actuality and Fears 156 
(a) Employment will always be bad for 156 
the deaf" 
(b) "I don't care what I do so long as 160 
I'm employed" 
CHAPTER-5 'STICKING IT OUT': THE PROBLEKS OF JOB RETENTION 165 
ill Work colleagues as unofficial labellers - 168 Triend or foe? 
2. Stickiness and Unease 171 
(a) "I feel deformed wearing one" 172 
(b) "When they hear my speech, they're 174 
speechless! " 
- 
CHAPTER 5 contdo 
3. Impatience and Irritability 179 
Strain - 'Managing a Front' 181 
4. Managing Stigma at Work: Some Effective Tactics? 183 
(a) Playing the buffoon 184 
(b) Avoiding the avoiders 185 
(o) Looking for protective cover la6 
5* Some Stigma Outcomes: "It's natural, isn't it? " 187 
(a) Being by"passed - gossip as a social 188 
ritual at work 
(b) Exclusion from lunches, ooffee/tea. 190 
breaks 
(0) Missing out on jokes 193 
(d) A self-confirming image? Loss of 194 
self-confidencel anxiety, isolation 
and depression 
Reactions and Farther Outcomes 201 
(a) Teasing, 'taking the mickey' and 201 
ridicule 
(b) "No signing here, pleaset" 202 
(0) Trouble 205 
(d) The entry of employers - reinforcing 211 
the verdict 
(e) Being sent to Coventry 215 
CHAPTER 6 MAKING THE MOST OF A BAD JOB 220 
Sins of commission or omission? 220 
(a) Missing out on things: "It's what 221 
you' re not told that matters" 
(b) Asking for help: "It's too much 225 
trouble" 
2* Instructions: A Form of Social Control 229 
(a) Being told what to do 229 
i. Coping with verbal instructions 229 
ii. Writing and gesture - an in- 233 
visible deprivation 
(b) Telling others what to do: "You're 237 
not. expected to supervise" 
3* "That's for Hearing People" 239 
(a) The phone as 'insurmountable 239 
obstacle' 
Strain, depleted self-confidence 241 
and 'spread' 
- vi - 
CHAPTER 6 contdo 
ii. Amplifiers - "We can't mess about 242 
with these" 
iii. A reduced quality of working life 246 
(b) Meetings: A Case of 'Doing Solitary' 248 
A 'No Go' Area 250 
4- Exclusion from economic goals 254 
(a) Expectations and aspirations versus 255 
'reality': Underemployment 
ie "Better jobs go to hearing people" 255 
ii, Boredom and frustration 259 
(b) A Step up the Ladder: The unassailable 261 
peak? 
io Denial, avoiding the issue and 263 
'paralysis' 
ii. "You never get promotion because 266 
you're deaf" 
(c) The Significance of work for the 271 
hearing impaired: making the most of 
a bad job 
ie Pipe-dreams 2-73 
ii. "You're lucky to have a job at all"274 
iii. Being trapped - and nagging 274 
uncertainty 
iv. Insecurity 275 
V41 Indifference - except to ap av 278 
packet 
vi. Itchy feet 279 
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS 282 
1. Major findings 284 
2. Findings -a diSOUSBion: Towards a new under- 286 
standing 
3* A Glimpse into the Fature: 
_Some 
Implioations 3o6 
for Further Researoh 
4* Some Recommendations 311 
APPENDICES 
1* A Review 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
318 
of the Literature 318 
Sociology -A Neglected Discipline 318 
An Historical Overview 325 
Noise-Induced Deafness 327 
A Depressed Economic Picture 329 
- vii - 
APPENDICES oontdo 
(5) Unemployment 330 
(6) Underemployment 3-16 
(a) Insufficient training and 338 
re-training opportunities 
(b) Reduced skill levels 339 
(c) Job Satisfaction/Dissatis- 340 
faction 
(d) The Range of Jobs - and the 343 
Role of Professionals 
(e) Low occupational mobility 347 
(f) Promotion prospects 349 
(7) The Business of Actually Finding a Job 352 
(8) Communication 356 
(9) Attitudes of employers 365 
(10) Predictions for the Future 368 
2. Summaries of information about respondents 377 
i. Self-asBessed hearing impairment 377 
(Table 2a) 
ii. Mode of Communication analysis 381 
(Table 2b) 
iii, Job Analysis (Table 2o) 382 
3* Criteria for selection of respondents 386 
4* Sources of respondents 389 
5- Specimen letters to respondents 391 
6, First Interview Schedule 393 
7. Modified Intervi-ew Schedule 400 
8. Attempts at Classification 407 
i. The Gallaudet Hearing Scale 407 
ii. "Questions about your hearing loss" 408 
iii. Pure-tone Air Conduction Testing 411 
Table 8a 424 
Table 8b 425 
Table 8c - Competence Groups I-V 426 
with data sheets & grap hs 
9* IEase of Communication with .. " Scale 446 
i 41 Rationale for 447 
ii. Consistency of usage checks 453 
Table ga 453 
Table 9b 455 
Graph 459 
10., "The Deaf Manifesto" 460 
11. Bibliography 461 
CHATIM l. - ORIENTATIONS 
Deafhess or hearing impairment 
11 21 has been described by Samuel 
Johnson as "the most desperate of human calamities" (in SUTCLIM, 1970)o 
Xany hearing impaired people theMBelveB have attested to the devastating 
I 
imPaOt whioh it has* above all, on interpersonal relationships* Whilst mo. 
tor impairments tend to isolate their victims from things# deafhess or hear- 
ing impairment isolates one from peopleo If social contact provides that 
Orucial BenBe of belonging to the worldl its deprivation baB profound 
sooial and other consequences* 
I intend to treat this thesis subject matter essentially as a problem 
of communicationg not in the usual way it is described in the literature 
as a clinical loss of expressive and receptive capacity; btut as a problem 
of. defective - and deviantised - communicative competence, which above all 
disrupts the assumptions people bave about. speeoh perfoxmanoe and inter- 
action* 
The subjeot aotually poses something of a paradox: namelT that the 
ability to bandle social interrelationships with the smootbness which our 
society expects and requires is a function of such oommmicative competenoeo 
But it is precisely these skills which the hearing impairedv in varying 
degreesl lack* It is a lack which is subject to strong cultural mnotionso 
Thus it is oompetenoe in speeoh performwee with whioh I am priztoi- 
written 
pally oonoerned (and only to a lesser extent witb/language)o In one sense 
it might be thought that I am taking an loralist' stance3 * This would be 
to misconstrue my positions I am concerned to penetrate the interface bwt- 
ween deaf and hearing in a hearing-dominated settingl that of employmente 
It is the perceptions of the hearing impaired as they confront this and 
attempt to devise strategies to ameliorate their position vioZemmis the 
assumptions the hearing world has about competent speech perforuance in 
which I am interested. We live in a society which places a high premium 
on 'effective' speech skillBo It is the hearing person's framemork of ref. 
erence for social understanding. And at workq the possession, of 'standard' 
- 
speech skills generally enhances the capacity of its users to 'get on'* 
Obviously language is the prior consideration, minimal language skills 
being reflected in correspondingly restricted or non-existent speech per- 
formance, witness the studies of the so-called wolf children (ITARD, and 
others). But few people speak with total grammatical accuracy. Indeed, 
the use of language in informal settings tends to be littered with gramma- 
tical errors, so that one can 'get away' with a oonsiderable amount of lin- 
gaistic inaccuracy, What are difficult to discount are distortions in 
speech delivery - discordancies of intonation, lack of rhythm, discrepan- 
cies in pitch, lack of 'affect' and, above all, lack of speech produp-Aion 
at all. Additionally, of course, effective speech performance also depends 
on congruence between stimulus and response, question and answer, so my 
notion of communicative competence also embraces the skill of lipreading 
and the use of amplification where appropriate, 
It has been amply demonstrated that most impairments negatively affect 
interpersonal encountersl and that stereotyping and BtigMatising are common 
responses to conditions which are, in some way, lunwholesomelyl different. 
Impairments, of course, vary in the amount of deviantising they elicit - 
generally according to their visibilityq their permanence, and the extent 
of responsibility attributed to the victim for his lot* 
In general terms, however, impairments which feature defects of the 
face and voice have been found to elicit a profound threat to the normalcy 
of interaction - more so than other impairments located in other parts of 
the body. The hearing impairedbreach expected norms of social competence, 
both in their speech and language performance, and by breaching culturally 
expected degrees of eye contact and physical space between interactants 
in the struggle to lipreado 
This being so a point frequently overlooked is, I suggest, the mis. 
guided emphasis on the supposed 'invisibility' of hearing impairment* To 
- 
an extent this is so. Firstly, for those whose expressive communication 
skillB are fairly intact, and who are able to rely on amplification and lip- 
reading to 'Pass' in most situations, a well-concealed hearing aid will give 
the other participant no indication at all of the existence of a handicap. 
Secondly, there is no prior preparation available to prospective interactants 
analagous, for example, to the sight of an approaching wheelohair-bound person. 
However, Eiign languagep used most by the profoundly prelingually deaf4. a 
is highly visible and public. And, cruaially depending on the degree of 
communicative deficiency, impairment in speech performance becomes immed- 
iately evident if not obtrusive on enoounter. As Goffman has argued so oo- 
gently, as soon as oonversation is initiated, our folk notions that speech 
will normally be without a hitch are broken; and the mechanics of conver- 
sation are such that the other actor's attention cannot but be directed, and 
re-directed, towards the offending orifice. 
My aim has been to try and understand sooiologioally some of the pro- 
oesses underlying the treatment of the hearing impaired in the particular 
situation of work, in terms of the deviantising of those whose oommunication 
performance departs from expected norms. In particular, I have endeavoured 
to understand how hearing impaired respondents themselves try to make 
sense of the social and economic under-involvement, if not outright segre- 
gation, to which I oontend they feel subject. 
To this end I have adopted an interactionist or, more partioularly, 
a societal reaction approach as the most effective explanatory tool for 
such an analysis. I have found it useful to confine myself to a series of 
senBitising concepts: namely thOBe of stigma, stereotypingg strategy man- 
agement and deviant outcomes as working tools. This, however, in no way 
commits me to viewing labelling theory as an exclusive panacea for expli. 
cation. It merely illustrates one particular facet of a complex processp 
but one which has been crucially neglected. Its ultimate justification 
- 
lies in its being grounded in the data I have obtained. 
With this background in mindq I have extended the interactionist per- 
spective into the field of employment. This venture into the world of 
work was stimulated by what I perceived as a gap in interactionist studies. 
Whilet research has been undertaken of interaction in casual social sit- 
uations (GOFFMAN, 1957; 1963; 1968), andq at the other end of the extreme, 
in total institutions (GOFFMAN, 1961; COHEN and TAYLOR, 198o), little 
attention seems to have been paid to interaction in situations located 
between these two polarities. The implications of disrupted communication 
in and around employment represented for me a situation possessing some 
of the characteristics of both extremes. 
Ifq as I contend, those deficient in taken-for-granted oommunioative 
oompetence are sooially stigmatised and segregated, the question arises 
as to how far this social Ismeering* penetrates the work situationg and, 
if so, how, and with what ramifications in terms of exclusion from partici- 
pation in social and work-related activities; and ultimately in denial of 
access to the economic goals of success which are oonsidered to symbolise 
desired status in our culture. 
The speoific situation of employment thus seemed illustrative of my 
arguments for several reasons. It is almost a truism that it is mainly 
via work that people tend to integrate into the world at large. And in 
Western oulture both the ability to work and the nature of the work it- 
self tend to determine the social standing and worth of a person 
Moreoverg it is the social relationships at work which are now expeo- 
ted to give the majority of working people that sense of fulfillment which 
previoUBly tended to be derived from membership of an extended kinship 
system and a home oommunity. Even for the e"'lite of the labour forcel who 
are able to derive satisfaction from the intrinsic interest of the work it- 
self, social relationships are still important. 
- 
Fbr the hearing impairedl employment represents one of the most im- 
portant situations where they must not only contend daily with a hearing 
environment 9 but suBtain working within it. One can not get up and walk 
out of troublesome or ruptured relationships with ones work peers or super- 
visors in the way one can extricate oneself from uncomfortable social Bit- 
uations. It is the oonstant evaluation - and peroeived devaluation - by 
hearing work peers and employers which is at the centre of this issue. 
Againg employment is an area where the vast majority of people - hear- 
ing as well as hearing impaired - are under the oontrol of others. Oppor- 
tunities for negotiating favourable definitions of self are not generally 
BUStainable on one's own terms. Within this general limited frameworkt 
however, I anticipated some areas which would be more amenable to the ne- 
gotiation of favourable outoomes than otherst wheret perhaps, options would 
appear to be totally closed. What does this signify for a group already 
stigmatised? 
Additionally, work is an area where the actual number of jobs with a 
large communicative oontent is increasingt and where stylistically formal 
speeoh is often at a premium. Verbal smoothness, dexterity, style and 
polish are often the chief determinants in obtaining upward occupational 
mobility -a highly prized and expected goal in our culture. 
My intention to study the adult hearing impaired at work may well re- 
present the last opportunity to investigate directly the 'realities' of 
their employment experience, in an era where training for one job was pre. 
sumed to serve one through to retirement. Also, I may well have interviewed 
the last generation of hearing impaired employees to be engaged in trades 
traditionally entered by deaf employees: printingv bakery, assembly6--line 
work, clerioal work. AS Such, I contend, it is of oonsiderable BOOiOlOgioal 
importance. Given the traditional reluctance of the deaf - to ohange 
(disoussed in Appendix 1) , future researchers of the hearing impaired may 
- 
well be obliged to concentrate on a study of unemployment. 
Principally, however, employment represents a key area where the 
commonality of negative evaluations perceived to be made of the hearing 
impaired can, I suggest, most vividly be demonstrated. Da fe ct ive commu- 
nicative performance is often cruelly public. The outcomes are both 
tangible and intangible. 
The problematic nature of the hearing impaired at work will, I hope, 
be made abundantly clear in the empirical analysis. It is my fundamental 
contention that. those deficient in the taken-for-granted skills of speech 
performance are stereotyped and stigmatised socially and economically as 
much in the work situation as in any casual social encounter. Addition- 
allp, they are under-involved, if not actually excluded, from social and 
work-related activities, lacking that critical acceptance from peers and 
colleaguemwhich is vital to a sense of belonging and self-worth in BOO- 
iety. Above all, they are denied legitimate access to the economic goals 
which are supposedly available to all in our culture. 
Nevertheless, options for strategy management, although more limi- 
ted, represent an on-going struggle to maintain favourable definitions 
of self in the face of a fairly uniform tendenoy to categoiýise all hear- 
ing impaired at the lowest common denominator of ability, regardless of 
individual differences. 
Having located the target areav one particular issue ultimately be- 
came the central focus of this research: - the insistent emphasis, princi- 
pally from professional workers for the deaf, not only on the uniqueness 
of hearing impairmentv but on the uniqueness of different groups within 
the hearing impaired population. What began initially simply as tan in- 
teresting question', ie. the speculationthat those individuals with rel- 
atively minor hearing handicap undergo much the same social process as 
those with major handicaps, rapidly became a source of bitter contention 
- 
and, ultimately, pivotal to this thesis. 
I had speoulated that the same kinds of imputations, of stupidity, 
witlessness, mental retardation, which were perceived to be made of the 
prelingually deaf with poor speech, might well be made of those with 
acquired deafness, albeit in somewhat attenuated form. In other words, 
the differences might turn out to be one of degree onlyq rather than of 
kind. It seemed to my jejune eyes that a person adventitiously deafened 
4b 
at age 40, literate, but unable to lipread and thus talk with, is as much 
a social cripple as her prelingually deaf counterpart with minimal speech 
and language skills. Andt conversely, that some prelingually deaf 
people do manage to acquire passable speech and language to enable "normal' 
interaction to take place., 
Thus I felt the traditional dichotomy between pre- and postlingually 
rl, g% 
deafened was somewhat spurious when looked at in its sooial oontext of the 
kinds of judgements society tends to make of those with deviant communi- 
cation skills. Hearing people are rarely interested in the age of onset of 
impairment, merely the effects. Farthermorej I had anticipated that differ- 
ences would appear in relation to the way stigma was handled, and that 
such strategy management would correlate positively with the acquisition or 
preservation of 'acceptable' communication skills and, to a lesser extent, 
salience of resources. 
However, I found myself faced with a barrage of critioism that no valid 
comparisons could possibly be made between the various groups of the hearing 
impaired, their problems apparently being so mutually exclusive and unique. 
I shall look in more detail in Chapter 2 why it appeared that so many of 
the professionals I contacted in the field argued so tenaciously that to 
try and oompare the prelingually with the postlingually deaf waB to commit 
the folly, if not heresy, of searching for similarities where none existed. 
I was frequently assured that no study attempting such an exercise could 
- 
carry any credibility at alla 
Suffice to say that it was the emphasis on the uniqueness of hearing 
impairment - or rather what turned out to be the uniqueness of one partio- 
ular group in this world, that of the signing deaf and their distinctive 
culture - which ultimately provided me with the clue, Aetiologically, of 
courses every impaiment is unique. Moreover, I fully appreciate the need 
many impaired people feel to locate themselves psychologically, spatially 
and emotionally in oategories. To be able to define where one isp with the 
appropriate labelg is an enabling device which may help in coping with the 
handicap* Addi-tionally, -to be able to assert one's differences is poss- 
ibly a necessary pre-requisite to asserting one's similaritieso 
I was to discover that it is far from unusual* Searching for wider 
appliodbility to my findings, I approaohed a number of other organisations 
catering specifically for those suffering from disorders of communication. 
The reply from AFASIC* (1981) illustrates the point, Their letter stated: 
"This handicap is in no way comparable to the problems of not undez%. 
standing the meaning of words". ** 
I had surmised that an organisation dealing With all speech impaired chil: - 
dren would share points of commonality with the speech impaired deaf* I 
have not singled out this particular organisation in any spirit of malice* 
It is simply indicative of the fragmented, individualised world of the im- 
paired, which so effectively precludes an appreciation of its socially 
constructed nature* 
However, taking the perspective I have, I contend that impairments 
share common features which unite differing conditions to a much greater 
extent than they divide., Impaired people above all share with other min- 
ority groups minority status* They tend to be relegated to the margins of 
society. Each person with an impairment faces a common set of obstacles 
in the fom of dealing with cultural stereotypes and stigma (not to mention 
Association For All Speech Impaired Children 
An article written later by the Chairperson of the Association acknow- 
ledged such an alternative perspective (BROWNING, 1981). Apparently deaf- 
ness is one of the commoner miEp-diagnoses applied to aphasic children. 
- 
more tangible obstacles). He is obliged to negotiate the most acceptable 
role his definers will allow in the face of these, He is permanently en- 
gaged in a series of I stigma contests I., 
I suggest that hearing impairment, in common with other disorders of 
speech and language is unique only in the sense that problems of oomwinio- 
ation with others are the handicap. The fact that a distinctive culture 
based on the use of an equally distinctive visual language exists within 
the hearing impaired world in no way vitiates the validity of such a per- 
spective* 
I hope that an illumination of these questions will provide a fruit- 
ful new perspective on how the hearing impaired perceive -their worlde To 
persevere in the face of strong criticism is the lot of every sociologist 
who wishes to uncover layers of meaning that everyone is assumed to know* 
This intense opposition provided me with an uncomfortableg if not traumatic, 
introduction to a world reluctant to question its taken-for-granted stook 
of common-sense knowledge* 
Without wishing to give the impression that all was gloom and despon. 
dency, I was initially troubled by two other criticisms. Again they will 
have a ring of familiarity* It was the surmounting of them whioh finally 
gave me the impetus to persevere with a subject which could have been dealt 
with so much more easily - by means of an historical analyBiS9 for instanceg 
or by complying with the advice to concentrate on one group only* I claim 
no virtue for this. In return for the trials and tribulations, I gained 
the richness which comes from beginning to understand a world of meaning 
of which I had previously little or no knowledge* It is a riobness that 
transforms one's own personal autobiog-rapby. 
One critioism was the assertion that I should either have been hearing 
impaired myselfl or should have worked in the field prior to embarking 
on the studyo The criticisms took two forms: (a) how can you possibly 
- 10 - 
understand? And (b) how can you possibly have anything to contribute 
when others with years of experienoe know the area far better than you 
do? In crude terms, how can you, and secondly, how dare you? 
Nevertheless, the criticisms merit attention. To have been born 
'native' deaf 
6 
and an accepted member of the deaf community would, in- 
deed, have been a unique paeBport into that very particular world of the 
signing deaf aulture. And a mastery of sign language before embarking on 
the project would, of course, have been ideal. Actual research practice 
rarely acoords with ideal notions of how, optimally, it should have been 
done. 
Possibly to have been a 'native I deaf signer would have accorded me 
less easy access to the world of those with acquired deafness who numeri- 
cally form by far the greater part of the hearing impaired population7. 
And it is doubtful whether a fluency in sign would have facilitated my 
contact with that group of the hearing impaired whom I consider to be 
the most disadvantaged and neglected of all: the profoundly prelingually 
orally deaf, functionally illiterate, and with no vehicle of communi- 
cation other than natural gesture and home-made Bign. 
My motivation, however, has not been totally disinterested. I em- 
barked on the study for personal reasons in an attempt to make some kind 
of wider social sense of my husband's impairmentq multiple sclerosis. I 
contend that it is precisely because reactions to all impairments have 
so much in common - my husband Is unsteady gait and periodic loss of bal- 
ance giving rise to perceived allegations of being drunk, or worse, out 
of control - which provides grist to my argument. Although the metaphor 
is different, the wide application of the soubriquet *deaf and dumbt to 
the hearing impaired indicates much scope for commonality. 
I suggest that this position gives me both the advantages of addit- 
9 
ional insightg as well as adequate distance from the particular condit ion 
of hearing loss itself not to cloud my judgement. I could not have 
- 11 - 
done research into m. s. Thus 'I can': living with a husband who is im- 
paired gives me the kind of "intimate familiarity" (LOFLAND, 19? 6) which no 
hearing professional working for the deafj however devoted, can acquire. 
Additionally I sought to meet the criticism through extensive use 
of participant observation. Throughout the first two years of the pro- 
ject I spent a great deal of time sensitising myself to the issues which 
make hearing impairment problematic. They were for me some of the most 
exciting aspects of the whole research exercise. I will describe them in 
detail in Chapter 2. 
As for the second criticism, 'I dare' because it is precisely the 
contribution of sociology (so absent from this field as I will note shor- 
tly) to question the apparently obvious a8SUMptions upon which those 
working for so many years in the field rely. My contribution to the 
grand scheme of things may be smalll but I have raised questions and 
suggested an aLlternative way of lookin for those willing to re-appraise 
their assumptions of the taken-for-granted and absolute 'rightness' of 
their view of the world - without in any way wishing to demolish the old- 
er perspective. It is simply an added dimension to the understandings 
which already exist. Reality, as BFMER (1963) has noted, has mny layeris 
of meaning. If I have succeeded in peeling off one layer, encouraging 
people at least to pause, then a 80CiOlOgiCal investigation of the hear- 
ing impaired at work will have been well worth the while. 
The actual choice of hearing impairment on which to focus as opposed 
to, say, cerebral palsy, was almost entirely fortuitous. My MA diS8er- 
tation which was concerned with the perception of a range of impaired 
respondents of the process of registration with the DRO just happened to 
include a profoundly prelingually orally deaf subject in the sample. The 
shock was almost irrational. With vocal chords unimpaired, he was unable 
to communicate a single word with me. The strength of the feeling 
associated with an inability to communicate remains 
- 12 - 
with me and has given impetus to this thesisl although the lack of 
speech no longer shocks or disconcerts. 
With this background in mind, fifty respondents covering the whole 
range of hearing impairment and communication modes were interviewed in 
depth in an attempt to approximate as closely as possible the meanings 
and 'realities' which subjects attached to working in a hearing-dominated 
work environment; and to investigate the methods and 'accounting proced- 
ures' they developed in making sense of their situation. 
I made a very deliberate and conscious decision to concentrate on 
their perceptions only (the methodological problems of which will be 
dealt with in Chapter 2). rather than verifying their accounts by the 
use of a control sample. Apart from approaching the man in the street, 
the only meaningful hearing control sample would have been the employers 
and co-workers of my respondents. As some of my subjects were engaged 
in concealing or at least normalising their impairment, to have under- 
taken such an exercise would have been ethically unfeasible. 
In any event my interest lies not in verification at this stage. 
The aim is to focus on how the hearing impaired perceive and manage their 
world* Accounts of how the hearing population regard them are legion, 
and have played a significant role in dictating how the hearing impaired 
should or should not be educated, what jobs they should/should not do; 
and whether they should/should not be 'integrated' into mainstream society. 
The hearing person has traditionally "fronted" for the deaf (NASH and 
NASH, 1981). What the hearing impaired have to say of their experiences 
of reality, and how they structure their responses to cope with constant 
denigration of their status have not had much of a hearing. 
The very nature of their impairment, of course, precludes much arti- 
culation of their plight. They are obliged to rely on other8 to do it 
for them -, hearing others. Thus the reference point has always been 
- 13 - 
located around hearing normsq largely ignoring the symbolic universe inhabi- 
ted by the hearing impaired themselves. 
Hence the preservation of the integrity of the data has been a souree 
of concern to me. However, merely to allow the "itches and pangs" to stand 
by themselves may suffice as a journalistic exeroise but not as a piece of 
academic research. Inevitably I have imposed an analytical framework upon 
the data whichq if shown to the respondents I talked with, might oonceivably 
make little sense to them. It is something which, as BECKEM (1974) noted, 
we ought to be more concerned about. 
What I have tried to do is to Juxtapose the data and framework in such 
a way that the data does not beeome submerged. I have also kept intaot many 
of the idiosyncracies of speech and syntax, not in order to strive after 
piquancy of effect, but to state 'this is how it was said/signed to me'. 
Some discrepancies in the sophistication of response of signing respondents 
will be apparent. They reflect my slowly growing competence, rather than 
being indicative of 'illiterate signing'. Where reoourse was additionally 
made to writing, I have preserved and reproduced directly what was written. 
Finallyq a word about the paucity of sociological literature on hear- 
ing impairment generally which justifiedg in retrospect, my working in this 
area. Interestingly enough it is paralleled by an equivalent dearth of 
sociological interest in other communication disorders, suoh as aphasia, 
severe stuttering, cleft palate speech and male lisping. Considering the 
stress sociologists have traditionally placed on speeoh and language as 
essential to the socialisation prooess, the omission is puzzling. Fbr the 
hearing impaired, it is an omission which has only been repaired, largely 
for the signing deaf , in the last two to three years. 
Other impairments have fared considerably better in attracting the 
attention Of BOCiOlOgiStS, particularly sociologists of deviance: the blind 
(SCOTTj 1969); the mentally retarded (EDCERTON, 1967; MOR, 1973); 
- 14 - 
epileptics (WEST, 1979; OLIVER, 1979), not to mention the numerous socio- 
logical analyses of the Imentally ill' (GOFýWAN, 1961; SCHEFF9 1963; 
S'ZA-SZ,, 1970). Yet disorders of communication are the very stuff of socio- 
logy. They are handicaps which vitally affect almost every aspect of the 
interaction between man and the society he inhabits. I shall look at 
the few exceptions to this picture in Appendix 1. 
Part of the explanation, I suggest, lies in the dominance of the med- 
icall para--fnedical and teaohing professions, each wedded to an individual 
pathological model of hearing impairment which conveniently obscures and 
mystifies its wider social implications. Above all, professionalism 
takes the hearing world as its referent. And the existence of a captive 
audience in the form of segregated schools for the deaf has ensured that 
concentration has focussed on this sector of the population to the ex- 
elusion oFf all else. I suggest that psychologists have played no small 
prart in legitimating the 'deaf and dumb' syndrome by the administration 
of a battery of verbally loaded IQ tests to profoundly deaf ohildren. 
Sociologists themselves are by no means immune from c3iticism. 
Diffiaulties in communication in addition to those normally experienced 
in any research project have also contributed, I suggest, to the lack of 
the kind of qualitative data often favoured by sociologists - contrary 
to the relative ease which administration of standard tests and measure- 
men,;, techniques permit. If psychologists are guilty of an excess of 
fervour, we are equally guilty of sloth. 
Moreover, little of an analytical nature has been written about the 
social processes which make employment problematic for the hearing impaired. 
The literature has been largely intrumental. (raviewed in Appendix 1) and 
confined to the prelingually deaf. Using a host of varying definitions 
and methods, comparisons are virtually impossible. But to the best of my 
knowledgeg there has been no attempt to understand sociologically why the 
- 15 - 
hearing impaired appear to be denied access to normal employment pro- 
spects. And the reluctance to look - even instrumentally - at the wider 
implications which a study of hearing impairment might have for other 
communication diBorders I have found worrying. 
Above all else, this thesis represents a plea for unity: not just am- 
ong the hearing impairedg but with all impaired people. If by focussing on 
a societal framework of analysis, the depoliticizing and parochial nature 
of the traditional focus on an individualistic model of impairment can be 
clarified, a mutual appreciation of the commonality of the problems of 
all impaired people might emerge and the impetus for change stimulated. 
Fbr the hearing impaired, if I am able to show thEit the processe8 
stereotyping and consequent stigmatising tend to apply fairly uniformly 
across the whole spectrum of the hearing impaired population, which I con- 
tend they do, it is my hope that the age-old barriers between the vying 
groups might, at best, mellow. If, for example, the use of sign lang- 
uage fails to protect the otherwis: e communicatively 'incompetent I from 
trouble at work in much the same way as the orally deaf with minimal 
speech competence q can a toleration of the hearing orientation of the 
latter not be extended by the former? 
Without a basic appreciation of the commonality of their devalued 
status, the impaired are currently represented by hundreds of organi- 
sations, each wedded to the interests of that particular group, and of- 
ten supported by a powerful phalanx of professional vested interests de. 
termined to preserve the status quo. Such a situation is counter-pro- 
ductive for ameliorating the situation of impaired people. Discrimi- 
nation will continue Whilst the foaus is on impairment as a matter of in. 
dividual pathologyq rather than endeavouring to understand the wider 
social context in which such discrimination operates. 
Having outlined my basic argument, located the 'problem area', raised 
- 16 - 
some substantive issues, indicated something of the problematic nature 
of hearing impairment and its lack of treatment by sociologists, des- 
cribed some of my own difficulties and motivationst the basic framework 
of the thesis is as follows: 
Chapter 2 is a sequel to this introductory Bection. It examines in 
greater depth some of the issues I have raised already, such as the com- 
parisons controversy. Further, it looks at the problems of obtaining 
that "privileged access to shared meanings" (PLATT, 1982), and how this 
was tackled in terms of participant observation and in-depth interviewer. 
My various attempts at learning sign are diBCUBsed, together with what I 
consider to be one of the most important ancillary issues raised by this 
research: the difficulties experienced in interviewing different groups 
of the hearing impaired. The process of data gathering, and my attempts 
at quantification will be examined. 
Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical perspective I have adoptedg al- 
though a comprehensive discussion of the basic tenets of a labelling 
approach has been considered otiose. I have concentrated on a few wor- 
king concepts derived from this perspective, which arose out of and are 
firmly grounded in, the data gathering process, and which seemed to pro- 
vide the most fruitful tools for analysis. I have indicated how, tradi- 
tionally located in the sphere of casual social encounters, this per- 
spective may be fruitfully extended into the area of employment. The 
general relationship between deviance and hearing impairment is my pro- 
visional starting point. 
have endeavoured to illustrate my perspective directly by relating 
it to the stigma attached, for example, to the wearing of hearing aids, 
to bizarre or 'incompetent' speech, and to sign language. The differ- 
ential strategy management of hearing impaired people in response to 
this is then discussed. 
- 17 - 
Chapters 4,5 and 6 are devoted to an in-depth analysis of my em- 
pirical data and form the core of the thesis. I have structured them in 
terms of the various phases involved in the work obtaining and retaining 
process. I have then analysed the perceived difficulties encountered in 
terms of a continuum of stigma reactions, ranging from moral and socio- 
psychological exclusion to economic exclusion. 
Thus, the first chapter is concerned with the actual processes of 
obtaining a job and contending with the stigma reactions which are a re- 
sult of both official and less formal labelling,, partioularly on the part 
of statutory placement officers and prospective employers. The culmin- 
ation of perceived restricted job access and redaced expectations and 
opportunities is the interview, which I regard as a classic stigma con- 
test between definer and defined. The deviant outcome of both actual 
and feared unemployment is discussed. Respondents' perceptions of the 
helping placement services are examinedl together with their attempts to 
make sense of job rejections. The restricted opportunities for man- 
oeuvrability in the face of official ýoutside labelling are noted. 
The heart of the empirical work is contained in the following chap- 
ter where informal, interpersonal social relationships with work coll- 
eagues are investigated. It is what happens at this primary level of 
interaction, I suggest, which sets the scene for future employment pro- 
spects. Analysis is in terms of a continuum of stigma reactions at the 
moral, socio-psyohological end of the stigma spectrum; and outcomes , 
ranging from exclusion from participation in the gossip network, to the 
instigation of touble are discussed. Options for strategy management 
are investigatedp together with a review of what I refer to as Isecon- 
dary deviant outcomes', ie. the extent to which continuous exposure to 
devaluative judgements tends to be internalised and self-confirming. 
The power of hearing work colleagues to shame and humiliate, and to act 
- 18 - 
as 'moral entrepreneurs' in the creation of further deviant outcomes is 
viewed as a particularly pernicious form of social control. 
The final empirical chapter focusses more particularly on the end 
point of the stigma reaction oontinivim - that of economic exclusion. 
Firstly, exclusion from participation in specific work-related taskB are 
looked at and then related to the much broader exclusion from partici- 
pation in the 'success motifs. Its roots in the interaction process are 
deemed to be crucial to an understanding of deviant outcomes at the lev- 
el of denial of promotion prospects, underemploymentq and the meanings 
the hearing impaired attribute to the concept of job fulfillment gen- 
erally. The restricted opportunities for redefining one 1B StatUS are 
contrasted with the more fluid nature of the bargaining process in a less 
enclosed situation. 
The concluding chapter will examine the implications of my findings 
in the light of the applicability of the concepts I chose to adopt. 
Does a labelling perspective provide the best explanatory model for 
what is seen as an orchestrated campaign to undermine the self-image of 
the hearing impaired at work? Finally, implioations for future researoh 
will be briefly touched on, and the wider applicability of a study of 
this nature discussed. Recommendations will be less concerned with pra- 
gmatic policy action - although some indications will be given of the 
way social policy change could conceivably alleviate the depressed econ- 
omic situation of many respondents. I am, however, more concerned with 
presenting an alternative way of looking. The emphasis is on creating 
a climate of understanding out of the similarities of experience of stig- 
ma and stereotyping, from which co-operation conducive to a much broader 
politioal solution might emerge. 
- 19 - 
NOTES 
10 1 have used the classificwtion adopted by the World Health Organis- 
ation (quoted in C. O. R. A. D9 1982): 
"An Lm2airment is defined as any loss or abnormality of psychological, physio. 
logical or anatomical structural function; disability is any restriction 
or lack (resulting from an impairment) of a ility to perform an activity 
in the manner or within the range considered normal; and handicap is the 
disadvantage resulting from an impairment or disability that prevents the 
fulfillment of a role that is normal **11. 
It seems important that some attempt at consistency of usage should be 
adopted. So whilet the works of HARRIS et al., (1971); SAINSBURY (1973); 
BLAXTER (1975 and 1976); and FINKELSTEIN (1980) have been notedy I have op- 
ted for the typology which has international currency. In any event, the 
corrm. on use of the term 'hearing impairment' constrained me, * 
24,1 have referred to the global area of what used to be called 'deafness' 
as 'hearing impairment'* This is a clumsy euphemism now in common usagel 
and one that does little to mitigate the social reaction to the condition. 
Any reference to 'deafness' in the text is largely confined to the profoundly 
prelingually deaf without speech (maimal and oral). The nomenclature im- 
plies no denial of the symbolic' reality' of deafness. At the time of Wlllý- 
ting, howeverl the term 'hearing impaired' has been adopted to describe the 
'hard of hearing' and those postlingually deafened; whilst the term 'deaf' 
or 13leafl has been reserved for the signing impaired BRIEN, 1983)e 
3- The oralist-manualist schism originated in the 16th century., Prior to 
this 'deaf-qnutes' were considered quite ineducable. The pressures towards 
educating the deaf were economic and legal* Under Justinian law, the con- 
genitally 'deaf and dumb' were denied all legal rights, crucially the right 
of inheritance (as opposed to those who were deaf but able to speak)., For 
the first-born of the aristocraoyp deaf-inutism posed severe problems and 
often led to the loss of an entire estate, It was the efforts of a Bene- 
dictine monkl Padre Ponce de Leon who taught 'deaf-mutes' of the Spanish 
aristocracy to read and speak, thus initiating the teaching of artioulatione 
However, his work was confined to members of the aristocracy. It was 
only in the late 17th and early 18th centuries that teaching of the deaf 
became of more general concern. Whilst Samuel Heinicke in Leipzig developed 
and extended the principles of speech teachingg the Abbe de 1'Epee in Paris 
was creating his own "*methodical signs 11 to produce a visual language 
"ordered according to French grammar" (BRIENj 1981) His successor, Sioard, 
is more properly credited with the foundation of sign language. 
These two disparate means of teaching polarised the deaf world into 
two bitterly opposing camps, oralist and manualistj a schism which persists 
today with all the fanaticism of religious warfare. The oralist philosophy 
as espoused today by its most sophisticated contemporariest Father van Uden 
in Hollandv and Daniel Ling in the U, S, l stresses the teaching of language 
and speech principally via lipreading and imitation of vocal movements 
through touch. Manual teaching, suppressed for many years in the UK9 is 
less a philosophy than a method borne of the failure of the oralists to 
'deliver the goods'* Manualists use one or other variant of sign, supple- 
mented by finger-spelling and speech where appropriate, 
4* A bewildering array of definitions has plagued the field of hearing 
impairment with concomitant effects on the meawn-ement and 
- 20 - 
estimate of prevalence - and the provision of appropriate services 
(WILKINS 
1949; HINCHCLIFFE, 1961; DtSOUZA, et al., 1975; HAGGARD et al., 1981) These 
have varied from tcongenitalt to 'acquired' deafness; 'pre' to 9postlimmial. I 
deafness; Ifunctionallversus 'non-functional' hearing "for the ordinaaW 
purposes of life" (Conference of Mceoutives of American Schools for the 
Deaf, 1938); 'deaf, 'partially deaft, 'hard of hearing'; to the definitions 
in current use by the IHSS and Department cof Employment, tDBaf Without 
speeoh1j 'Deaf with Speech' and 'hard of hearingt. (No guidance is given 
as to what these terms are supposed to embrace), 
I have finally reached the point, alongside more illustrious figures 
in the field (SCHICIN and IRLK, 1974) where the shortcomings of terminology 
$'. -make it virtually impossible to find, or invent terms which will aocux- 
ately distinguish between the several categories of deafness" (SCHOWRt 
1979). The determination of a single point beyond which one is described 
as 'deaf' is quite arbitrary. Howeverg as the term appear regularly in 
the literatureq and are used by professionals in the field, the followIng 
general classification has been adhered to in the thesis, 
da 
Tae 
Prelingual D-, afness - confusingly describes those who are either born 
deaf or acquire deafness before the age at which language acquisition 
is supposed to begin. I maintain this is far from satisfactory. Audit- 
ory perception is one of the first experienoes of a now-born baby. Aocor- 
cling to FISCH (1983) "The infant starts to learn many aspects of language 
from the very beginning and long before 6 months of age"o Yet Audiology 
Clinics still classify their 'prelinguals' to include quite wide varia- 
tions in actual hearing lossv and subjecta-up to the age of 2. 
Rven IENMARK's (1978) much respected definition does not resolve the 
confusion arising from ignorance of precisely when language acquisition 
commences. He suggests confining prelingual deafness to ".. hearing im- 
pairment which is profound, which cannot be alleviated to any useful de- 
gree by hearing aids and which is either congenital or acquired earlZ in 
life before the development of speech and languag6l' itals. ) 
It seems that any notion of prelingual deafness carries little 
credibility as a definitional entity. The distinction is rather that bet- 
ween acquired and profound congenital deafness. However, the problems of 
early diagnosis make even this latter a very fallible construct. Ny own 
disquiet echoes that of HAGGARD (1982). He argues: "Because there is a 
continuum of possible times at which a sudden deafness could occur, there 
is no categorical definition of prelingually deaf *. I'. He suggests a 
working definition thus: ".. a child of 5 or over whose speech and lang- 
uage are grossly deficient and who is severely -or 
profoundly hearing im- 
paired such that the impairment may reasonably be inferred to be the 
cause and who has not previously shown near normal linguistic competence", 
4be Acquired Deafness - This is taken to describe those who contract a 
hearing loss (which may be profound) after language has been ordinarily 
acquired. A condition oharacterised by a gradaal and Irogressive loss 
is thus distinguished from Adventitious Dsafness which generally refers 
to the sudden, traumatic onset of deafness, which may be partial or total. 
Its victims are usually referred to as the 'adventitiously deafened' 
(MoCALL, 1967; 1978)o 
5* My thesis has been Predicated both on the desirability and necessity 
of work. The work ethic was strongly adhered to be the respondents I 
talked with, Nevertheless, there is some merit in the argument that ft is 
illogical to ooeroe the severely impaired to maintain a prodactive role 
in a society which, despite protestations to the contrary, is affluent 
enough to afford them a reasonable standard of living outsi-9 the work- 
force, when unemployment amongst the able-bodied is high and likely to inareaseo 
- 2-1 - 
It successfully detracts from the more important task of finding alter- 
native legitimate roles for the impaired which fulfil the equivalent 
functions of work (CARROLL, 1965). And it is nonsense to spend large 
amounts on the special education of the profoundly impaired only to ne- 
glect their subsequent careers. However, given the resistance to posi- 
tive thinking in this direction, 'Significant Living Without Work' is 
a hollow concept. 
6. The term 'native deaf' refers to one who is born deaf of deaf parents 
and whose first language is sign.. Most deaf children are born of hearing 
parents - hence the persistence of the oralist/manualist controversy. 
7. HAGGARD (op. cit) estimates that 1 per 1,000 children are profoundly 
prelingually deaf. SCHIFF and THAYER (cited in WFJ-NBERGER, and RADELET9 
1982) suggest that those with prelingual losses represent only 2% of the 
hearing impaired population. 
, 
Other background information useful to an understanding of the 
subject is presented here for the interested reader. 
Confusion abounds regarding the blanket term 'deaf' and the equally 
vague term 'hard of hearing'. MOORES' (1978) distinction is a useful 
one: he defines a deaf person as ".. one whose hearing is disabled to 
an extent ... that precludes the understanding of speech through the ear 
alone, without or with the use of a hearing aid". A hard of hearing per- 
son is one ".. whose hearing is disabled to an extent .. that makes 
difficult, but does not preclude, the understanding of speech through 
the ear alone, without or with a hearing aid". 
The distinction between conductive (or middle ear) deafness and 
sensori-neural (or inner ear)--jeafness is important. (I shall omit the 
numerically tiny population of those suffering from central 1(ms, or 
"disorders which occur beyond the auditory nerve, ie. between the brain- 
stem and cerebral cortex" (THOMILS, 1980). Mixed conductive and Sensori- 
neural deafness, however, is more common. 
(a) Conductive deafness ".. is caused by any affection of the conducting 
apparatus - the external auditory canal, the middle ear cleft, or the 
labyrinthine windows" (BALLANTYNE, 1977). Amplification can usually 
remedy much of the loss, and surgical intervention is now available for 
the two main conditions: otosclerosis and otitis media* 
(b) Sensori-neural deafness, from which the greater portion of the hear- 
ing impaired population suffer, ".. is caused by any affected part of 
the perceiving apparatus - the cochlear (sensory) or the auditory nerve 
(neural)" (BALLANTYNE, op. cit). It is this category which critically 
affects speech discrimination and has obvious implications for the re- 
8tricted effectiveness of hearing aids. To date, the condition is in- 
operable. 
Definitional ambiguities have affected the assessment of the in- 
cidence of hearing impairment from the time of WIIZINS (opocit) onwards. 
A figure of c. 3 million has been agreed on for the past decade or so, 
with a fair degree of unanimity regarding the distribution of those 
suffering the above different types of deafness. HAGGARD et al. 
(op. cit), 
however, using audiometric criteria of 25dB HL in the better ear over 
a frequency range of 095 to 4 kHz, have suggested an overall national 
prevalence of just under 20% of the population with clinically significant 
hearing loss. 
N. B. Throughout this thesis I have used double quotation marks for 
direct citationj and single quotation marks for all other cases and 
inner quotation. 
- 22 - 
CHAPTER 2. DDING RESEARCH 
Reflecting on his experience in Sparkbrook from the vantage point of 
12 years'? hindBight, MOORE (1977) oommented: 
".. full-time research is not a job; it is a way of life, and so onels, 
life becomes woven into the research just as much as the research becomes 
part of one's life"'. 
Whilst I cannot olaim to have been immersed physically to the same extent, 
nevertheless for three years I have lived, breathed, eaten and often slept 
hearing impairment. Research does indeed have "all the intensity of a love 
affair"'(PAM et al. 9 1981) 
Even without the benefit of hindsight, it is clear to me what has 
mattered most: it is the respondents I have talked with, spent days if not 
several evenings with, enjoyed experiences with, and shared, temporarilyt in 
their recollections of painful times. It is they who leave the imprint on 
the retina. The empirical work has been the richest and most exciting part 
of the whole research exercise. I was loath to put it down. The moment of 
closing my fieldwork and sitting down to analyse and write up my data has 
proved to be the Most diffiault exercise of all* 
have, perhaps, opted to do one of the more difficult tasks in socio- 
logical research. Any research investigating a social problem rans the 
risk of becoming bad sociology because of its instrumentality. It can so 
easily fall into the trap of becoming simply a piece of well organised 'action 
researohl, or what T. H. MARSHALL (in BULMER, 1977) has trenohantly oalled 
11 the aimleE; s assembly of faots ". 
It is, as GLASER and STRAUSS (1968) note, the provision of a theoretical 
framework with which to make research relevant which is "the distinctive 
offering of sooiology". Thus, whilst my research stance was broadly inter- 
actionistv it was only with the gathering of data that a recognition of which 
sensitising concepts provided the tightest explanatory framework emergedg 
thus rendering a furthering Of theoretical insights Possible. 
- 23 - 
It was empirical work which I wanted to do. LOFLAND (1976) says: 
"To do something, you need to look at it. Direct empirical obser- 
vation is .. the basis of social, or any science". 
Without this approach, the researcher has no way of checking his own pre- 
suppositions, perceptions and inferences with first-hand data. His sub- 
Bequent analysis, Lofland argues, is likely to be not only "ethereal and 
empty" but inaoaurate,. To have addressed myself to a thesis divorced from 
the world of experience with human beings would have seemed to me a 
sterile exeroise. 
The real task, then, has been to make good sociology from the data. 
I have found LOFILAND's approach Particularly congenial: that of combin- 
ing what he terms "intimate familiarity" with "disciplined abstraction". 
I have endeavoured to follow his many preceptsq although the extent to 
which I achieved "intimate familiarity" varied from respondent to respon- 
dent , and te nde d to incre ase w ith t ime . 
There are so many methodological issues involved in doing research 
that one is in constant danger of becoming so overly self-critical and 
pre-occupied with methodological argument and counter-argument that a kird 
of intellectual paralysis sets in. Every stage of research is so beset 
with problems and questions that if one were to deal conscientiously with 
them all, no meaningful research would ever get done. 
I have thus chosen to deal with the intricate intertwining of method 
and methodology narrativelyq following the researh process chronologically. 
Some of the more fundamental methodological issues will emerge en route. 
In additiong I have consciously endeavoured to be as explicit as poss- 
ible about the whole research process, in an effort to make the, work repli- 
cable. I have tried to provide systematic information on my research meLh- 
ods, the theories and shifts in theoretical position which took place, tle 
assumPtiOns about social behaviour which guided my enquiries, and 
the sit- 
uations in which observations were made. Where detail might 
become tedious 
ý 24 -- 
I refer the reader to the various numbered appendices* 
My orientations were exploratory, The study was not designed to estab- 
lish generalisations about all hearing impaired people* Sample size and 
lae-K of representativeness constrained me, Yq aim was to inveatigate broadly 
how the hearing impairedl as a groupq perceived their employment situationg 
and the strategies they used to make sense of the often negative evaluations 
to which they were subject from colleagues and employers* The stance was 
an 'emic" one: in MALINOWSU's oft-quoted phrase: "to grasp the nativel's 
point of view, his relation to lifel to realise his vision of his world" "MONO= 
(in PELTO and PELTOp 1978), In other words I wished to approxi te as far 
as possible the 'realities' of the experiences and perceptions o-f my respon- 
dentst and look at the routines and taocounting prooedures" adopted by the 
hearing impaired in interaction with a hearing world of work* I was not 
concerned to test a set of pre-formulated hypotheseso 
My original approach, however, was predicated on the use of both q-dali. 
tative and quantitative data* During -the research periodl my thinking re- 
garding the relevance of the latter underwent a radical transformation* 
I have oome to rely quite i shamedlTon an interpretative approaoh as 
the most effective means of grasping the complexities of the subject* 
10 ACCESS TO SBARED MEMNGS 
One of the most taxing problems about doing interpretative research is 
the extent to which one may claim to be successful in achieving that "privi- 
leged aooess to shared mekanings" (PLATT9 1982)o A partial answer is-given 
by WUGLAS (1971): "There is no way of getting at the social meanings from 
which one infers the larger problems except through some form of 
oommunicatiom with the members of that society or group; and to be 
valid and reliable, any such oommunicatioirwith the members presupposes 
an understanding of their language, their uses of that language, their 
own understandings of what the people doing the observations are up to.. " 
Because communication is at the very crux of -this thesis, both a meta. 
phorical and literal interpretation of DOUGLAS, stress on "an understand. 
ing of -their language" is necessary., 
- 25 - 
I oontend the issue is only partially reBOlvable. To argue that "Sooial 
actions are meaningful" and can be studied and explained "in terms of the 
situations and meanings they have for the actors themselves" 
still does not adequately tackle the question of how one is to determine 
what these meanings are. DDUGLASII further argumentt that reliance mast be 
placed on ".. our understandings of everyday lifeg gained through direcrt ob- 
servation of that life and always involving the use of our oommon--sense 
understandings derived from our direct involvement in it" 
neglects the many occasions when our common-eense assumptions and understand- 
ingB are, crudely, 'off-beam', and actors are talking past one another. 
It is, I suggest, by no means always possible to assert that *there is 
a socially shared system of symbols and meanings, and that the meanings 
conveyed by linguistic and non-linguiBtio behaviours are clear and 
agreed upon by most societal members", (PHILLIPS, 1971) 
Whilst this may more generally be the case within one Is own societyl anthro- 
pological research has found to its cost that this cannot be taken for granted 
in studying primitive societies. And whilst the differenoe may be one of 
degree rather than of kind, the same assumptions can not legitimately be 
made about a hearing person's view of the symbolio universe of the hearing 
impaired. 
The literal question of understanding the language of one group of the 
hearing impaired population - in this case sign language, which additionally 
involves a transposition from different verbal/verbal modalities to a verbal/ 
visual modality - means that common background experiences upon which to 
draW are not available,. As NASH and NASH (1978) note, the hearing person 
"draws upon oulturally rather than sub-oulturally distributed meanings"". 
Fbr both signing and, I would suggest, Profoundly Prelingually orally deaf 
people with no 'standard' vehicle of oommunioationg ".. spoken English does 
not mean the same thing for the purposes of social interaction to the 
deaf that it means for the hearing user". 
It could not thus be assumed that the other actor's stream of consciousness 
was broadly similar to that of the researcher. 
The question of how a researcher, investigating a partioular culture 
such as the signing deaf community knows that the meanings he attaohes to his 
- 26 - 
subjects are the 'real' ones when he is notg and cannot be, a member of that 
Particular symbolic universe, presented very real practical and methodol- 
ogical difficulties to me. (How I attempted to penetrate that world will be 
described later)* 
Thus I oontend the most that may be hoped for are apEroximations to 
such shared understandings. These q of oourse, will vary. But the clear im- 
possibility of directly intuiting another's experience, even in face-to-faoe, 
encounters has been vigorously treated by SCHUTZ (1972), To do so would 
mean, as he says , "'0. you and I would be the same person". 
Nevertheless, despite the impossibility of identifying 'truth@, the 
researcher can get ol*Be to the subject and at least appz%)ac& that 'hidden 
shadow inside the head" by way of the research strategies I used* Whilst 
"privileged access to shared meanings" is the ideall actual research praotice 
has to oontent itself with less than the ideal. But in -the absenoe of any6- 
thing better, ".. we will oontizme to rely, 7 upon oommon-imnse knowledge and 
everyday language for negotiating our field studies",. (CICOURELl 1964). 
It is the most - and the best - the reBeareher can hope to achieve. 
2. ENTERING THR RESEARCH SITUATION: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION 
The tools for achieving this are traditionally those of pari; iaipant ob. 
servation and interview. The balance between the two aotivities varies, 
understandably, from sociologist to sociolegiste Whilst the subject matter of 
the research indicates the most appropriate strategies - and thus the use of 
questionnaires to study the hearing impaired was quite out of the question - 
these happen to be the tools with which I am most familiar and have some skill 
in using. What would have been ideal$ but was ethioally unfeasibleg was 
partiaipant observation of respondents at -work. 
Although interviewing formed the bulkt time-vise, of my personal oon. 
taot with the hearing impaired, it was not embarked upon before I had 
achieved a degree of sensitivity to the iserues involved, by means of partioi- 
pant observation. 
- 27 - 
My activities represented an attempt to penetrate what deafness means 
to the hearing impaired through "learning by direct experience" (PLATT, 1982) 
where possible. This entailed being with hearing impaired people and the 
adoption of roles to facilitate acceptance,,. These changed over time and 
varied acoording to the situation. But the move was generally from researcher 
to friend, 
Participant observation involved visits--to schools and participation in 
olass at Heston, Oak Lodge and Donaldsons Schools for the Deaf; visits to all 
the organisations responsible for various groups of the hearing impaired; 
membership of a branoh of the Breakthrough Trust; attempts to learn sign 
language; and lastq but not leastj a period of 'total immersion# in a deaf 
minority, --turned-majority status oulture at Gallaudet College for the Deaf in 
Washington, March 1981. 
(a) Gallaudet 
This latter turned out to be the most significant experience of my whole 
1 
researoh period. Total Comminication was practised only by some, princi- 
pally hearing, members of staff. The dominant modality was Amerioan Sign 
Language (ASL). Lacking proficiency in that* together with my total unfam. 
iliarity with the American one-handed manual alphabet led to a oomplete re- 
versal of roles. Socially, I was a hearing VOUtBidert in a deaf culture. 
'Conversations' would start, falter, and then oollapse with reoourse to 
pen and paper. An animated sign dialogue would start up on one side of the 
tablev leaving me neither deliberately, and certainly not malioiouslyq but 
very effectively ex0luded- In time I came to adopt some of the strategies 
which r4y hearing impaired respondents themselves were later to describe to 
me so graphioallY- 
I regard this as the most positive, if salutary, experience. No other 
only about 2507 f the signs are similar to those of British Sign Language ?,, 0 
(BSL). It must be notedv however, that those fluent in BSL appeared to have 
little difficulty in adapting to ASL. So it is with sign systems of other 
countries and accounts for the limited use of Gestuno, the 'International' 
sign language. 
- 28 - 
situation could possibly have provided me, over a sufficient time-spang the 
chance to simulate what it is like to be deaf in a hearing society* 
The Programme also allowed for 'matching-up' with a deaf postgraduate 
Student* This afforded me a quite unique opportunity to penetrate his 
world. It was one whiohl unlike that for the deaf in ]Amgland# espoused a 
counter stigma ideology* At, Gallaudetv deafhess was something to be proud 
of* Flor instance, he and his profoundly prelingually deaf wife were ex- 
pecting their first child* As he suffered a form of hereditar7 deafneser, 
the statistical chances of the baby being born deaf were therefore quite 
high* That this was something to be weloomed initially came as a profound 
shook to me* Butj as he explainedg every facility was available for the 
sooialisation of a deaf child* Not only the environment but his own very 
positive evaluations of his handicap were geared to maximising the pot- 
ential of such a child* The irony was that a hearing child would be an 
'outsider' in that enviro=ento 
The sense of shame, humiliation and oonstant denigration suffered by 
many deaf people in the UK -was marvellously absent here* It was an ex- 
hileratingl if exhausting experience (PINDER9 1982)o Tetq apart from the 
courtesy status extended to me as a visitorg it was a world within a world 
whose members were protected from the slights of the hearing majority 
loutside'19 (of. CROCE, 1980)o To what extent this oan be sustained is 
a matter of on-going debate* 
(b) Learning to Siga 
I returned to the UK determined to tadkle anew the task of learning 
sign language as a gateway to -this deaf world 
2* 
My first two forays had 
been less than successful. Teaching at the City Literary Itkstitute was 
creative, imaginative and resourceful, as well as providing an introduction 
to the whole spectrum of s'ga 
3* 
However, with 12 weekly evening claoaes and 
one 3--day intensive courset quite divoreed from contact with deaf peoplel 
I have to 
-me 29 - 
concede I showed little flair for it. 
I fared little better with lessons later at the Breakthrough Centre, 
Emphasis was located heavily at the Signed Mcact RnRI ish end of the spectrum, 
rather than the 'pidginIf sign taught at the City Lit-., although the teacher 
herself was Profoundly andI suspect, prelingually deaf. Rvery definite and 
indefinite article, pronoun and other loolourless wordst had to be finger- 
spelt4. I was to disoover later that the signing deaf do not talk to each 
other this way. Each session was devoted to learning long lists of vooabulary, 
using, for example, one and two index fingers, one and two flat palms, one 
and two thumbs. Confusion was rife , and no between-group dialogue in sign 
was encouraged in class where the vocabulary oould be applied. 
It is difficult to be objective about failure and try to analyse why 
it occurred. In re-living the experiences for the purposes of analysis, there 
is the danger of relapsing into bathos and personal defensiveness. Never- 
theless, an obligation lies upon the author to try. 
Perhaps some explanation lies in the stress on visual memory. There was 
nothing in print to reinforce what we were being tanght at the City lit. 
5 
P 
(although at Breakthrough, we were Provided with Makaton sign illustrations 
which would have helped if sign dialogue had been enoouraged 
6 ). Ny previous 
orientation towards learning languages had always been lacademie, auditory 
input being supplemented with visual, textbook revision*. Evidently, my 
visual memory was poorg or untrained. 
Ho-weverl when I set out to test this, I found it not entirely consistent 
with, for examplet an above average ability to memorise musioal notation. 
What I did find was that memorising Beethoven sonatas on the piano mLs a 
very much easier task than memorising those of Schubert. Schubert"s piano 
works are oharacterised by very similar oonfigurations of notes, ohangii2g 
* Mrs. Martin Colville informed me that in Denmark, Sign is taught 'aca- 
demically' for those who prefer it, rather than relying on the kind of ex- 
tended fLook and Sayt methods of the City Lit-, so that the rules of sign, 
such as positioning and modulation, are made quite explicit. 
- 30 - 
often only by a semi-tone as the melody progresses. 
Similarly, Bigns look so much alike and cluster oloselyo particularly 
round the finite points of the faceg and body. It is often only the mizmtest 
variation in hand or finger positioning which conveys the difference in 
meanings. Moreover, sitting opposite the teacher meant having to transpose, 
mirror-wise, the actions of her hands. A palm displayed outwards had an un- 
erring tendLency to turn itself inwards towards my body; an action with a left 
hand invariably found itB way to my right hand; an index finger gesture 
somehow expanded itself into two index fingers. 
The essence of successful signing is fluidity of movement and rhythm. 
Fluency evaded me. What I managed to aahieve has been described as Isign 
stammering' I in that my movements were jerky and unoo-ordinated. Again, this 
is inconsistent with the author's manual dexterity in other spheres. 
Another factor is sign language's greater reliance on ioonicitY', the 
art of improvisation, and the ability to mime a situation so that its meaning 
is clearly articulated and intelligible physically, even if the sign itself 
is forgotten. Performance calls for a certain shedding of inhibitions. The 
faoe and body must express what the hearing impaired lose above all else - 
affect. Many hearing people find such apparent 'over-demonstrativenesst 
diffioult. 
The crucial point, however, seems to be the need for reinforcement 
through practice with signing deaf people, One is caught in something of a 
"Catch 221 position here. Penetration of the deaf community is essentially 
dependent on Bome maBtery of their language 
(JACOBS, 1980; HIGGINS9 1980; 
BECKER9 G, 1980). But one oannot go into the deaf world to learn their lan- 
guage as one would visit a foreign country' such is the distrust Of 
'hearies'. 
In my defencep I would argue that I was at a disadvantage at that time- 
as I had no one with Whom 
I could practise between classes. Most of the other 
participants either had deaf relatives, or were themselves social workers or 
- 31 - 
teachers, with the deaf, and were thUB in daily contaot with signing deaf 
people, This did appear to correlate well with superior performance (KYLE 
and WOLL, 1980). The same absence of practice characterized lessons at the 
Breakthrough ClubP 
I had, however, elected to researah and make oomparisons between differ- 
ent groups of the hearing impaired. Fbr a truly oomparative study to be made, 
somehow the signing deaf had to be included. When it came to interviewingg 
I had oonsidered in advanoe the possibility of enlisting the help of an inter- 
preter. E'ven had one been available, there would have been transport and pay- 
ment diffioulties. Moreover, not only do third parties impose additional 
distancing between researcher and subject. Interipreters act as oDntrollers 
of the interaotiong affecting both outcomes and the general tone of an en- 
counter. OUtOOMOB may be crucially manipalated. 9 depending on whose side he/ 
she is. And with a fast interchange of sign, I would have no means of checking 
that what was being signed and translated back to me in spoken Enal ish had 
not suffered significant distortion of meaning in the process. 
I eventually resolved the problem with the help of two sooial. wDrkers 
for the deaf whom I had aooompanied to Wlaudet. They initiated a series of 
introdactions for me, so that I oould have one-to-one tuition in sign. It 
was a question of simply ffollowing my nose' , but it led to a penetration of 
the deaf world whioh a conventional reliance on sign language classes could 
never have given me. With my informal teachers, I went to parties, spent days 
in peoples' flatsl visited one Itutor'B' workplaceg and was# at least par- 
tially, aooepted into their world. 
Miss M. A. , the 
'tutor I with whom I had most oontact I initiated other 
contacts for me. It was often only by virtue of her initial presence 
that I 
was permitted entree to a chain of other contacts. Without the active pre- 
sence of such a facilitatort I should have been quite bleckedl suoh 
is the per- 
ceived threat hearing outsiders pose to the fragile meaning structure of 
the 
deaf. And I learnt passably adequate sign language. 
- 32 - 
This illustrates how the adoption of a non-threatening role, that of 
tutee rather than researcher in this caset can lead to access to subjects who 
are otherwise rightly auspicious of the motives of thearies', And, im the 
event, my tutors were mostly happy to use the interview format as an additional 
basis for teaching me how the signing deaf communicate with each other. 
Thus, what was initially a failure opened the door to worlds which would 
otherwise have been imacoessible to me. I was, as a result, muoh better 
equipped to draw on the complexity and richness of the stories my signing 
respondents had to tell. 
(a) The Breakthrough Club 
A further on-going activity which lasted for a year and a half wam fort- 
nightly attendances at one of the local branches of the Breakthrough Trust 
Dsaf-Hearing Group. An abilitY tO play table-tennis well was a more effective 
passport to my initial aOceptance there than any other role as researoher or 
'helper (although the former beoame aoceptable in time). 
In many ways the Club is a unique organisation, with its emphasis on the 
integration of the hearing impaired into the haring world, focussing on the 
development of friendships between deaf and hearing people. It represents a 
oourageous attempt to break down similar barriers amongst the hearing impaired 
themselves, as well as to integrate those with other,, often multiple, impair- 
ments into the wider sooiety. 
It isq perhaps, early days to draw more than tentative oonclusions as to 
its suocess. Undoubtedly it did what no DBaf Club, to my knowledge q has yet 
succeeded in doing, namely attracting a wide range of people with differing 
impairments to its doors. * Cruoiallyp the profoundly prelingually orally 
deaf who tend to be snubbed at DBaf Clubs9 found a sanctuary there. Plaradoxi- 
oally, the only group it did not attract was the signing deaf. Occ%asionally 
groups would arrive, find that few, if any, members, of the Club able 
to sign 
well rtainly not use 
BSL - and leave. 
* one respondentv at oorroboration interview explained 
"Most deaf don't like 
to be classed with the disabled. They cling to a concept of mmality". 
- 33 - 
According to IIIASH and NASH (1978) this latter is hardly surprising. 
A Club fboussing on integrationg with its emphasis on E3peeoh and hearing, 
they argue, would probably be farthest away from any genuine sympathy with 
Bign. The 11 Deaf I experience is evidently perceived to be very different from 
the 'deaf I experience. 
The question, 'DDes integration work? ' is part of the much wider inte. 
grationist/segregationist controversy in the hearing impaired world. It is 
now oouched in linguistic terms: "BSL users" and "English--speaking users*, 
corresponding to the old oralist (hearing)/manualist (deaf) dichotomy. Break. 
through is firmly heariRg in its orientationg and its aims essentiallw, re- 
formist. An inoonsistency highlighted by RYAN and THOMAS (1980) does seem 
operative here: both reformistB and outright segregationistB assume that the 
problem inheres in the hearing impaired person himself. The question is rarely 
asked why society as a whole is so unwilling to integrate the hearing impaired. 
This is not the place to be drawn into the oontroversyp although it 
permeated much of the research exercise and was to be a focal issue in gaining 
accesw, to signing deaf respondents. Suffioe to mte that the Club perhaps 
provided a base from which, potentially, cultural values aould be presel-nd 
whilst acquiring a nominal acceptance of majority values necessary for our- 
vival, This is a feat performed by some minority groups better than others 
(VERINON and MKOWSKY9 1969). 
What all these and other partioiPant observation activities enabled me 
to do was to sensitise n7self to the way various groups of the hearing im- 
paired viewed their world, and its interfaoe with the dominant 
hearing maj- 
ority. When I did embark on interviewingg I had thus achieved som under- 
standing of the meanings 'deafness' held for people. I oontend 
this disposes 
at least in part with one of 
the criticisms to which I was subject: that of 
the non. -credibility of my research 
for want of familiarity. And it also 
deals with the difficulties of acquiring acceBs 
to shared meanings, the 
question raised at 
the beginning of this ohapter. 
ý 34 - 
COLIECTING MY RESPONIMS 
Mach consideration was given to the question of what sources to approach 
for a sample. This is fundamental to any evaluation of the validity of the 
inferences I was ultimately able to make. (Reliability poses a rather differ- 
ent problem - to do with the use which is made of the data, rather than the 
nature of the data itBelfe But it oannot be dismissed as an unneOeBsary 
luxury beoause of an aoknowledged "laok of oommitment to Boientifio method" 
(OLIVER, op. cit), 
Nevertheless, validity is the prior issue. Thus a description of the 
problems I enoountered in the actual oollection of a sample is, I oonsiderl 
a negleoted but essential part of the whole research exercise. I have des- 
cribed how I endeavoured to sensitise myself to the issues which make hear- 
ing impairment problematic. Access to subjects to interview raised further 
diffioulties. 
To reiteratet the focal point of my thesis was my wish to do a oompara- 
tive study of the hearing impaired. This had an important, and quite un- 
anticipated byw-product in restricting acQSBB to data sources. (In fairness, 
it must be oonewded that my arguments oonoerning the illogioality of this 
position were insufficiently developed at that stage, perhapst to persuade 
these gate-keepers of the legitimacy of such a stance - not that people ever 
like to be oonfronted with their own irrationality. ) 
However, the response that my efforts to do a oomparative study evoked,, 
in more than one quarter iB suoh as to justify some disaussion in itself. 
It was against such a background of some professional antipathy that I ooD-- 
duoted this research. 
(a) The Comparisons Controversy 
The long and well-established tradition of oomparative sociologioal 
studies is something whichl perhapsl tends to be ignored by critios 
from 
other digwiplines, particularly the 'hard' sciences. Not only were such 
studies not oonfined to intra-socieW ooap3Lrjso=3. j With the bargeoni of 
- 35 - 
anthropology, comparisons straddled the world. MARSH (1967) has noted: 
"From the time sociology crystallised as a distinct discipline, it 
has been committed to the comparative study of societies, culture 
and their institutions". 
Moreover, GLASER and STRAUSS (1968) have highlighted the value to socio- 
10gy of such exercises in broadening sociologyts theoretical base and in- 
creasing its explanatory power. I was thus totally unprepared for the re- 
sistance that my broad interest in hearing impairment met. 
A statement from BEST (1943) written nearlY 40 years ago, bore little 
resemblance to the scene with which I was confronted. He wrote: "There 
are no sharply dividing lines between the different degrees of deaf- 
ness, one shading off imperceptibly into another". 
was presented with a scenaria stressing the absolute uniqueness - and 
therefore incomparability - of different groups within the hearing im- 
paired population. 
Yet it is precisely the contribution of a societal reactions per- 
spective which demonstrates the uniformity with which those who posseser 
one particular trait (hearing loss), and its ooncomitant departures from 
culturally expected speech performance, tend to be evaluated by society 
generally 
109. Perfectly valid differences are glossed over. 
The very function of cultural stereotyping is to show how an indiv. 
idaal becomes "nothing but an instance of the discredited" (SCHUR, 1980). 
As I propose to demonstrate, this is a process which is not confined to 
any one partioular group of the hearing impairedl althoughq as I shall 
argue, the extent of negative typing varies with the degree to which 
communicative performance is seen to deviate from 'normal'. A question 
professionals in the field always fail to answer is: why, if the pro- 
blems of the hearing impaired are held to be so intrinsioally different, 
does such relative uniformity of perception by others occur? 
Initiallyl the oontroversy was presented to me in terms of the im. 
- 36 - 
POBBibility of comparing the post- and prelingually deafened, their problem 
being Bo different and mutually exoluBive. It was not until much later that 
I realised it was the signing deaf (generally but by no means universally 
Prelingually deaf) who were held to be so tintrinsioally differentt. Thus 
I sought for explanations which, with hindsightp still contain some elements 
of truth, but -whioh failed to satisfy my quest for an answer to what seemed 
to be a quite irrational resistance to looking for similarities. 
One possibility, I suggested, might lie in the unfamiliarity with per- 
spectives which other disciplines than Psychology, audiology or educational 
philosophy traditionally offered by way of explioation. 
A further possible explanation was that resistanoe appeared to oome 
largely, although not exclusively, from wDrkers and organisations for the 
deaf. (The preposition is important). It seemed that the maintenance of such 
rigid demarcation lines between different sections of the hearing impaired 
population served highly functional purposes. Speoialisation in the problems 
of one or other group tends to create a rather particular kind of ideological 
in-breeding, so that any possible room for a oommonality of interests would 
tend to be rationalised and rejected. 
Yq approach to the various groups bore out suoh a contention. One was 
made uncomfortably aware of a "whiff of proprietoriness' about 'their deaf'. 
Whilst lip service was paid to the idea of welcoming a researcher into the 
deaf world, in practice the possibility that this might introduce different 
perspectives on their work was perceived as extremely threatening. The re- 
sistance was such as to suggest strongly that professional kudos and ves- 
ted interests were very muoh at stake. 
Another reason I felt consistent with the directions which research has 
taken was the dominance of the medioal and paramedioal professions, parti. 
cularly those of olinioal and eckoational poyahology and the newly emer- 
gent audiolog-ical profession, with their adherenoe to an 
individual pathology 
model of hearing impairment. Althmijzb primary olinical 1cw3s canwt be denied, 
- 37 - 
"it effectively masks other aspects Of 
/their/ Social existence", as RYAN and 
THOMAS (198o) note of the 'mentally retarded'. Most importantly, it indiv- 
idualises the poblear: its social construction is obscured. 
The clinical case at its strongest has been put by IENMARK (1978): 
tv.. the problems of the child who is born profoundly deaf are of an en- 
tirely different order from those of a person who loses all hearing in 
adult life. The born deaf child has a sensory deficit which interferes 
with all aspects of his development, while the person who is deafened in 
adult life suffers a sensory deprivation which may affect his whole life- 
style and call for many readjustments. Deafness which is present before 
the development of speech and language (prelingual deafness), and deaf- 
neBS which is acquired after this stage (postlingaal deafness), there- 
fore, have entirely different implications ... The effects of the one 
are developmental, of the r)ther, traumatic. They can t be equated". 
Let me be quite clear as to what it is that I am, and am not , saying. 
I am not disputing that, other things being equal, the earlier the onset of 
hearing loss9 the more difficult it is to acquire language, and thus oommu- 
nioation skills, because of the problems inherent in actually having to learn 
one's native language. 
However, this by no means universally holds, depending on such factors 
as the degree of residual hearing, how one defines prelingmal , and a whole 
battery of psycho-social factors. CONnDts (1979) few "oral suooesses" 
have to be accounted for - (I netted one in my sample, Miss C. G. ) Never- 
theless, for the numerically few children born with no useful residual hear- 
ing, the statement probably holdo. Bat for a child who acquires hearing 
lose at the age of 18 months and still has some useful residual hearing, 
ie. the prelingually hard of hearing ohildl where is one to draw the line? 
Not only do some prelingually deaf subjects master language and 
speech with varying degrees of success, and acquire sufficient oommunioative 
oompetence to enable them to partioipatev to an extent, in the hearing world. 
Significantly for my argument, some subjeots 22_8tlingually deafenedg although 
possessing languaget lose the ability to monitor their speech, giving rise 
to disoordant pitoh, inappropriate intensity, rhythm disturbances, and, in 
some cases, the complete 10SB of effective speech performance. As noted in 
- 38 - 
Chapter 19 the non-lipreading, totally deafened adult is as much of a 
social cripple as her profoundly prelingually deaf counterpart. As it is 
the evaluation of communicative competence with which I am concerned, it 
is worth remarking that even clinically, "Impairment of oral skill is 
evident not just with profound hearing loss, but with quite minor 
loss of hearing" (CONRAD, 1979). 
Thus I was not disputing the very valid differences in adaptive patt- 
erns between the born deaf who have no cognitive experience, of what it is 
to be hearing, and the often traumatic role changes which are necessary 
for those deafened later in life. Indeed, my discussion on strategy man- 
agement takes the different socialisation processes to which these two 
groups have been exposed very much into account. 
However, what I had totally underestimated was the tenacity with which 
the oral ist/manual ist schism still dominated current thinking. I had 
walked unknowingly into a field torn apart by the kind of interneoine 
strife and dogma characteristic of wars of the Middle Ages,, BENIERLY 
(1980) refers to the situation as ".. an ideologioal maelstrom swirling 
round the apparently simple question of what it means to be deaf". 
The fact that the debate really centred round the use of BSL and soo- 
ialisation. into a deaf culture, as against integration into the hearing 
world as a 'deaf but deficient I English speaking personv was not only ob- 
scured at the time by the use of the pre-/Post lingual dichotomy. Actu- 
ally the debate had shifted in a sense. And a debate-within-a-debate 
(the preservation of BSL against its adulteration by the use of S'. E. E. ) 
had surfaced. The implications of this only became apparent to me toward 
the end of my research, coincident with the emerging militancy of 
the signing deaf community. Thus the issue became not one of the impossi- 
bility of comparing the pre-and postlingually deafened. It was the EIM7 
Lyid deaf who oonstituted a 'unique' group. Looking for similarities, it 
was arguedg was to deny the reality of their own, very special experience 
of deafness. The question of 
- 39 - 
whether or not ezolusion was also to apply to the profoundly prelin&njally 
deaf without this speoial means of oomraunication was somehow oonveniently 
t rudgedt. 
However, I oontend that the validity of my Perspective still holds with- 
out in any way denying -the 'realitYl of Sooially partioipating in a distino- 
tive culture. The deaf oome to belong to this culture by virtue of the many 
social processes I will describe. As noted repeatedly in the literature, 
(HIGGINS, op. cit; BENIERLY, op*cit; BRIEN, 1981) the signing cloaf are not, 
born into the deaf oommunitye Thas if the oulture is open to societal in- 
fluenoes, it strengthens, rather than weakens my oase for inoludi it s mem- 
bers in my oomparative study. 
I return to my unifying theme : the waV sooiety tends to negatively 
evaluate speech inoompetenoe. The signing deaf rarely use what speech they 
may possess sensingg oorrectlyp the scathing reoeption it is likely to evoke. 
As with my orally deaf subjects (pre- and postlingually deafened)# it is the 
lack of , or disturbance in, effective speech performanoe which poises such a 
threat to the taken-for-granted assumptions about ease of interaction. Tb 
the ertent that these expeotations were breaohedq all groups (inoluding the 
signing deaf) tended to be fairly uniformly oategorised as deviant. 
Attempts to aooentuate differences not only distorts the very real simi- 
larities of discrimination experienced by all groups of the hearing impaired, 
It also has broader political oonsequenoes: the intent to preserve rigid 
demarcations amongst "the deaf I Beems to be entirely inimical to any Buooess- 
ful organisation to improve -the lot of the hearing impaired as a whole. The 
benefits accruing to the signing deaf in the States appear to have had little 
impact on their orally deaf oounterparts. The new militancy amongst the UK 
signing deaf seems also set to exolude. 
This researoh is designed to offer an alternative way of looking. To 
foaui3 on much neglected BimilaritieB and oonnonalities of peroeption 
is not 
to be equated with minimising or denying the validity of very real differenoes. 
- 40 - 
It is simply that the latter have been given a hearinge The former have not. 
Thus my attempts to pinpoint the illogicalities of this resistance may 
appear to be divorced from the 'realities' of the social context of the con- 
troversy. However, I will set out my arguments for readers to judge for 
themselves, the validi-ty of what is evidently an unpalatable perspective from 
both BidSB of the great divide. 
I oontend that in the first placev it is a 'total non-sequitur to say 
that because there are significant differences between (a) and (b), therefore 
there are m significant similarities. Indeed the very fact of insisting on 
differences presupposes that oomparisons have been made. 
To take the counter-argument a little further: if it iB then argued 
that the differences are so great that it is not worth looking to see if there 
are any similarities, the fact that there are such large differences gives 
more, not lesso Point to an examination of different groups. ýbreover, the 
onus is on the critics to prove their 'chalk and oheeset position: mere 
assertions will not suffice. Similarlyl it is for the researcher to prove 
their assertions to be incorrect by systematic investigation. 
The reductio ad absurdum of the argament being made in favour of concen- 
trating on one group only might be illustrated thus: if one studies, for ex- 
ample, the profoundly prelingually deaf as one group, then distinctions 
must surely be made between young and old, male and female, those of low 
socio-eoonomic status and those better endowed, Critics mast answer the 
challenge: how is anyone to argue that there are not going to be sufficient 
differences within this one group to vitiate the whole exeroise? 
The use of analogies maýy hopefully dispose of the problem. one such 
would be for critics to assert the impossibility of studying the adjustment 
of Asian girls in British society because some are Hindu, some Moslem and 
others BuddhiBt. Or to say that one oannot study the problems of 
homosexuals 
because of the inevitable differences in experience of the law between oldor 
and younger homosexuals. 
It is, I maintain, arrant nonsense to argue that 
-41 - 
one cannot draw any conclusions about Asian girls or homosexuals, because the 
apparent differenoes amongst them are too great. 
And so it is with the hearing impaired. Their oommonality lies in the 
fact of their hearing loss(of whatever severity, age of onset) and the general 
tendency for the hearing public to oonflate all hearing impairedt regardless 
of manifest differences in abilityp generally at the lowest common denominator 
of oompetence. The social process of applying fairly uniform categories and 
stereotyping all those with one particular trait is the overriding issue. 
It is salutary that interviews with some, although not all, respondents 
showed a real desire to mix witht and be aocepted by, these apparently mutually 
exclusive groups. Two implications which may be drawn are: (i) that the 
factionalism which charaoterises the hearing impaired world is indeed an ita. - 
posed one; and (ii) in BOme cases, it has worked BO Emocessfally that neler 
the twain shall meet. 
If the sociological perspective which I have, perforosy briefly indicated 
here - and will disouss fully in the next ohapter - has anything to offer, 
it is not to oontradiat'the olinical and oultural models. It offers an alter- 
native way of viewing which, I suggest I adds significantly to our understanding 
of the processes which make hearing impairment problematic. 
(b) Access to souroes 
Thus because of the lack of support encountered from some quarters at 
my deciBion to do a comparative study access was, perforce, limited to those 
workers and organisations who responded favourably to the idea. 
As initially I had no credibility within the 'deaf 'I world without a 
mastery of sign languagel my early enquiries were directed towards obtaining a 
sample whioh exoluded this group. Only later was I able to inolude them. 
The question of penetrating the world of those orally profoundly prelingually 
deaf with no vehicle of communication other than natural gesture and home- 
made sign was not presented to me as similarly problematic. Professional pro- 
- 42 - 
Proprietoriness, I discovered, seemed to be reserved almost exclusively for 
the signing deaf 9 (and the adventitiously deafenedp to a lesser extent). 
It therefore became quickly apparent that any attempt at randomness was 
quite unfeaBible. Not only was I deliberately excluding a sector of the 
hearing impaired Population, butt at the other end of the spectrum, not even 
the most assidkous sampling of audiology clinics could guarantee that I was 
tapping that hidden population of the hearing impaired who simply do not pre- 
sent (12: RBST and HUMPHREY, 1981; HAGGARD et. al. , 1981) - not to mention the 
difficulties of achieving co-operation from busy hospital clinjos (BIRD and 
TREVAINS, 1978; TREVAINS, 1982)o 
I decided to try and minimise bias by sampling various small sub-groups 
with varying oharaoteristics, rather than conoentrate on one souroe alone, 
which has been the traditional modas operandi of many researchers. Such a 
strategy emerged as the data collection process proceeded. It is one in line 
with the persuasions of authors such as GLASER and STRAUSS (op. cit) who argue 
strongly in favour of studying multiple oomparison groups and sub-groups, 
drawn from as many souroes and organizations as possible. 
A list of the organisations and workers in the field I 
contacted may be found in Appendix 4- Ultimatelyl I collected a sample of 
sub-groups and interviewed 50 respondents, covering a range of clinical 
1OBs and modes of communication. 
Suooessful forays were as follows: Permission for 11 respondents reg- 
istered at Hillingdon Sooial Servioes Dapartment to be interviewed was given 
through the kind offices of Mrs. Betty Langfordp although all oontrol re- 
garding the seleation Of subjects was taken out of my hands, beyond the 
specification of the criteria I drew up 
(of- Appendix 3)9 
From two Bources,, the Employment Rehabilitation Centre, Perivale, and 
the Royal National 8NT HOsPi'"-1p Grays Inn Road, I was allowed acoess to the 
files - the first with ease and assistance, 
the seoond with the exeroise of 
- 43 - 
some persistence. Thus respondents were purposefully selectedv in that I 
took names and addresses from the files of those I judged to be typioal 
for the purposes of my investigationj and to correspond with the criteria I 
had specified. 
The former source had no audiometric information to guide me. As this 
I 
applied to all my other sub-groups,, unfortunately I did not make full use of 
the information available at the ENT olinic. I toleaned outt the tpostlinguals 
f iling cabinet I and diPped into the 'prelinmial st 
(only to find some cases 
not deafened until 18 months or 2 years of age, and with varying degrees of 
hearing loss)* I hoped. 9 however, with this source, to redress a possible 
class imbalance which may have affected my other groups, the oatchment area 
for tpostlinguals' being confined to Islington. 
Similar facilities were generously offered by Ms. Jackie E[artleyq 
Chief Audiometrician of the Audiology Dapartment, Hillingdon Hospital. This 
was a data source approached much later in the fieldwork process and ironi- 
oally, in view of the initial difficulties I experienced in recruiting sub- 
jects, remained umlsed. 
The relative easet however, with which confidential medical information 
was made available to me oocasioned some disquiet - regrettably after the 
event. On one occasiont my information relating to a respondent's hearing 
loss as prelingual conflicted totally with his own perceptions of his loss 
ocaurring postlingually. Trapped in conflicting loyalties, honesty to the 
respondent seemed more important. However much this may reduce the oppor- 
tunities for fature access to data, it is ethically quite unfeasible for re- 
search workers actually to have access to medical information without the 
knowledge and permission of the respondents in question. As far as the 
latter were oonoerned, all they were aware of was the audiologiotts per- 
mission for me to oontact them 
(cf, Appendi 
Other respondents were oollected as my network of oontaatB - and credi- 
bility - inoreased. The Dizector of the Breakthmugh Trust gave me an entre"e to the 
- 44 - 
Michael Flanders Centre in Acton. Whilst understandably stipulating that no 
interviewing or distribution of questionnaires wereto be carried out on the 
Club premises, over the months I became friendly withq and subsequently inter- 
viewed, 9 respondents. Selection was a function of their motiviation to be 
included, their adherence to my criteria, and, in the initial stages, rel- 
ative ease of communication. As my own skills increased, however, I was able 
to interview those whose communicative skills were more grossly handicapped. 
Additionallyp I also selected respondents who were hearing impaired but 
E; eemed to have few problems. 
Similarly, my contacts with Mrs. Maureen Beaumont, lipreading tutor 
for Richmond and Hounslow and herself profoundly deaf, gave me access to her 
classes. I spent a successful evening at Richmond talking about my project, 
concluding with a request for volunteers. Subjects were given the means to 
contact me if they wished to participate, and 2 did so. 
My husbandt as Director of the Fbundation Learning Unit for the Adalt 
Disadvantaged in Hounslow, introdaced me to the Hounslow lipreading tutor, 
and through the kind officer., of Mrs- Mack, 3 respondents were recruited. 
A farther 2 respondents were found via Hounslow Literaoy alaBBeB, thus giving 
me acoess to those profoundly prelingnally orally deaf who are additionally 
functionally illiterate. 
It is impossible to ascertain to what extent those who did volunteer 
were ItyPicall. Attendance at lipreadingg literacy classes and a Club pre- 
supposes a degree of motivation whioh may well not characterise the hearing 
impaired population in general (HERBST and THOMAS, 1980; BEATTIE, 1981). 
My final, and riohest data source was unofficial. I can only describe 
it as a 'snowballing' one. It was the result of my 
decision in May 1981 
to inolude within my sample a number of signing deaf. Following my visit to 
Gallaudet, I realised I oould actually tackle much Ideafer' subjects than 
had hitherto thought manageable. How I dealt with the problem of language 
has been described in the section on Participant Observation. It led to the 
- 45 - 
acquisition of 6 signing respondents, and the development of a friendship 
network into which few hearing people are welcomed. 
Thus t although the sample I eventually obtained can in no way be con- 
sidered, representative (and the oonolusions and inferenoes I am able to draw 
from it tempered accordingly) 1 certain very POBitive stateMentB can be made 
about it. All respondents had at least three factors in common: (i) They 
all had, to a greater or lesser extent, a hearing impairment; (ii) Although 
my 'snowballing' group had not been approaohed via the traditional route 
of membership of a Deaf Clubg all respondents had either presented, or been 
referred tog organisations which oatered in one way or another for their par- 
ticular impairment. Signing respondents were firmly looated within the 
'deaf oommunityl; (iii) All worked, or had workedt in a hearing environmentt 
and, it was surmised, were exposed to similar social influences and pressures. 
The use of a range of sub-groups, seleotion of whose members was at 
times under my control, at other times not, and the use of both official 
and unofficial sources is, perhaps, not far short of representativeness. 
Ultimately it was, aa PRINCE (1967) argues of his work ".. mach more repre- 
sentative than it would have been if it had been selected entirely 
from one source". 
ONE SIIH OF THE PICTURE: THE SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE 
The problems posed by relying on the perceptions of only the hearing 
impaired themselves, and the actual difficulties inherent in communicating 
with a population covering a diverse range of communication skills occupied 
much of my thoughts and energies. They are not confined to problems of eval- 
uating claims to Bnocessful access to meanings; nor to the difficulties in. 
volved in retaining the integrity of the data, with its inevitable trans- 
lation into what PHILLIPSON (1980) describes as "highly ini3titutionalised 
sociologioal language". More fundamentally, they raise the issue of the 
status and credibility that this kind of knowledge can 
legitimately claim 
to have, an(j are intimately interwoven with problems of validity and reliability. 
_LF6_ 
In many instances - and interpretative sociology is an example par 
excellence - we are unable to give sound or valid reasons in support of 
our claim to knowledge, Thusl if a number of propositions are inconsis- 
tent, by reference to what criteria does one decide which is the right one? 
'Right' is possibly not a meaningful question anyway, and PHILLIPS (1971) 
would argue that there are no deciding criteria. I would disagree. Whilst 
the problems of validity and reliability - and thus of replicabilityl 
predictability and refutability ý are more difficult in the social sciences 
owing to the sheer complexity and instability of the data under investi- 
gation, I have attempted to adhere to the standards of good practice 
which are a pre-requisite of any rigorous work. 
Thus scrupulous attention has been paid to the typicality - the fre- 
quency and distribution - of evidence in drawing inferences, and to the 
inevitable influence that my role as researcher has had on the data. The 
search for disconfirmatory cases (to be described) has been combined with 
the use of triangulation as a means of checking statements made by respon- 
dents in different social contexts. Whilst replicability is difficult 
my efforts to be as explicit as possible about the whole research process 
provide both prescriptions for others to follow and evaluative criteria 
by which future researchers can gauge the validity and reliability of 
my study. What can be achieved is a degree of probability to the infer- 
ences I will make from the data. 
As regards the validity of the data itself, OLIVM (1979) makes a 
useful point in arguing that "The dominant tradition in social science 
is to have scant respect for what the individual says". 
Yet there is no reason to believe that the respondents I talked with 
had any deliberate intention to mislead. Thus whi-Ist statements cannot 
be taken entirely at face-value neither can they be dismissed as value. 
less. Even if stories do ultimately prove to be 'distorted', they are 
I 
valid in terms of that respondents particular relevance structure. 
- 46 (a) - 
As ARMISTEAD (1974) notes: 
"Experience may be intelligiblel even if it is not what we might 
c onsider an adequate or truthful account of a situation . *. in 
any case, 'distorted' or 'incorrect' experience needs to be adequately 
explained, not dismissed as irrelevant ... this is not to say that 
verbal accounts are the last word; people do distortl conceal and 
lie. But we need good evidence for disbelieving what they report 
as their experience". 
I am not wishing to imply for one moment that the native's view of 
the matter is the only correct one. There are too many discrepancies 
between what people say and what they do, Anthropologists, for example, 
in their reliance on the actor's rules of evidence as sufficient have 
largely neglected the whole question of how people go about constructing 
and re-constructing, for different audiences, their personal biographies. 
Nevertheless, I have suggested that although the balance between re. 
velation and concealment may vary, a certain consistency of biographical 
/contd* over ... 
- 47 - 
'recollection? emerges over time. This is at variance with the oontention 
Of BERCER (1963) who argues: "0. common-sense is quite wrong in thinking 
that the past is fixed, imutable, invariable .. On the oontraryg at 
least within our own consciousness, the past is malleable and flexible, 
constantly changing as our recollection reinterprets and re-explains 
what has happened. Thus we have as many lives as we have points of 
view". 
I BUggeBt, rather, that the proOeBS of biography reoonstruction is 
geared to establishing a sense of ooherence and oonsistenoy to happenings. 
Whilst future events may indeed alter the meanings we asoribe to past ones, 
the tendency for them to acquire fixed 'identities' - with all the elision 
and suppression of the unacceptable of which memory is capable - might be 
said to increase with age. BECKER (1980), for instance, found her elderly 
Am 
cleaf sample to have ftidied upt and integrated events in their lives -a 
Process characteristic of many elderly people. Nhilst the avereAe age of 
my s wnple was 40/41, there was, however, no way of ascertaining how far BUch 
a process had progressed. To a large extentq therefore, my respondents' 
stories had to be taken on trust. 
My decision not to do what the 'rational sociologist" would have done, 
namely set up a hearing oontrol sample v oonoeivably confoundB the problems 
of evaluating the validity of the data itself, and the inferenoeB I subse- 
quently make. A oomplex battery of reasons persuaded me to rely solely on 
the perceptions of the hearing impaired themselves. 
As indioated in Chapter 19 the hearing impaired largely inhabit a world 
created by the hearing. Hearing adultB form their frame of reference, their 
model of behaviour, and diotate the normative goals to whioh they should 
aspire. Reference has been made to the craoial policy decisions made by 
hearing eduoators in wilful neglect of the wishes of their hearing impaired 
charges (MRADOW, 1968b; MINIEL and VERNON, 1971; LADD, 1978; HASH and NASH 
1981). Thus, I contend, a concentration on the perceptions of the hearing 
impaired BerVeB as a very useful oorrective to an otherWiBe unbalanood 
picture. 
-48 - 
Subjective perceptions are one among a number of factors which help 
to define a problem, and no Isolutiont to the problem can occur without 
taking their perceptions into account. As DOUGLAS (1971) coments, the 
actions and perceptions of human beings are inherently meaningful, and the 
chief need, thereforep is to understand human actions and the beliefs and 
assumptions on which they are based. The chief referent is the internal 
frame of reference of the actor. Perceptions are of value to the sooiologist 
precisely because they are ".. phenomena experienced in everyday lifet not 
phenomena created by (or strained through) experimental situations". 
Moreover, such a stance has a respectable sooiological pedigreet from 
WEM's Iverstehen' and the Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionists to 
SCHUTZ who affirmed: "e. the subjective point of view must be retained in 
its fall strength"g without which, he argues, a sooiologioal theory 
of human action %. loses .. its reference to the social world of everyday 
life and experience. The safeguarding of the subjective point of view 
is the only ... sufficient guarantee 
that the world of social reality 
will not be replaced by a fictional non-existing world constructed by 
the scientific observer" (1932) 
What has been relatively negleoted in the literature is the signiri- 
canoe of self-perception for sooial perception. Fbsitive affirmation from 
others tends to be translated into positive self-esteem on the part of the 
recipient. It will be shown that the oonverse also applies. Thus how 
people perceive their world tends to structure it to a certain extent. How 
the hearing impaired perceive themselves to be evaluated by prospective 
and aurrent employers and work peers q for example, has an important effect 
on their aspirations and actual achievements. 
Finallyq my deliberate focus on percepts has implications for the con- 
tribution this thesis may have. As noted, the very nature of a oommunio- 
ation disorder makes articulation Of its viOtims' plight 
diffioult. How- 
ever, it is my hope that by encouraging such articulation, 
diffi(mlties not- 
withstanding, from a range of 
hearing impaired people, together with pain- 
staking efforts to preserve 
the integrity of what they Isayt, I hope to 
have made a small contribution towards Politicization of their plight. 
- 49 - 
Nevertheless, the charge of being 'unscientific' is a very real one. 
However, I oontend there simply oomes a point where a sooiologist has to 
accept the overall reliability of what his respondents are telling him about 
their experiences. I have, to the best of my abilities, demonstrated aware- 
ness of the many pitfalls which may beset the researcher in handling this 
kind of dataq and, as a later section will show,, done everything possible 
to oounteraot such weaknesses. Ultimatelyl once all the checks have been 
madel individual caseB must be subsumed under the totality of cases. One 
has to assume that errors cancel eaoh other out to some extent , and that the 
overall evidence does correspond with overall experience. 
5o INTERVIEWING: BREAKING ALL THE RULES 
It was not until August 1980 that I embarked on interviewing. The in- 
terview situation is problematic in many ways. Not only is it something of 
an experimental situation for respondents in that ".. it leads them to act 
in ways that are different from the ways they would act in their 
natural settings" (DOUGLAS, op. oit), 
It is also a technique in which the interaction between researoher and re- 
spondent plays a vital role in what emerges as data. PAYNE et al., (1981) 
put the dilemma neatly-. 't... sociologists have become exereised by the pro- 
blem thatq as social beings themselves, they import their previous exý 
periencesp socialisation,, attitudes and beliefs into the social setting 
that they are studying. They interpret events and create their own 
version of social reality, which may not be anything like the social 
reality that the people being studied have". 
Yet far from "defining the researcher out of existence" (SHERWOOD, 1980) 
and attempting to neutralise his influence (the object of survey research) 
the very fact that the oharaoteriBtiCS of the reBearcher, his pezvonality, 
the preoonceptions he brings to the task, inevitably intrude can be viewed 
as a positive attribute. Indeed, no two interviewers, however well matohed, 
will ever elioit preoisely the same outoome. As CIGOUREL 
(op. ait) notes, 
it is quite: impossible for any interviewer to maintain ".. identioal rapport..... 
identioal detaohment .. identioal interest". 
He is ever responsive to his subjeot's moocIB9 and whether or not he finds 
them intrinsicall-V likeable. 
No interviewer oan present himself 'robot-like' 
- 50 - 
tO his reBpondentB* 
However, the interview is also a reactive process, A 'chord' struck 
with one subject may elioit insights quite unique to that partioular en- 
counter. What matters9 as SHERWOOD convincingly argues, is that the values, 
attitudes and beliefs "*. should be oonsoiously recognised as the attributes 
*so presented to /our/ subjects"o 
Data may then be interpreted in the light of this* It is perhaps a burden 
as well as a freedom that "The interviewer cannot escape from the diffi- 
culties of everyday life interpretations and actions" (CICOURELp opooit)o 
These comments do not take account of the very unique additional pro- 
blems involved in interviewin&r those with a communication disorder, Al- 
though my first few respondentsl on the wholeg presented less difficultiesi 
they were often quite suffioient for me to abandon many of the rules and 
practices considered integral to 'good' interviewingg and rely on intuition 
and 'common-sense'* 
The interview schedule I had initially devised has the appearance of 
being fairly directive (of. Appendix 6)o The rationale for this lay in my 
antioipation that lipreaderBl whom I thought would form the bulk of my 
sample, would find impromptu dialogue tiring* The extensive use of oarfti 
for examplel was favourably commented one 
Howeverp my use of the schedule changed quite substantially and rap- 
idly. The very small pilot study I had done was aimed more at ironing 
out ambiguities and pinpointing potential difficulties with vocabulary. 
I reduced the use of 5--point scales to 3, or abandoned them altogether* 
Gradations, I learntj are particularly difficult for those with linguistic 
difficulties. With the inclusion of the signing and profoundly prelingually 
orally deaf in my sample, and the concomitant decline in respondents" 
estandard, communication skillsp it was quite impossible to adhere to the 
original format of the interviewo Questions 
had to be re-phrased and vcý- 
cabulary oonstantly altered and simplifiedo 
And sign language has its own 
syntactical rules which often defy transliteration. 
ý 51 - 
Even the second interview schedule I devised (Appendix 7) was too ver- 
bally loaded for some respondents* Many seemingly basic words were simply 
unknown, such as 'unemployment' 9 'education' q 'training' I 'apprenticeship' * 
DEUTSCHER's (1977) injunction: "* *sociological sensitivity to language 
is vital in research" 
hardly does justice to these difficulties. Nevertheleseg for the purposes 
Of replicationg the intentp if not the actual questions, were otherwise 
oonBoientiously adhered too For the purposes of analysiSq howeverg I have 
UBed the Bohedule Belectively, ooncentrating on themeB whioh ocourred with 
most frequency* It quickly became apparent that any value from the questions 
lay in their being treated discursively* Every encouragement mass there- 
forej given for r6Bpondents to expand on a point* Interviewing quickly 
changed from passive recording to active engagement in dialogues 
A brief description of some of the problems inherent in interviewing 
the hearing impaired may prove salutaryl although RODDA's (1970) reproof 
does not go unremarked: Itin listing these difficultiesq it mast be re- 
membered that they represent a challenge to competence, not an ex- 
cuse for incompetence"I 
Every social scientist is apt to claim that his respondents present 
unique problems in interviewing* I am no exception in maintaining that 
iny respondents did indeed present very particular difficulties because of 
the nature of their impairmentq and the range of comminication modes usede 
Prior -uo any interviewp *the author had to ask Does the subjeot lip- 
read well enough to understand me?; Do I have to talk more slowlyl or 
de- 
liberately lower or raise the tone of my voice?; Can the subjecow read and 
understand what he reads well enough to compensate for poar Bpeecn? 
And 
latýxj How can I convey and receive messages at all if the subject 
has no 
comprehensible mode of communication other than gesture and 
home-made siga? 
At its best, interviewing required oareful positioning so that my 
faoe was squarely in the light& 
Clear, but not exaggerated enu=iation 
was crucial, and repeiitions often 
has. A. to be made, adding appreciably to 
-52 - 
the length of the interview. The fatigue involved for subjects in Ems- 
taining lipreading for more than short periods at a time cannot be stressed 
suffiOientl. ve Frequent breaks had to be created, excuses to 'go to the 
loo" which equally frequent cups of tea necessitated. 
It is of-ten unappreciated how difficult lipreading itself can be 
11 
9 
some two-thirds of all lip movements being either invisible or indistin- 
guishable. Additionally, it presupposes a language base on which to build. 
Care with clothes was important too. Striped# or very bright clothing 
is additionally fatiguing to the eyes of the lipreader. And I had to 
change long-established habits of simultaneously talking and writing with 
head down, or moving my head whilst talking to avoid breaking eye and 
face cozrtact with my respondent. 
Adapting to inappropriate or disoordant intonation was initially dis- 
quieting. One entire interview was held in a whisper with me straining 
f 
a disconcerting few inches from MY resPOndenttr, fa0e to hear. At the other 
extreme, one lady broadcast confidences to the entire house. And one res- 
pondent, totally deafened in her mid-50ts and either unable or unwilling 
to learn to lipread, had a box of paper slips ready. Whilst she was able 
to read my questions , any impromptu response on my part had to be written 
down. By the end of the interview, the room was a veritable mountain of 
paper. 
As communication skills decreasedg many requests for repetition on 
my part were neoessary if a respondent Is speech was not clear. Words were 
often mispronounced so as to be almost unre cognis able. Sibilaixts and 
fricatives were omitted, so that plurals disappeared. "Uxbridge" became 
"Uckbridge". other words took on an almost 'dyslexic' character: "oon- 
verse" became "convert"; "compartment" became '"department", a "normal" 
r,, Ohool beoame a "normian"Behool. And the syntax of sentenoes ww changed, 
reflecting a respondent's usage of BSL, such as "some jobs me bully" or 
"mother looked se job". 
- 53 - 
The Profoundly prelingually orally deaf were often without any tools 
Of communication at all. Interviews - if one may call them that - took 
Place with 3 such subjects, none of whom could speak, signq lipread, read 
or write. It was interei3ting in that like EDGERTON's retardates, each re- 
spondent had supportive, entrepreneurial Mums who were present and helped 
translate. They Beemed to have an intuitive knack of getting through to 
12 their deaf offspringg a point noted by CONRAD (op. cit) Nevertheless, 
my questions went through many phases of misunderstanding before some kind 
of congruence between question and answer emerged. I amt of course, only, 
too aware of the inevitable distortions such reliance on a third party cre- 
ates. There wast however, simply no alternative available* I doubt if 
an interpreter oould have improved on the exchange. 
Finally, and I interviewed them last, were 6 signing respondents. Ny 
journey in acquiring passably adequate sign language has been described, 
It remains only to be noted that hearing signers are rarely taught anything 
other than signing according to English word order. Subjects were, there- 
fore, obliged to Iswitoh oodes' to oommunicate with me. The fact that they 
did so I regard as a oompliment. 
The strain on my part of using an unaooustomed visual mode of oommu- 
nication waB diffioult to overoome. Not only did it demand the unaccui3- 
tomed use of faojEi and body muscles. After about two hours of ooncerted 
effort . my eyes literally aohed with 
fatigue. The limited oonoentrated 
visual attention span of the average hearing person often goes unappreoiated. 
From my respondents t point of view, it was a disoourtesy to look even mo- 
mentarily away. PADIEN and MARKOWICZ (1976) note how easily the deaf are 
discomfitted by less of eye and facial contact. It is eqaatedv not un. 
justifiablyg with laok of interest, 
Thus I was specifioally asked by Miss M. A. not to look away and take 
notes - even at intervals. Dialogue 
had to be remembered and written up 
the follOwing dAY9 again something which requires practice. 
Caps of tea, 
- 54 - 
sandwiches, meals were left untouched. I found it quite impossible simul- 
taneously to sign and eat - not to mention preparing a meal. 
An inventiveness on the part of subjects to get concepts across never 
ceased to amaze me. one respondent was trying to explain a 'fiddle I he had 
doneg BOmething which defied My Bigning skills. EVentually he drew an 
imaginary bow across an imaginary cello. Another subject explained about 
"indentured apprenticeships" with much pantomime with his teeth. 
Prior to establishing my own personal Esigning 'tutor-friends", I had 
tried interviews alone. They resulted in much frustration and boredom. Re- 
spondents had to gear their an wers to the level of my receptive skills, 
truncating and simplifying their signing vocabulary. In fact this is a 
nice irony: simplificationg modification and truncation of response are 
the typical reactions of hearing people to the hearing impaired., Fbr later 
interviews, I often had the help of Miss N. A., andt on one occasion, the 
assistance of parents who had learnt to sign. 
All these were difficulties, I would argue, in addition to the nor- 
mal problems of oondacting interviews with people unknown to one, and 
coming possibly from very different social and edacational backgrounds. 
I have stressed the difficulties merely to demonstrate a point. Overooming 
them was exhileratingg exciting and immensely rewarding. 
A problem not usually addressed is that of reciprocity. Apart from 
those respondents who experience gamine pleasure in talking about thent- 
selves, what does the researcher give of himself in return for what is 
privileged access to data? The interview is generally thought of as a 
fairly one-sided exchange. Howeverv firstly I treated it more as an em- 
tended conversation - often over a period of time - and gave of my own ex- 
periences where asked fort or where deemed appropriate. 
More importantlyl what the respondent oan rely on 
is the faot that. the 
information given will not be challenged or critioised 
(BENNNY and HUGHES, 
(1977). For single interviews, this is important in redressingi to sow extento 
- 55 - 
what might otherwise be an imbalance in the power relationship. However, 
as I came to know respondents betterg I found I could modify this Opseudo- 
equality#. It gave way to a more honest equality as the interviews beoame 
dialogaes. 
Above all, most respondents did seem to enjoy the opportunity to talk. 
Particularly for those experiencing considerable social and occupational 
isolation, it was Eruspected that the interviews presented a rare opportunity 
for human comolnioation. 
In addition, in some cases, I was perceived as a "resource' and my 
help in trying to deal with Social Security problems enlisted. It may well 
be that I was also viewed as having a useful role to perform in promoting 
knowledge about the deaf to the hearing world. It was interesting that my 
thesis was invariably translated as "a book" by respondents from Groups IV 
and V, even though I was careful to sign "thesis first t perhaps book later". 
The way I feel I was able, in varying degrees, to approximate the fre- 
alities' of my respondentw" perceptions was ironioally a function af what 
had been a mis judgement: namely the length of the interview sohedale from 
the inmiffiaiently headed advice of Mrs. Tan ford: "If you think it takes 
an hourt then double or even treble it". 
In many cases it necessitated two, if not more, sessions. In other oases 
the dialogue was so mutually enjoyable that the #interviews' lasted whole 
days I and in one case I spanned a whole weekend. 
And as my later attempts 
to learn sign were often structured round the interview itself, some 
6/7 
sessions were spent with signing respondents. 
Inevitable impression management apart, what beoame a lengthy conver- 
sation format might well be taken as indicative of both 
trust, ease, and 
a degree of candidness on the part of respondelrtB. 
However 'undesirablet, 
had I not misjudged the length of the interview schedule and 
the time neo- 
essary to talk to the hearing 
impaired, the quality of the data would have 
been that much poorer. 
(It was only later I learnt that the length of my 
- 56 - 
interviews was by no means unusual amongst the hearing impaired 
(BECKER9 G., op. cit)l or, for that matter, with families of impaired 
children (DARLING, 1979). 
My later corroboration (or follow-up) interviews with 7 respondents 
not only enabled me to check and modify, where appropriate, my earlier in- 
ferences. They added further depth to relationships. Some respondents, 
perceptions had changed quite radically, as will be seen, thus enabling me 
to avoid the tendency to assume that actions and statements represented 
stable features of a person. But my approximation to their Irealitylt I 
8ugge8tj can be claimed with that much more confidence. 
Finally, the success with which I contend I did approach and grasp 
the common-sense meanings and experiences of my respondents might be gauged 
by two further considerations: the fact that some respondents, particu- 
larly menj openly cried during the interview, recollecting painful incid- 
ents; and the frequency with which I was invited back to their homes. In 
one case this was to spend Boxing Day with 3 signing respondents. I was 
also invited to parties, to visit cinemas and pubs, and to spend entire 
weekends with respondents. In turn, I invited home the respondents 
with whom, I was closest. 
I have described the interviewing process at some length. I have 
good reason to believe that this is what the hearing impaired want 
hearing people to know (ANDERSSON, 1981). 
ATTEMPTS AT CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT: LOOSENING THE 
'OBJECTIVIST' GRIP 
The problems involved in attempting to gain access to the meanings 
and perceptions the hearing impaired have of their world have raised some 
of the many practical and epistemological difficulties of such an inter- 
pretive approach. This last section may have the appearance of being 
somewhat technical and removed from the 'realities' I was at such pa* 8 
to explore. I include it, however, for three important reasons. 
At the timeg my ambivalence towards reliance on qualitative data alone 
- 57 - 
was unresolved. Margaret NORRIS (1981) neatly describes the dilema in 
which I was trapped. She notes that sociologists often find quantitative 
work "unpalatable"t yet they are uneasy with the results obtained from in- 
terpretative data. As a result, "Despite their stated antipathy they are iMprO8sed by evidence presented in quantitative form". 
Initiallyg therefore, an exploration of quantitative measures formed a 
substantial Part of the research process. 
The second reason for inclusion of my efforts at measurement is a sal. 
utary one. I had paid insufficient heed to RIMMR's (1974) injunction that 
hearing impairment is such a subjective phenomenon anyway that attempts at 
quantification can be quite misleading. In the event, my beliefs in the 
efficacy - if not near-infallibility - of IscientificaLly' acquired data 
underwent a radical transf ormation, in response to the subjective elements 
involved in interpreting what purported to be fairly 'hard-nosed' audio- 
metric data. As PAYNE *t al. (op, cit) notes oven measures which purport to 
be 'objective' ".. depend upon a constant and undocumented process of sub. 
Jective interpretations and judgementalt, 
The exercise demonstrated in a way which, perhaps, I would have boon 
i1nable to comprehend fully without actually doing it the limitations of 
'scientific' measurements generally* What also became uncomfortably clear 
were the contradictions involved in trying to translate data from one source 
of measurement and reconcile it with another. I was, in effect, tranmý- 
coding; dealing vith tvo incompatible levels of discourse based on quite 
distinct criteria. Attempts at rapprochement simply strained the data, 
The problem became one of trying to match categories which relied on quite 
different inner meaning systems. 
The final justification for inclusion of a description of my efforts 
lies in the recognition that my most successful measure - corroboration 
interviews - represented precisely a more thorough application of the very 
approach whichl on its own, had occasioned such misgivings at the beginn- 
ing of the research project* 
Classification and measurement became an isisue vhen I vas faced with 
- 58 - 
the difficulties of classifying respondents for the purposes of analysis* 
Initially it was considered that respondents' own perceptions of their 
hearing loss along a scale of Imildl moderate, quite severe, severeq very 
severe' would serve as a base-line from which to make meaningful distinctions 
between the groups. There is some support for the view that such percepts 
fairly accurately reflect a respondent's actual hearing loss (BAUGHN, 1961). 
However, it was felt at the time that reliance on yet more subjective data 
inadequately not my quest for reference to 'outside' criteria. 
Traditionally, severity of hearing loss has been the criterion used 
for classification of hearing impairment. At that stage, my attitudes to- 
wards the use of medical models were still favourable. It did indeed seem 
that this particular variable, rather than other clinicall Wycho-social 
or educational variables could beat define the population and provide the 
optimum jumping. -off point for a subsequent qualitative approach. It was only 
later that my evaluation of the value of a clinical model chsw ed. 
The University Psychology Department was therefore approached for 
help in devising equipment whereby I could assess severity of lose by pure- 
tone air conductionl3. The use of speech audiometry vould have been a bet- 
ter tool for those whose speech was still intact, but, of coursol quite use. 
less for those respondents without speech* Moreover, it has yet to be ad- 
equately standardised., The method and the necessary modifications which 
had to be made to my measurements are described in Appendix 8 (iii). 
My findings must be regarded with some circum pection for the reasons 
I have outlined. Tentatively, however,, they lent some substance to the 
f indings of HERBST and THOMAS, 1980; BARCHAM and STEPHENS. 1980; and 
THOMAS and RING 9 1981 of the inadequacy of pure-tone audiometry, on 
its 
own, to predict functional capacity - although in saM clinics 
this in 
still the only testing carried out. It may 
be precisely because of the 
incongruence in levels of discourse betwe*n what is a highly Iscientifico 
measure and one whichg for 
its use, depends on many social factors and 
the social context in which the hearing 
impaired person is operating, that 
- 59 - 
the above-mentioned authors have failed to reconcile the two. Thus re- 
spondents with similar degrees of severity of 1088 often varied quite 
dramatically in their ability to achieve smooth interpersonal interactiono 
The difficulties of juxtaposing quantitative and qualitative data 
apartl there were, however, indications that pare-tone testing suggested 
a worse picture of functional performance than was in fact the case, If 
this can be further verifiedl it has important ramifications for the role 
of audiologist as Official labellerl4* References for a medical exazi- 
nation required by a prospective employer may seriously jeopardise an 
applicant's chances. 
And the exercise did highlight a point mised by BENDERLY (op. cit) , 
namely the negative concentration on what a person cannot hear, often 
at the expense of what he can hear. 
Finally, it seemed that those with quite mild clinical loss often 
felt as disabled in coping with the everyday contingencies of life as 
those with more severe losses. 
However, as a classif icatory tool the measurements were quite un at. - 
isfactoryl twelve respondents having to be excluded altogether for reasons 
discussed in the Appendix. Most importantlyl it added very little to my 
understanding of the subject under investigation - the meanings my respon- 
dents attributed to hearing loss - simply because I was employing a 
method of measurement with criteria which bore no relation to their rou- 
tine understandings and ordering of the world$ on which this thesis is 
predicated* 
In addition, other factors contributed to my dissatisfaction with it. 
In its administration, it added appreciably to the length of the already 
long interview(s) 9 and in a few cases 
jeopard18ed. the establishment of a 
relaxed rapport* For 2 respondents, 
it caused such distress and nervous- 
ness that the test had 
to be abandoned, Other subjects were bored and 
paid little attention to 
the testing, with a correspondilm impact on the 
results. one session 
I was obliged to do in the kitchen whilst the subject 
/con- 
- 60 - 
ducted sporadic signing conversations with a constant stream of friends 
helping themelves to tea. (This is not a testing situation any self-re- 
specting sociologist would normallY permit. At the time, it seemed to be a 
case of 'now or neveril the respondent returning-tO the States the f0110- 
wing week* In the event she was not included in the ample)* And for the 
profoundly prelingually orally deaf, it was sometimes difficult to b* ab- 
solutely sure whether a positive, negative, or 'not sure' response was 
being conveyed, 
Othersl on the other band, enjoyed it, findi it providod a w*lcome 
diversion from the fatigue of lipreading,, And some were intensely inter- 
ested. On several occasion*# however, I found myself clothed in an aura 
of re8pectable medical professionaliou and my clinical advice was sought, 
This was not a role I was anxious to assume; and any replies were confined 
to the most basic fundamentals of audiometry with which I was conversant. 
Nevertheless, this does highlight the need of many respondents to under- 
stand in greater detail what was wrong with their hearing, and the struggle 
to make sense of events at the clinic. A busy audiologist has little 
time for such a function, 
I present my laudiometric' findings both to demonstrate the limi- 
tations of reliance on a clinical model of impairment only, and to alum 
the difficulties inherent in interpreting what purports to be fairly 'hard' 
data. Absolute precision is an elusive goal. Even had I been appropriately 
qualifiedq the interpretation of evidence is still dependent, to some ex- 
tent, on the subjective judgement of the individual test*r* No test can 
completely allow f or the errors which accomPaAY the expectations and pre- 
suppositions - the boredom or nervousness - different subjects 
bring to 
the test situation* I had placed too much reliance on the efficacy of 'sci- 
entific' ImaBurOmOnt itself- Most of all, I 
had completely misconceived 
the nature of the difficulties involved in endeavouring to reconcile 
the 
inner logic of what are two totally disparate levels of discourse. 
- 61 - 
Other measures were therefore tried. These included the use of the 
Gallaudet. Hearing Scale (Appendix 8 (1)) developed by SCHEIN (1968)o How. 
ever the ambiguities in using a scale designed ostensibly for the profoundly 
deaf soon became apparent when trying to apply it to the more mildly im- 
paired. How was one to score a respoxweg for exampleg to the question con- 
cerning the ability to discriminate between noises when the answer vas: "I 
can tell the difference between the smashin of glass iuid a child 
scresim , but not between the sound of lorries, cars and scooters". (Mr. LA. ) 
What constituted a "loud noise"? The sonic boom? A woman' a scream? What 
are "other sounds and noisesO? No attempt appeared to have been made to 
standardise distancel volume, pitch of voices familiarity with speakers. 
It is not, however, as BIRD and TMAINS (1978) have arguedg that the 
Scale is wking claims to internal logical consistency which it cannot 
possibly validate. It is simply insufficiently refined to cater for a 
wide range of hearing loss. It was therefore abandonede 
As my interest lay in assessing perceptions of handicap, I attempted 
to devise a scale of functional handicap along the lines of those developed 
by HIGH, FAIRBAM and ARAM (1964); NOBLE and ATHERT (19W) ; and BnM- 
EWERTSON and NIELSEN (1973) (cf, Appendix 8 (11). With hindsight I can 
appreciate both the naivety with which I tried to produce a composite Scale 
incorporating all the better elements of the above; and the inevitable in. 
congruity of discourse involved once again. Standardising and scaling such 
an exercise would have warranted a thesis in itself, and I therefore aban- 
doned uW attempts* In any event, it would have posed insuperable problems 
of vocabulary management for those hearing impaired respondents I inter- 
viewed later, not to mention the time taken tO administer it. An noted 
with the interview schedulel the understanding of even quite crude grad. 
ations is particularly dif ficult for those linguistically d*f icient. 
Ideally, I should have liked to havo asked respondents themselves to 
indicate areas of difficulty in the particular problem area I wjLs studying: 
employment 9 in the hope of 
building up a prof ile of hearing handi cap Con- 
gruent with the Laterpretative 
thrust of this thesis. I leave this to others. 
- 62 - 
Ultimately, the problem of classification became a matter for my own 
subjective judgemerIt. I devised a simple scale of "Ptase of Commnioation 
with .. "i rating respondents along a 5-point Scale of 1 (Fasy) to V (Very 
Difficult), using hearing norms as referents. That is t it is based on 
the kinds of expectations and presumptions which the average hearing per. 
son, might have of an encounter which was not just of a fleeting nature, 
but was sustained over a couple of hours or more. 
The Scale is described in Appendix 9,9 together with the various checks 
I carried out post hoo to assess consistency in ranking over time. As an 
heuristic device, it was the most effective tool I could employ in order 
to gain acoess to, and olassifyip my material. Moreover, it will be noted 
that respondents' peroeptions of the Ifunctionalt severity of their loss 
(Appendix 9, Table 9a) . ie. with the use of a hearing aid where appropriate, 
oorrelated fairly well with my assessments. 
However, I cannot pretend that it is free from defects. I contendq 
nevertheless 9 that errors , where they took place , tended to cancel out , 
and that ranking of the same subjects by an independent observer would 
not have differed too radioally from my own, even if the overall shift 
had been upwards or downwards. (of. Discussion in Appendix) 
The most successful and worthwhile andeavour was the use of frespon- 
dent, oorroborationto After an interval of some 9-12 months after the in- 
itial interviews, I endeavoured to oheak out some of the inferences I had 
made by re-interviewing 7 respondents: 1 from Communication Groups 1,11 
and IV, 2 from Groups III and V. I seleoted them as I adjudged them to be 
less than typioal in their responses. Rather than oonf ining myself to 
simply producing tmore of the same', I phrased the few topic questions I 
prepared in a WaY designed to go #looking for trouble'. 
I understand this is a device not much employed by sociologists 
(PAYNE et al)o Yetq as the authors claim ".. it is the stipulation of 
falsifierB .. 
/which/ opens up the possibility of debate - new evi- 
ý 63 - 
deuce can be produced within the terms set - but also the possibility of 
conceptual challenge because the terms of reference have been made 
explicit". 
Whilst my claims are more modest, in that toorroboration' (or loon- 
firmation") was used largely to modify a tendenoy to make more eategorical 
inferences that the initial data possibly warranted. 9 rather than adhere 
Btriotly to a Popperian model of falsification, I did oarefally select the 
most disoonf irmatory cases I had. The result is "a weak form of falsifi- 
catioe (PAYNE et al). But I more than ooncur with REX (in PAYNE) that it 
is preoisely this oapaoity of the sooiologist to identify areas where mod- 
ification, of his propositions can be sought ' .. which gives him the right 
to claim that his descriptions have greater validity ". 
Perhaps, as importantlyg it gave me the opportunity to take a selec- 
tive longitudinal view of my sample and approximate a dynamio rather than 
a static analysis. As noted, it also added depth and uncovered new layers 
of meaning I would have been the poorer without. 
Viewed with the benefit Of Bome hindsight my attempts at classifi. 
cation and measurement have, paradoxicallyg enbanced. my confidence in the 
validity and ultimately the reliability of qualitative data on its own. 
Over the period of research, my ambivalenoe regarding the desirability of 
striving for both qualitative and quantitative data underwent a quiet rev- 
olution. The method I have adopted for this thesis stems from the in- 
ability of a quantitative approach to grasp the complexities of the sub- 
jeot matter under investigation. At best it has provided only the most 
superficial understanding of the data. Thus, the attempts I have madeq 
although time-consuming, have been relegated to a quite subsidiary role. 
I have been concerned rather to develop a set of arguments, theoreti- 
cally as rigorous as any quantification process, which, 
I oontend, have 
accounted much more effectively 
for the subject I have been studying. 
The most basic methodological issue facing any researcher 
is the 
question of the kind of statements he is able to make from the work, 
- 64 - 
taking all the acknowledged -weaknesses, attempts to counteract them, and 
checks madet into aooount. 
This has been essentially an exploratory study. It was not designed 
to enable Ine to establish generalisations about the whole hearing impaired 
POPulationj but, on the basis of a limited sampleg to investigate broad 
themes of how the hearing impaired perceive a hearing-dominated world of 
vorkt and how they attempt to make sense of it., It is, as ERIDIR and 
HMIJM (1941) oomment of their muoh earlier study of the life problems of 
t he de af, mo re a "surve yoft he fie I d"': an att e mpt to undo rot and a part i c)-- 
ular social prooess as it affects the interaction between a deviant min- 
ority and the wider societyg rather than to provide syetematio answers to 
questions. My ooncern was initially not to make strong statements, but to 
make statements in an area virtually devoid of any Btatements at all* 
However, the fact that I took on board a quite muLnticipated issue: 
the resistance to a comparative studyq haB led to a toughening of my ori- 
ginal stance. The oontribution that sociology has to make hasq I think, 
been well vindicated im the applicability of my alternative perspeative, 
as subsequent ohapters will demonstrate. 
Nevertheless, the limited nature and unrepre sent at ivene ss of my sample 
means that inferences are strictly applicable only to this group of sub- 
groups, and not to the hearing impaired population as a whole. This does 
not, I suýMestj negate the value of such inferenoeB. They do have wider 
implications as I shall disOUBS in Chapter 7. The conclusions I hope to 
draw must properly be regarded as indications of general themes whioh lay 
the foundations for future work. 
The basis on which the inferences I have made during the course of 
this research I have made explioit in much of the foregoing and ensuing 
discussion: the use of observationt reoording and classification; the 
convergence of various kinds of 'evidence'; the frequency with which oer. 
tain phemomna reoirred; the search for interocnnectic)n, 3; the qawt fbr the ecdz- 
- 6.5 - 
tence of questionable but unchecked assumptions. 
What I have endeavoured to do in this chapter is to resolve, as far 
as humanly Possible, one half of the problem: that the data is valid in 
being more or less true. In adhering to BECKER's (1970) recipes for re- 
solving the problems of evidence which reliance on qualitative data inevi- 
tably raise, I have followed the injunction of LAZARSFELD (in BECKER9 1970) 
to ".. keep the logic of quantitative research methods in mind when 
analysing qualitative data". 
I stress that it is the logic rather than the nature of the enquiry which 
is at stake. Thus I have dealt at some length, and in some detail, with 
a precise description of how I entered the research situation, sustained 
and finally terminated the fieldwork; the probleM8 involved in gathering 
information and data, and how these affected the outcome. 
Reliability is, of course, the ultimate criterion* Every researcher 
is under the obligation to try and produce reliable work. The extent to 
which an interpretative sociologist can achieve this is one of maximising 
probabilities. He may even have an 'edge' over his social survey coll. 
eagues: he is uniquely placed to open up channels of discourse with 
groups in our social system whose way of thinking and behaviour may appear 
arbitrary and irrational. It is this which creates the conditions for 
mutual understanding - between both deaf and deaf, and ultimately deaf 
and hearing people, 
As the theoretical assumptions I held prior to collecting the data 
and during the data gathering process are crucial to the reliability of 
the inferences I makes I will deal with these in greater depth in the 
following chapter. This will, I hope, complete the other half of the 
equation in seeking f or "links between findings and broader general 
isations" 
(MANN, I 1976) . and pave 
the way towards what is the heart of this thesis: 
the way the hearing impaired perceive and 
interpret their world of work, 
and the routine practices 
they adopt in interaction with their hearing 
work colleagues and employers. 
ý 66 - 
NUM 
is 'Total Communication' was developed by Roy Holcomb at the Maryland 
School for the Deaf in 1968, as a result of the profound disquiet at the low levels of academic achievement of deaf pupils. IENTON (1976) has de- 
fined it as ".., a manual, auditory, oral system of communication, recog- 
nizing the legitimacy of the language of signs as an essential visual 
reinforcement to oral and auditory aspects of communication for deaf 
perBons". 
However, its application has been less than happy. In many schools through- 
out the UK. IT. C. ' means no more than oralism supplemented by finger 
spelling. The development of language competence has often been interpreted 
by teachers to man competence in English. "In many cases, this view of 
IT. C. I was used to justify or rationalim what teachers had already 
been doing in their classroom" (COKSLY9 1980) 
Properly applied, it is a philosophy rather than a method, andq as 
such, depends for its success on the attitudes of teach-are. It does not 
specify any particular manual system (MITCHELL, 181). It is " the right of 
a deaf child to use all forms of communication available to develop lan- 
guage competence". Its potential implications are truly staggering. It 
is conceivable that the stigma attached to sign language as an archaic 
and devalued 'animal language' will eventually disappear, and with it, 
more positive attitudes towards the hearing impaired emerge. Ultimately 
it may mean the disappearance of that group of profoundly preligually 
orally deaf who are functionally illiterate, and have no means of oommuni- 
cation other than gesture and home-made sign., 
Despite fears concerning the possible adulteration of sign language and 
hostility to integration on the part of some signing deaf people, T. C. 
does provide a means whereby fluency in English - and thus some economic 
independence - can be acquired, at the same time as preserving the rich- 
ness of BSL,, and the community which is based on ito 
2. British Sign Language has been variously described, most eloquently 
perhaps, by BRLUJGI (1970: "It is a language with a grammar speoifi- 
cally suited for vision ... for the eye rather than the ear, bat 
capable of witq drama and poetry and very fine mances of expression". 
In common with spoken languages, it is governed by a system of rules, it 
is arbitraryq and has a grammatical structure which is precise, complex 
and highly articulatedo 
3. Sign language has been regarded as forming a "bi-1 ingual-diglos sic 
contijmiumll between BSL 'proper' and English 
(LAWSON, L, 1980). The diagram 
(over) will illustrate the spectrum. Signing Exact English 
(S. E. E. )is a word-for-word representation of what is being said. The 
variations near each end of the spectrum are what are known as 'pidgin' 
languages, %. reduced in morphological structure, oontain/ing/ a partial 
mixture of structures of two languages 
(BSL and Rnglish)t and con- 
tai#ý. ng/ structure common to neither of these languages in the oommu- 
nication system` 
(LAWSON, op. cit). 
They are not 'native' languages. Pidgin sign t. ends to be used only in 
fairly restricted social circumstances to help the communication process 
rather than to function as a non-verbal form of expression. 
The use of the oonoept of diglossia as a means of oonoeptualising 
these distinctions (ISUCHAR, 1978; WOOIWARD9 1980) has now fallen into 
some disrepute, as oonferring 
inferior status on BSL proper. PADIM and 
MARKOWICZ (1976) have suggested referenoe might more usefully be made to 
0 
ýq 
W4 
a 
z 
11 
z 
C) 
F-4 
U2 
w 
cn FA 
fýý 
z 
: F4 
F-i 
0 
C. 3 
rn 
1 /67 
, --4 X 0 0- %3 
r -1 4 = . 
0 
-f-i -14 J. 9-f r-i m0 -p 
c2 
r... f d 04 H *5 . cý 2 :1 0 (1) 0.9 4 to -i >ý 2,0 .H 9 Co P: . t: - si r-t r-i 0 9.4 a 4 1 Co -r4 IE 00 1-4 r4 (d (U 1 cd Al : ,? d 0 CO ;4 bß 4 P 0 1 -H -p -1 -1 0 . f-4 0P 9.1 0: 
pn ý: ) -P 0 m 
14 
Ea 
pq 
4-1 
0 
2 
0 
Cd 
Cd 
0 
Ea 
124 
0 
r-f 
0 
$4 0- (d 
Co = ; jý ýC. Co 0 
91 9 ;i 
0 
.H U2 
pp 
4.4 
a4 0 
00 
10 0 mg 
. f. j Pd X, r-I Pq :j r-I 1 S3 cc 
(D (D 
(D A rq 
a 
, -1 4- *3 
rd 2 :4 : ý- 1 ;9S0 
bD 
-ri PCI 
0 
>oS CD 0 
L= 
rd 
4) 
2o 
$1 
114 E-4 a 42 S 4) 
m 
co o 4-1 
r-4 CIA Ag 
a- ca 0 
4-3 0 r92 0 0 f-I - co 4-1 0 . 14 44,5 
co > E! 
r. 1 ;90 
cl 
AM 
$1 
-P 
> ;g rb-j) $3 1 -2 
W00 
-P M -P C- 
A0 
e 
-r4 
(1) A 0 .0 C2 . ro m r-4 8 0 -9 53 4) cc 0 
e 4- 4 
r-4 
P4 W P 1ý4 
0 (D - r 
o 
0 
0 0 0. 
= 
c a 
L 
0 
G. +s 
m 
o 
9 
14 
- 4 
o 
- 4 q 0 r r 
m 
r 
C d 
1 1 1 ) ) 
Cd 0 
0 3 0 P r-4 4) 4) 0 (D C) r-4 -A .0 
(D 
r-i 4-4 p4 Co 
00 Cf.. f 
, --. +3 - ja r. a -5 to 
w 
-d A 
00 4) 00 
rio 
93 
0 
0 
r. 
0 
-rq 
m 
m 
Id 
42 
4) 
P4 
- 68 - 
the concept of "language variet ie s "within ASL (and BSL)q with rules gov- 
erning the use of varieties in particular social situations- 'High' and 
'low' forms have been found within BSL itself (WOLL9 1982). 
4-o Fingempelling presupposes a fairly thorough acquaintance with 
"standard' written MIgliBh. Very few signing deaf use it with any 
fluencyq other than those versed in S. E. S. as well as B. S. L. Nothing 
better illustrates the distinction between BSL and IBigning" according to 
EJ3, gliBh word orcler. 
5* Various attempts have been made to produce a notation (as opposed to 
a written) system of sign. SUTTONI's "Signwritine is the nearest equiva- 
lent (WOLL, 1982). At the time of writingg a "Sign Dictionary" is being 
prepared by the BritiBh Deaf Assooiation. 
6. YgLkaton is a vocabulary rather than a language system and has been 
described as a "degenerate form of BSL11 (KIERVANv 1982). It has no syn- 
tactical rules. Signs are selected from BSL. It has been fairly suooess- 
fully applied to teaching the mentally retardedq and its use in the treat- 
ment of adults whose speech function is paralysed by strokes is being ex- 
plored. The revised version, which was taught, is intended "to increase 
its size and Boopell (WALIM, 1978). Key words only are signed, and it is 
accompanied by grammatical speech. Its relevance to the profoundly pre- 
lingually deaf as a first language isl therefore, marginal. 
To The stress on iconicity has, perhaps, been over-stated (KYIR and 
WOLL, 1980). Mime can be reduced to lexical items. If Sign was purejj 
iconic? hearing people would be able to learn it with a great deal more 
facility than they do. BATTISON (1980) notes that as Sign has developed, 
it has become less, not more iconic: "signs .. have become more like a 
standardised gesture that must be pronounced in a partioular way to 
be 'just right"'. 
WOLL (1982) now argues for a oontim), um of iconicity and arbitrariness. 
8o It was with a profound sense of relief that I read BENIMYte des. 
cription of the diffioulties hearing people experience in learning sign 
She quotes the experience of a teaching programme by Naryland School for 
the DBaf: 
It 0 only half the mothers could sign sentences after six months of 
s; Ud, ying with a teacher who visited once a week. Fbrty percent had 
some usable individual signs, and 10 percent had no usable signs 
whatsoever ... Only 
half of the fathers knew any signs, a quarter 
managing sentences and a quarter using only individual words". 
Not only is it a mistaken assumption that learning to sign 
is easy. 
BENIERLY continues: "Having to learn sign robe a hearing persong partio- 
ularly an adult9 of his sense of social competence even more pro. 
foundly than immersion in a spoken foreign language". 
9. The idea of a tpecking order' in the deaf world relating to the ab- 
ility, or lack of it, to sign was corroborated 
by Miss M. A. and Miss R. C. 
Interestingly, it was something denied by MILM 
(1983). Commenting in a 
private oapaoity, rather than as a member of 
the BDA staff, she wrote: 
"With regard to the oral deaf persong there are actually many of 
them within the deaf community ... If they socialise with other 
deaf 
persons, then they are considered 
to be part of the signing community 
whether they sign 
fluently or not". 
None of the orally deaf respondents 
I talked with who attended Deaf Clubs 
felt comfortable or accepted 
there. 
- 69 - 
Moreover, it seems that the attitudes of the signing deaf towards 
their less fortunate orally deaf colleagues with no vehicle of comanini- 
cation - whose situation the new militancy is, presumably, designed to 
alleviate - are characterised by a certain obliviousness. Witness the 
astonishment with which Ms. ALLSOP (ALLSOP and KYIRI 1982) , herself a 
well-established member of the deaf community, reacted to the presence of 
this group in her sample. "I was amazed at their inability to oomanlnioate"v 
she comraent%. The signing deaf, it seems, have always regarded themselves 
tat the bottom of the pile' (MILES, opecit), stigmatised by the orally 
POstlingually deaf. 
10o FINNRY (1977), for example, at pains to diEweiate herself from the 
possibilities of oomparisong then engages in a volte face: she ooncludes 
that despite the lack of derogatory historioal references to the 'hard of 
hearing', ".. one cannot help but feel that there is some correlation in 
people's images of hearing disability which will lead them to gener- 
alizello 
11. Lipreading bristles with diffiaulties. First, it Presupposes a 
thorough knowledge of langmage: it is a code for the reception of already 
known language. The acquisition of new vooabulary via lipreading is 
thus highly problematic. Its usefulness is restricted largely to those 
with acquired loss. 
It is also highly ambiguous. Some sounds are virtually undetectable: 
a hard lot formed at the back of the throat); *r are so similar as to 
Cause confusiong eg.,, 1bt, Ipt; Im', In'; Itt and tdI. Partioular words 
on the lips look alike (homophenes) :, tfo. rt3ý and Tourteen'; I judge' and 
'church'; 'amuse' and tabuset. Finally, actual phrases blend: "Waich 
do you want? " becomes "Which djter want? " 
Other problems reflect the strain of having to perform two functions 
simultaneously: that of filling in the gaps and preparing an appropriate 
reply - something a hearing person does almost automatically. Also 'affect, 
has to be identifiedo "... one actually foausses one's attention on a 
speakerts eyes rather than his mouth, reading below the linest as 
it were, the verbal eminciation of his mood" 
(WRIGHTt 1969). 
Rathert it is necessary to constantly flick between eyes and mouthl 
auditory peroeption lagging in the process. And the problems of 
lipread- 
ing pipe--smokersl pen-suckerst and the hirsute are legion. 
12. CONnD (1979) comments: "Commonly the speeoh of deaf people may be 
totally unintelligible to strangers and yet reasonably intelligible 
to their immediate family. The pre-requisite is consistency. In 
the same way that we learn to re--code, ie. 9 translate, 
foreign words, 
so too can the parents of deaf children learn 
to translate their 
utterances"* 
13, Sounds are audible via two routes: 
(i) they can travel in the air, 
through the external earg ear drums and to the 00ohleare This 
is known 
as air conduction hearing, and 
is the most important route. (ii) Sound 
energy can enter the bones of 
the skull and thence directlrto the oooh. 
lear- (bone conduction hearing). Early observer% using a 
tu ning-fork 
found that with sensori-neural deafness 
"air conduction and bone conduc- 
tion-are more or less equal"; whilst those with conductive 
deafness 
"air conduction hearing is reduced 
but bone conduction hearing re. 
mains near normal and 
is sometimes even better than normal" (NAUNTON, 
1968). 
- 70 - 
The point is that "Transmission is not so efficient across the skin and 
through the bone as it is by the normal route" (DAVIS and SILVERMAN, 
1978) *4p* "It is air conduction that gives the ear its greater sensi- 
tivityl particularly for the higher audible frequenoies'lo 
It is the loss of higher frequencies, characteristic of sensori-neural 
deafness which causes problems in speech discrimination. Consonantsq 
especially sibilants and fricativesp are located at these frequencies 
and give intelligibility to speech. Vowels are located at the lower fre- 
quencies. Whilst they give power and energy to sound, they are meaning- 
less on -their own, Although clinics now do both air and bone conduction 
testing as a matter of routine for diagnostic purposes, air conduction 
testing is the most important indicator of difficulties with speeoh - 
and hence communication generally. 
14* It is possible that audiologioal and allied professionals might be 
regarded as official labellers in a more subtle manner than simply that 
of legitimators of a clinical diagnosis. Ignorant of the many varieties 
of signingg and of what constitutes BSL (as I was informed by one dele- 
gate at the British Society of Audiology Conferencel January 1983)9 they 
are in a unique position to exert pressure on anxious parents to fore-go 
their children learning sign or using T*C. Their frame of reference is 
firmly hearing. 
- 71 - 
CHAPTER 3: LABELLING THE HEILRING IMPAIRED 
In this chapter I will present an explanatory theoretical framework 
with which to illustrate my arguments. Whilst I have drawn broadly both 
from ethnomethodological andg to a lesser extent, phenomenological schools 
of thoughtt my perspective is firmly located within that most controversial 
off-shoot of interactionismg labelling theox7o 
This in no way oommits me to espousing labelling theory in its en- 
tirety, or to viewing it as an exclusive panacea for explication* To ex- 
pect a theox7 to have total explanatory power is quite misoonceived. Its 
gaps and omissions will become apparent in the course of the ttn lysis 
(DAVIS, N., 1972; GIBBS9 1972; GOVE, 1975; WEST, 1M)* Howeverg all 
theories have their strengthse Rarely do they suffer from all the draw- 
backs their critics would urge upon us* The attractiveness of the labell- 
ing perspective stems precisely from its "sensitising" as opposed to its 
"denotative" qualitiesl whioh allow the reader an entr*ee to n-ew ways of 
perceiving assumptions* In SC 's (1974) worcLs, it "oe attempts-, to 
jostle the imagination, to create a crisis of consciousness which 
will lead to new visions of reality"o 
I bave adopted some working concepts derived from that approach as 
providing me with the most fruitful tools for analysis* Such an approach 
is geared precisely to maximising the strengths of the labelling per- 
spectiveg) 
thus make no apology for the apparent eclectIcism: no empirioal, 
researoher uses a theox-yj or theoretical perspective, in its entirety* 
AB PAM et al (op*oit) note: "09 the researcher in the field does not 
actually use wholesale theories, but borrows ecleoticallyq Polishing 
a concept or appropriating bits and pieces rather than complete 
Behemas". choosing "oo only those parts which can be aclapted 
for 
Use in knowing the external world"* 
The tradition of regarding eclecticism as something of a Idirty word' 
ist I Buggesto equally njisoonceivedo 
- 72 - 
I have been principally concerned to extend GOFFNANts micro-snalysis 
of encounters in largely limitedq casual social situations to a study of 
the labelling prooesseE; in a situation where interaction has to be sus. 
tained: that of employment. Goffman's work has largely been geared to 
"episodic or repeated interactions, rather than to sustained inter- 
play" (GLASER and STRAUSS,, 1964) 
(although his study of life in a total institution (1961) is a magni fjoent 
exc. option), Whilst many of the issues are similar, it was hypothesised 
that the ramifications might be rather different for interactants who are 
obliged to sustain 8-hour daily relationships in a situation which standeq 
perhaps, mid-way between these two extremese I hOP09 thu'39 tO havO add- 
ed a smalli but Signifilftnt dimension, to interactioniAt studiese 
Ny amphasis has oentred chiefly on the relatively neglected field 
of inrormal labelling., Most labelling research ham focussed on social 
control processing, to the neglect of ".. the more ephemer&l form of 
-miscondaot which surround us" (IIINZIN, 1970)* 
I saggest that informal sanctioning is just as pernicious and insidious 
as what GARFINKEL (1956) has termed "offiaial degradation oeremonies". 
Parad. oxioallyq as SUCHAR (1978) notes: "These less stractured. dogm-- 
dation ceremonies are often effective because the denounoers are 
the status equals of the denounced. The status degradation by 
peers and by those who were formerly friendly associates of the 
alleged non-conformist can be extremely significant in altering 
self-regarding attitudes"* 
Inevitably, however, official definitions have obtradod in my anal- 
ysis. The taskj ultimately, became one of identifying the intrioate and 
complex interrelationships between the two, as critical to a proper un- 
derstanding of the process (EMSON and MISSINGUR, 1977)9 It is simply 
a moot point which is the more har fal. 
Suffice to note that 'problemst 
tend to be identified initially by the private informal definitional 
prooesso 
Similarl. vt sancrtioning does not take plaos in a sooial vaouum. 
&nploy-ment 9 as a social structure, 
has also imPinged on the analysis, 
- 73 - 
thus demonstrating the complex relationship between interactionism and 
structuralism, rather than polarising them into disorete oompartments. 
Generally, this thesis is an exploration of a particular and partial 
view of how the sooial manifestations between hearing and hearing in- 
paired operate at the mioro-level, within a partioular sooial oontext 
oritioal to eoonomio suinrival. 
The main working conoepts I shall use in an attempt to illustrate 
the plight of those disadvantaged by a communication deficiency I eve 
prinoipally to the works of GOFF14AN and SCHUR. I am drawn to the former 
because of his ever-readimes to draw out sinilarities in apparently 
different types of behaviour; and I am indebted -to the latter for an app- 
reoiation of the essentially dynasio and innovative natiure of the do- 
vianoo defining - and reacting - process* They are an follows-. - 
10 Stigma, and two sub-. oonoepts: the distinction between discreditable 
and discredited victims; and between felt and enacted stigma; 
2. Stereotyping; 
Strategy man gement.; 
4-P ]iqviant outcomes both as "definitions of the situation! " and as a 
"ooncrete state of affairs" (SCWR, 1979) * 
I intend to look at the complex interaction between all these promeses, 
although for ease of analysis they may beoome separatod. 
10 IRVIANCE AND HKARING IMPAIRMICNT: THE ]IMPINITIONS OF OTHERS AND 
THE POWER TO IEFIIX 
Mdoh of the literature on the relationship between devianoe and 
physical impairment has demonstrated 
how impairment generally tends -to 
be negatively categorised 
for transgressing what are the fundamental 
norms of appearance# curability, 
healthq financial independence and self- 
relianceg andq critically 
for my arguAwnt, smoothness of interpersonal 
interaction (FRICRISON, 1965; 
WALSH, 1969; SAFILIOS-ROTHSCHILDj 1970; 
HILBOURNE9 1973). More particularly, defects of the face and mouth - 
- 74 - 
and any accompanying infractions of speech delivery - tend to be Erubject 
to disProportionately severe sanctions in our society (ARGYIR and K3NWNq 
1967; ZARN, 1973). WALSH argues oonvinoingly that facial disfigumements 
are more likely to elicit penalties than a visible handicap anyvhere else 
on the bodvo ftaial and speeah deficiencies disrupt interactiong and 
this appeam to pose a profound threat to our taken-for-granted assum- 
ptions about the world, 
In his last book (1981) OOFFNAN elaborates on this them: he argues 
cogently that it is ftfioienoies in what he calls tho wbanio coaqwtenoiss" 
- dreast appearanoo, and, oritioally, speech performanm . which 0&11 
forth some of the most negative evaluations in our society. He soments: 
"COMPet9nOY in regard to oommon-bunan abilities in Som-thing we tao- 
itly allot to all adalts we meet withq an &ohievemj: kt and qwaif'L. 
cation they are taken to start with, credit for which they receive 
in advance, We have a folk notion that spesah proftation will ordi. 
narily be fanltlesst occurring without a hitch, An individa, &JIs 
failure to sustain these Inormal I standards in thus taken am evi- 
denoe not only that he doesn't (or night not) manure up in these 
respectsEi brat also that as a claimant he has tacitly presented him- 
self in a false light. With reappraisal goes discrediting and an 
imputation of bad faith". 
Daviantising ocours when the hearing impaired are peroeived to depart 
from suoh laooeptabls' Bt&ndardB Of 00ý"'ýIa*: L" O0mP*t*n"0 It tends 
to take the following forou3: - 
(a) St igma 
Stigma is defined by the Oxford lensclish DiotionarY (1933) as "A 
mark made upon the skin by btLrning with a hot iroia ... as a token 
of infamy or subjeotion; a brand; a mark of disgraoe or infamy; 
a sign of severe oensure or oondeanation". 
Suoh a definition is indioative of near-pariah status for its holder. 
It is important to note, however, that not all impaired people are ne4p-- 
essarily stigmatisedp and that stigma is not universally felt 
(OLIVER, 
1979; RYAN, K&mPNKR and SNIRN, 198O)o It is incorporated in varying c10- 
g"es, depending upon a whole 
battOrY Of factors, chief of mhichg I Emggest, 
is the ability to dgf3. eot such 
imputations of deviance by the negotiation 
of bargains more favourable 
to self-image. Hence the notion of degrees 
ý 75 - 
of deviantness. Deviance in not an all-Or-nOtlll" affair* 
Despite the variability of stignat sufficient of my hearing inpaired 
sasple felt thoy w*re potentially or actually atiglmtiB*d tO varrant UBO 
Of this Concept* The distinction between felt stigma - the internalization 
Of f 00liugs of alhame and the belief that others hold the" attitudes - and 
enacted stigma - actual discrimination - has been a useful (me. 
Pivotal to my own analysis, how*v*rg has been Goffmalm's distinction 
between discreditable and discredited individuals* I have used this to 
make a fairly arbitrary division betv*en those hearing imqnired vhos* 
am ulmi tion skills are mmeh an to pres*rvp reasonable mwothnam of in- 
toraction, and for whom strat*gies of passill, or at 1*aat normlimation 
are feasible options; and respondents whose impairsent is immediately 
evident, if not obtrusive on encounter, so that puming and normlimation 
cease to be viable options, Such a distinction allows for variability 
betwoen situations* A r&spondent discr*dited in one situation may well 
Join the ranks of the discreclitable in etk*rx. Norooverp it in a distin. 
ction readily linked to my assessment of r*spondomats along the "Nm* of 
Communication with eo" Scale* 
The samgement of biographical information and tamion control ar* 
also useful concepts* For discreditable respondents to pass, , avoidL. 
ance of disclosure of attendance at special schools or Partially Hearing 
Units, acquaintamc* with known doaf coll*Mu**, mast be strictly manit. 
argd. whilst this is of lemw importance to discr"ited reepcUdentas I 
gurrogt thatl contrary to GOFFMAN's contention, tension 
t in 
%PW 
applicable to both groups, being an integral f9ature of the control of 
biographical information as vell as to the presentation of a 'front'. 
Not only is stigma incorporated variably; it comes in differing 
shapes and guinea. There are numerous 
f orms of stigma reactions. with which 
I wJ3.1 be concerned. Depending on who 
in being defined and the nature of 
the behaviour or conditiong deviantising can range from Lild dig. 
- 76 - 
apProval to ridiculep avoidance, isolation and segregationg to the de- 
nial of various social and economic opportunities. Basicallyq however, all 
Stigma reactions have the same purpose and common property: to shame and 
discredit those who, in one way or another, threaten majority values. 
Whilst at first eight these various kinds of reaction might not seem 
to be entirely compatible, I contend they maintain an inner logic. Ger- 
tain common elements emerge which make stigmatising qualitatively - 
although not nOOeBsarily quantitatively - similar: the basio properties 
differ only in degree , not in kind. 
If one bears in mind the notion of stigma as a form of "oontainment" 
as suggested by SCMJR (1980) , then a broader model ranging from sooio. 
psychological and moral containment, to interpersonal, economic, and ulti- 
mately geographical and physical containment, may have a better conceptual 
ffitt. All deviance definingg however, involves socio-psychologioal and 
interpersonal oontainment. The additional dimension with which I shall 
prinoipally be ooncerned here is eoonomic. Flor the purposes of this dis- 
oussion, however, I shall generally refer to stigma reactions. Thus I 
shall be oonoerned with a continuum of response: from awkwardness and 
uneaset to mockery and ridiculep to segregation and denial of aocess 
to economic opportuni 3. es., 
For Goffman, the oentral dilemma of the stigmatised individaallts 
situation in life oentred round the rather loosely delineated problem of 
waoceptanoe 91. "Those who have dealings with him fail to aooord him the 
respect and regard which the uncontaminated aspects of his social 
identity have led them to anticipate extending, and have led him to 
anticipate receiving; he echoes this denial by finding that some of 
his own attributes warrant it" (1968) 
It is precisely such lack of acceptance, subtle or not so subtle avoidance, 
irritation and impatienceg if not outright ridicule and ostraoiBM9 which 
characterise the situation of many 
hearing impaired at work. 
I have found the concept of stigma a useful vantage Point from which 
to investigate the following 'discrepancies' which hearing impairment, as 
- 77 - 
a disorder of communication, poses to ease of interaction: 
(i) Hearing aids as 8tigna symbols; 
(ii) The violation of socially approved normis of eye contact and acc*p- 
table distance between actors which lipreading necessitates; and the 
irritation engendered by requests for repeats; 
(iii) The negative evaluations attached to discordantl bizarrel or u4ni- 
to 
speech, and/the Ideafisms' which sometimes accompaV this; 
Civ) Sign Language as a visible indicator of shameful status. 
Hearing Aids an Stilge Symbols 
If defects of the face and mouth poise a threat to the normal asmmp- 
tions concerning moothness of interaction, so does the wearing of a pro- 
sthesis which indicates the nature (but not the severity) of the defect* 
The perception of hearing aide an stigmatising was confirmed by roe M 
onto in my sample who often took elaborate steps to conceal them* 
The old body-worn Medresco box aid in universally detested. As 
EWING (in GREGOR19 1964) comented: "When a collection of hearing aids 
is spread upon a laboratory table,, it would be hard to find anywhere 
an uglierg more cumberame and more inconvenient not of articles 
for daily personal use"* 
The introduction of Behi nd-the-Ear aids on the National Health Service in 
1973 has represented a cosmetic improvement. But I suggest it in sore 
than aesthetics which are at stake* 
Whilst the wearing of glasses is now perfectly acc*ptable - although 
at one time this was not so$ schoolchildren being derogatorily referred 
to an 'Four Eyes' - the wearing of a hearing aid is not. Moreovers it is 
significant that a flourishing industry devoted to =king spectacles sex- 
ly appealing has not been extended to hearing aids., 
I suggest that hearing aide sot up visual associations of lack of 
body vholeness. Although I disagree with his psychoanalytic stance, 
ROUSsEy (1971) argues convincingly in this instance in favour of such an 
/explan- 
- 78 - 
ation: ".. no matter how elegantly it is oonoealed .. it oannot deoeive 
the outside world that an applianee is needed in order to make the 
individual whole". 
To regard a hearing aid as a stigma symbol bears out the oonten- 
tions of most recent authors on the subject (BIRD and TREVAINS, 1978; 
-a-mc: ]m BE --I 
G. 1 1980;: BEATTIEt 1981; - and WEINBERCER and RAIZI 1982). How 
it acquired Emch status ist perhapst bound up with the way hearing impair- 
ment has been eqaated historioally with dambness and stupidity - and 
still is. It is a stupidity symbollo 
(ii) The Lipreader an fraulty interautant I 
Whilst a hearing aid may obtrude uPon an eneounter, other no are 
also unwitt ingly breaohe& by those hearing impaired whose expressive 
speech might, remain unimpaired but whose reoeptive skills axe such as 
to render lipreading an essential supplemat to understandin oonvero. 
sation. The praotical diffioul+, jes of lipreading have alzoady loon ref.. 
erred to. Nevertheleseq the ability to use this tool in often a vital. 
factor in determining discreditable rather -than discredited status. 
The norms regarding aural and visual attention are partioularly 
fraught for the hearing impairecL Note has already been made of the dis- 
tress many deaf PeoPle feel at axW brl9ak in 1970 &nd f&lgi&3L 10010't"to 'whigh 
is peroeived an signifying lask of interest. On the other hand 'over- 
attentiont is equall. T disOOnOOrtinge The nooessity of maintaimin flx*dg 
unremitting attention on the other partisipant'18 mouthl and sustain' 
a particular physical/spa-tial orientation to 
his, requires inteme con- 
(wntration and iskilful man gement., Generallyq ensounters are not geared 
to bear the weight of suoh intens . Y. 
It has been argued that in ooncentrating on thinking what one saysq 
a hearing person will 
let his gaze wander inadvertently round the room$ 
as if in search of 
inspiration. A hearing impaired person cannot afford 
- 79 - 
such a luxury. In his endeavours not to lose contact with & Person's 
lip movements, bodily postiure, becomes straineds tensee The response in 
often withdrawal* The plqnical space then bas to be made, good again, 
resulting in what WRIGHT humroualy describos an "a Id ad of slow o". (1969) 
Howeverg the strain of performing two functions sillultane=8349 that 
of vismal Iy decoding language and preparing an appropriate reply, )mks tke 
unfortalmate by-product of depriving the, hearing ispaired person of val- 
uable non-verbal cuss an to what in going one Leg an SCE337 
and THAM (X974) point outq often the result of a hearing inpaired per- 
son's less of visible social inforoation* "R* has little time to aSSOMS, 
IMM a message in bei u saidq or what others in the group are oonwAni- 
eating regarding their reactions to the speaker. Important Ibw&- 
channel coýnicationl . is peripherally selected out of the 
coommication streas" -P 
The authors conclude that deprived of non-vorbal feedback and impoverished 
social informtiox ".,, it inalwat izovitable that discr*paut "Cial per. 
colytions and misund*rs Ilags "our". 
an arguseat further developed Iry OUBUJIM (19U). And misuaders 
general Iy alienate - and are stigmatlAwdo Tke oncouster in terminated* 
And the hearing Japs red are transformed into 'faulty imteractaats'. 
The virtual imponsibility Of trYizg to Upread iz other tkax a eneý 
to-one situation and participate im group djLmgwgjoUg sea= tkw kearing 
impaired are barred from the streau of daily contacts, The diffigulty is 
reinforced by a reluctance of hearing others to I fill int - itself indic. 
ativ* of the atigmatising evaluations which hearing impairmmmt attracts. 
Often attempts to participate lead to bizarre situatims, Oa* in so 
graphically and humourounly described by John KITTO 
(1848) that I ref'or 
the reader to the Notes section where I have quoted the pasm" in fu112, 
The tolerance he evoked from his audience, however,, in in no way typical 
of the experience of many 
hearing inpairod p*ople, as I ghall M&Ow, 
Thus the inevitable mistakes with lipreading often leave huge gaps 
in a hearing imPair*d person's understanding of 
the vorld. The need to keep 
Of% 
- C)u 4» 
abreast with hearing information often provokes the classic dilemma: 
of risking disruption and eliciting an yance and exasperation with a 
request for repeats, or being caught out with a question and respondin 
with an inappropriate tgaffet. It is a zero-sum situation: irritation, 
disrupted interaction - and consequent stigma reactions being the almost 
inevitable result. 
(iii) 'Incompetent I Speech 
As indicated 
;n 
Chapter 1. the primaoy with which effective speech 
and language performance is held in Western society cannot be too strongly 
emphasised. It is the hearing person's referential "peg' for understand- 
ing sooial oompetenoy, "How one speaks is the medium par exoellenoe of 
the impression one gives. Not only in mastery of oorreot grammar 
important for oognitive style, but JA is also essential for person- 
hood itself ,, what oomes out of the nouth may indeed defile (my italse) (NASH and NASH9 1981)o 
As suggested, the defioieno. Tv or laok of, suoh oommunioative skills 
oraoially jeopardises interpersonaL. - relationships, and in heavily ponal- 
ised, As GOFFMAN (1968) noted: ". o a partioiPant with a SPeOch inPedi- 
ment .. oan hardly open his mouth without destroying any unoonoern 
that may have arisen ... and he will oontinue to prodnoe uneasiness 
eaoh time thereafter that he speaks. The very mobanion of spoken 
enoounters oonstantly redireot attention to the defect*'. 
I argued in Chapter I that the very evidontness or darbotive oonnnioation 
skills has been obsouxed and oWstified by an over-concontration on the 
apparent non-visibility of the handioa; p - the prerogative of only the 
most mildly handioapped. The slightest speeah impairment, an CONRAD 
(op. 
oit) notesq is immdiately notioeable* "Conoeptually we pass instantly 
from good to defeOtive sPee0h"o 
The strong negative evaluations attaohed to speeoh deviations have 
been noted by many writers on deafness 
(MKAWW and NEMON, 1976; HIGGINS, 
1980; SEIIELl 1982, to mention but a few). 14INIRL and VEMN (1971) 
argue suooinotly: "Our oapaoity to oom(minioate meaningfully with others 
is inextrioably tied to our oapaoity for survival. A diminished 
oapaoity renders One oompromised; a non-existent capaoity renders 
one impotent". 
The notion of a continw, of competenoe is actually implicit hez, 81 althou'gh 
-81 - 
its implioations have not been followed through. It is in respect of 
BPeech intelligibility that most evaluative judgements of the hearing i*. - 
Paired are madeF and discreditable or disoredited status imputed. I have 
simply extended the oontiimium to inolude a range of the hearing impaired 
population with whioh the above authore did not deal. The polar extremes 
thus range from near 'normal I to totally 'abnormal t performanoe. 
Applying the disoreditable/discredited distinctiont a range or fin-- 
competencies I whiah variously violate the norms of interaction dharaoterises 
the broad speotrum or the hearing impaired population* These are by no 
meam disparities oonfined to the profoundly prelingually deaf t but 
also ooour in those with aoqtxired deafness. They includo: the om. 
ission of sibilants and fricatives; the misprommaiation of som words; 
the inability to pitch one's voice appropriat93.. To thus 'broadcasting' in 
a small spaoe or whispering in a large one; abnormal rhythm; atonality; 
and "exoessive nim3ality0l (PRING29 1967) or vowels and aonsonants; dis- 
oordant intonation; and syntactioal error; to the visibility of sign 
language itself I and the glaring void posed by those with no aooeptable 
vehole of oommmuioation at ally other than natural gesture and home- 
made sign* 
Other difficulties relate to the disconcerting literalness with 
whioh a hearing impaired person who has had to learn language uses the 
vooabulary he has so painstakingly aoquired. In the same wayl a blind 
person's writing has a curiously stilted and trite qtxality. subt: Le ntx. 
anoes and the interplay of meanings are lost to the deaf. Again, this 
alienates, isolates and is stigmatised. 
Attempts at speech by the discredited hearing impaired are often 
acoompanied by what are 
known oolloqaally as 'cleafisms' - tongue olick- 
ing, grunting, facial grimaoeso 
Again, these have a similarly destructive 
impaot on enoounters I anal agous 
to the Iblindisms I- the hmnehad posture 
the vaoant stare - described 
by C; OW%AN (1956)o 
- 82 - 
Total absence of intelligible speech generally meets with total re- 
jection. This is mostly the experience of those orally profoundly pre- 
lingually deaf respondents. I have already suggested that this group of 
the hearing impaired is the most stigmatised, disadvantaged, devalued and 
neglected group of all. Ironically they are stigmatised, too in that very 
deaf culture which places a premium on, manual language. 
Thus, as LEMERT (1951) commented of stutterers over 30 years ago: 
"The stutterer is not only faced with an unpleasant version of him- 
self as an incompetent adultq but also with the direct judgements 
which are made of his person through the social evaluation of his 
speech". 
His attempts to communicate elicit notions of him being a ".. ridiculous 
and weak-willed person". 
So it is with the speech (and to a lesser extent the written language) 
performance of the hearing impaired. 
Sign Language 
Given the historical background against which sign language has 
struggled to develop and survive, it is perhaps not surprising that it 
is a highly stigmatised, mode of communication. It immediately ensures 
its users discredited status. Much as its modern users would promote 
its recognition, the demand, for example, that employers and hearing 
colleagues should learn sign regretfully falls on deaf ears. Employers 
are no more likely to learn sign than they are to learn Urdu or Punjabi 
- and for much the same reasons. 
REYNOLDS (1978) quotes a list of the most common pejorative adjec- 
tives applied to sign language which have been compiled by MARY BRIWNAN*. 
They include such epithets as Oillogicall ungrammatical, unsystematic,, 
primitive, de-humanising, inadequate, non-linguistic*, 
It has often been referred to as an 'animal language' 
3, 
or been diSM18sed 
as not constituting a language at all, in the same way that Black English 
has suffered. A delegate at the 1980 BSL Conference referred to it a8: 
"A fossil with absolutely no connection with English" 
Head of the Moray House Sign Language Research Project, Edinburgh 
ý 83 - 
Yany comments on the stigma sign arouses amongst the dominant hear- 
ing majority have been made. Suffioe to mention a few: Over 100 years 
ago, BALLIN (18-) wrote " So deep-rooted is the prejudice against the 
sign language among F34)me olasi3esq that it approaches a form of 
PerE3eoution ". 
More oontemporary referenoes indicate the position has bardlY Chang9do 
1011-CMIRR RE-M (1980), in her study of the elderly deaf notes that "Sign language 
is the visible indioator of stima for the deaf individual". 
The provocative HORIZON (1981) programme commented on the fear prevalent 
amongst parents that in allowing their deaf ohildren to sign, "It brands 
them as dumb in more senses than one". 
Attempts have been made to explain this in term or a general sun- 
pioion and distraot, partivalarly by &njdoa&xom, of lbodr-languave 
(GORNANj 1960;: SCHI" and TUYER, opooit; ), MUMW and MMN (opeoit) 
argue 9 for example: "Like minority groups from Latin America or Scmthern 
]krope, deaf personz are regarded with some measure of Mwpioion 
and distaste when they use -their hanclov faces and bodies freely". 
To my knowledge I no research has yet demonstrated mbether sign language 
in, for example Italy, is more acooptable than in Soandinavia* Howevery 
it is not an implausible hypothesis* 
would, however, Emggest that a more general distnot of gesture 
operates. Clestures might be perfectly acceptable as a mans of oonver- 
ing expression. They are not expected to oarry cognitive content* 
Credenoe is given to this by a study carried out by PAD= and 
NARKOWICZ (1976) 9 who investigated the experienoes of non-eigning, 
deaf 
students at Gallandot. Not only did their subjects experience amte dis. 
oomfiture, bat many mis interpret at ions arose from the use of facial ex- 
pressions and body movements by the signing cleaf, These were variously 
desoribed as t' exaggerated'" , or " attention-draming ". If this is the 
experienoe of the orally doaf 9 how muoh more pertinexrt it is to the 
hear. 
ing population* 
However, I suggest this is insuffioient to explain the derogatory 
- 84 - 
nature of much of the reaction to sign. more attention needs to be 
paid to the behavioural expectations of the hearingg and the function of 
language as a mechaniBm of sooial control. SOTOMAYOR (1977) drawE3 att- 
ention to the functions of language in preserving status relationships: 
"Status is often expressed linguisticallY .- 
/from/ deference, oor- 
diality, reverence .. 
/to/ dominance, oppression". 
To appreciate the status relationBhipB of a visual/spatial mods of comm- 
nioation requires a symbolio ohift -a downward onev it is alleged. 
A further possible explanation may reflect jast such a r6jLrj 'that 
signing is a regressive stop assooiated with the gestuxes of babldwed (wit- 
ness the frequency with which deaf sigmers are subjected to f1babjYmitalkl). 
MINIM and VERNON (op, cit) speculate that "*. gestural communication is 
so intertwined with early infantile experience .. 
/that/ the indiv- 
idmal makes an unconscious association between primitive body lan- 
guage (gesture) and primitive behaviour". 
The development and use of s22eah is thus seen as the development of 
Belf-oontrol over early unoontrolled body movements. This is an engaging 
thought and one which may well have some substance to it. 
Another oonsideration is the inevitable incongruenoe between a 
signer's frame of referenoe for understanding meaning struotures, and 
that of a hearing person using speech. As NASH and NASH argae (1978): 
".. spoken English does not mean the same thing for the purposes or 
social interaction to the dear that it means for the hearing user". 
The deaf gain intersubjectivity from other signers, not from hearing peo- 
ple. The implications are not, however, qaite followed through: inoon- 
gruity, dissonanoe will be stigmatised by the dominant majority re- 
liant on "conventional' speech modes. 
Farthermore, signing is highly visible. Its users are immediately 
marked out as being 'odd' , or 'different t. Because the idea of a visual/ 
spatial language is generally incomprehensible to the 
lay hearing publiol 
it threatens our linear, temporal, verbal mode of oommunication. Above 
all sign calls into question all our 
folk notions and assumptions about 
the nature of ordinary interaction. Departures from this tend to en- 
- 85 - 
sure relegation to discredited status. 
Thi's I contend the application of GOFFMAN's analysis of stigma to 
the position of the hearing impaired sucioseds in linking together the 
idea of a continuum of communicative competence - as evidenced by vary6- 
ing degrees of skill in speeoh performanoe - with notiozw3 of disoredit- 
able/discredited status, 
Farther, I contend there is a strong tendency for stigma to affect 
most hearing impaired subjects. The same kinds of imputations of devi- 
anceg revolving around greater or lesser departures from expected oommuni- 
cative performancel are perosived to be made of the postlingually (gener- 
ally orally oommmicating), as they are of the Prelingually (orally 
and mamially oonnunioating) deafened. Such peroeptions, of oourse, wary 
with the length of time a person has been exposed to such impatationog 
their severityl and the personal and oollective ability to negotiate mmm 
favourable definitions of self. This latterg in turn, is oritioally do- 
pendent on communioative oompetenoe, as I shall demonstrate, 
Finally the relativity of devianoe is craoial here. There are 
degrees of deviantness. It is grossly nisleadin to regard the hearing 
impaired as either deviant or not deviant, and, in oonseqmenoe, either 
stigmatised or not. As indicated earliert the social oonsequenoes of be- 
ing deviantised can most usefully be regarded as forming a oontimms of 
stigmatising responses - varying in degree rather than in kind, 
In reviewing some of the areas critical to the way society evaluates 
communicative OOmPetence, I have been greatly indebted to aoffklan. It 
is 
to him I owe an understanding of the mechanisms which often operate to 
tarnish the image and status of the hearing impaired. 
St e re otyping --I De af 2_ Ibmb . and Daft 
I 
There are many definitions of the prooess of stereotyping, but per- 
haps that of MERCER (1973) demonstrates my arguments as well as any : 
- 86 - 
"We select from an assortment of characteristics of varied indi- 
viduals those characteristics which individuals have in common. Then 
we use them as the basis for developing a mental oonstrucrt while 
ignoring d-ifferencewbetween individuals .. the definer then treats 
all those he has placed in the same mental category as identical 
in every respect". 
Whilst stereotypes are not all negativeg or inaccmrate, and do not 
neoesarily always lead to prejudioe (SIXXONS, 1965; NACKIN, 1973; WEST, 
1979), 1 am ooncerned with those that do. The functional aspect of neip. - 
ative stereotypingt however, tends to be overlooked. Stereotypes order 
our expectationsl help predict behaviour (and our own reactions to it) 
and simplify an otherwise overwhelmingly complex environment. They are 
securely grounded in our oommon-eense stock of knowledge. Thus infor- 
mation which is familiarg which can easily be related to other inform- 
ation regarding our stook of social knowledge, and is consistent with our 
beliers, values and attitudeel is likely to be retaimed* Information 
which is at variance with these tends to be rejectedo Tbus, as NASH 
and NASH (1981) note: "*, whenever attention is drawn to a person be. 
cause of an unmsual behavior,, one nay miake sense out of -the extzm, 
ordinary,, by regarding it as an instance of what everyone know - 
that isq by using typical und rotandings available generally in 
the culture ". 
Henoe the tenacity with which some stereotypes tend to be bold even 
in the faoe of ooirtradiatory evidienos (CUNNING and CUMNING9 19M; 
]FARINA and RINGjp 1965; S9 1966; BOGDAN and BIKLEN, 1977; HkSTORP at. 
a,, 1980), DAVIS (1963) suggests imch tenacity oocuis partiomlarly in 
the case at isgme heret that of impairmentl whiohq he argues, involves 
"high ego-ealience, that is, in whioh a person has a deep emotional 
inVIOBtment and about which BtrOng Social stereotypes that inhibit 
facile acceptance of new attitudes exist". 
Moreover, it would seem that our common-sense knowledge is geared to 
the worst end of the polarity. Henoe as WICST 
(1979) found in his study 
of epileptics, lay perceptions tend 
to be located at the worst end of 
the seizure spectrum. Fbr the hearing 
impaired, I suggest they are 13imi. 
larly located at the #deaf and dmbtl tHelen Keller' end of the spectrum, 
but for a different reason: under, rather than over-exposure 
4. 
ý 87 - 
Rven if contrary evidence is sustained over a period of time , 
there iB alBO empirical evidence to BuggeBt that BtereotypOB are Btill 
not modified,, (FARINA and RING2 op. cit; KLECKt 1969)- This has import- 
ant implications for the hearing impaired in employment, FARINA and 
, "Distortions in perceptions are likely to occur in the in. - RING argued. 
itial phases of interaction and thus reduce the likelihood of fur- 
ther interaction of the kind necessary to eradicate stereotypes" 
These oommon--sense typings then tend to be generalised outwarcls to 
encompass all thOS9 suffering, for example, a hearing impairment, regard- 
less of differences in degree or severity of oomminicative inoompetenoe. 
It is critioal to my arguAeut to note that it is Prinoipally via sterea- 
typing that the hearing impaired tend to be viewed as a hosogeneoagi 
group, exhibiting similar 'symptom', demonstrating similar (in)oapabil- 
ities, - usually at the lowest oommen, denominator of oompetenoe - and ex- 
hibiting Bimilar behavioar patterns. The proOGSB Of Btereotyping act- 
ually lies at the heart of my oase oonoerning the validity of a oompara- 
tive analysis. It is highly germane to the way the hearing impaired 
tend to be fairly uniformly olassified and oategorised by others and 
their fundamental heterogeneity, - of personalityg, oapabilities, other 
qualitieB - obBeared and denied. By focussing on one particular #trait I, 
the stereotyper treats as similar those who are, apart from this one do- 
fining trait , an uniquely different as any other group 
in the population, 
It ocours particularly in the face of ambiguityp when peoplest 
taken-for-granted assumptions about the world are overturmd. Ambig- 
uity is pivotal in interactions between hearing and hearing impaired 
peoplel andq as BECIM, G. 
(op. oit) notes ".. has the most negative 
effect on interpersonal relationships", 
The instinctive impulse is to try and re--order the environment and re- 
impose one's own meanings on it, thus reasserting the primacy of domi- 
nant moral norms, Stereotypical 
knowledge tends to fill the gap, and 
the ifaulty person' is stigmatised, 
-88 - 
The relationship between stereotyping and stigmatising behaviour 
is readily appea-ent. The discrepancy between a person's actual and vir- 
tual identity (GOFFMAN, 1968), ie. between the attributes he posseses 
and the stereotyped aBBUMptiOnS of others, providOB the entree for im- 
Putations of devianee. 
Thus discrimination and inequality of opportunity beoome justified 
and rationalised. A oyclical pattern is set in motion reinforcing al- 
ready existing stereotypes and ensuring their reintegration into the cul- 
ture, as reoeived knowledge. The basis for further inequality and dis- 
crimination is set. 
What is of interest here for those respondents with aoquired as 
opposed to prelingual or oongenital hearing . 1088 is the conf'rontation 
the former must necessarily face with their own inherited cultural ster- 
eotypes, SCOTT (1969) in his polemical study of the blind notes: "If, * 
the blind man shares the values of the sighted, the process becomes 
even more insidious; for when this is the oase, a man's personal 
identity is open to attack from within as well as ftom without", 
A very similar situation was found in WKMERGts (1968) sensitive 
study of midgets and dwarfs. He notes the shook and distress evineed 
by a member on first joining the assooiation for Uttle People and see- 
ing like others: ".. for in these encounters the little person is forced 
to recognize and acknowledge his own condition .. Like members of 
other stigmatized oategoriesq these little people have assinilated 
the majority group values that lead them to negatively appraise 
their own kind". 
This may partly aooount for the reluotanoe of some postlingual ly 
discreditable hearing impaired subjects to associate with their pre- 
lingually j manually Oommnicating colleagues. 
It certainly helps to 
explain the threat which the orally deaf, who prefer to try and locate 
themselvesp however precariously, in the dominant hearing environment 
pose to the latter group - and the resistance 
to the idea of a oow- 
parative approach. 
-89 - 
Genera. llyl the stereotypes surrounding the hearing impaired have 
been associated with images of stupidityq gormlessnesel 'being a bit men- 
talt, Imerrtal i3ubnormalitytv perg3onal inadequacy and childishn sso As 
WEST (1979a) suggests, there is no one single stereotype - although the 
image of stupidity does tend to predominate - "but a series of over 
lapping general images of a negative nature". 
The strong oorrelation between deafnessq 'dumbness" and stupidity 
is no aocident, Historioallyg the deaf were regarded as mentally defee- 
tive. Speeoh was oonsidered the primary vehiole for oomweying thought; 
ergo those without speech were incapable of thinking. They were oonsid- 
ered insdacable until the mid 17th and 18th oenturies,, and often viewed 
as Ewmething malign and impernaturalg a *lass apart, beyond hvunan help. 
orl as HOWSON, 1953)) put it: "*. an the aMicted or Godit and only div- 
ine intervention oould make them whole". 
Although the word 'Idumbf as used by Aristotle 
5 did not carry its 
modern oonnotations, the stigma attached to unintelligiblo or now-exis- 
tant speech has been very effectively trawlated into a broad cultural 
stereotype of stupidity. The tif you're deaf, youtre daftl label is 
ft 
the one moBt oommonly applied to all hearing impairedt rOWdIOUB Or 
the severity of their 'handi oapq 
WRINBERCER (1978)1 for instanoe, found'little differenoe between 
ascriptions of stupidity accorded to those 'hard of hearing" subjects he 
studied and those known conventionally an fdeaf mutest. Unfortunately, 
the implications Of this for oomparative Parposes were not followed 
through. He quotes NIE: MRM: - "'This assooiation of a defective behav- 
iour pattern in response to the Spoken word with impaired intelli- 
gence exposes the hard of hearing to the same intolerance and con- 
tempt as that experienced by half-wits ", 
The maxim: distorted or minimal speeohl 
disrupted interpersonal relations 
and relegation to the status of moron are synonymous with 
the primary 
clinical inabilitY auditorily 
t; r receive sound input. 
D&XTER (1964) notes the persistence with which those adjudged ltdall Iv 
- 90 - 
"Stupid" or "Slow learners" are regarded as a great problem in Western 
cultures. He argues ".. the most influential people in society despise 
stupidity /more/ than anything else, except dirt". 
We live in a society which rewards intellectual excellence. Any evidence 
of I-stuPidityl attracts both covert and overt discrimination. 
The closely related phenomenon of 'master status' can only be touched 
on briefly. Suffice to note that as EDGERTON's retardates were often 
attributed either with outstanding feats of sexual prowess (or total in- 
effectuality); andkIEST's epileptics with violence or 'nerves'; the hear- 
ing impaire are considered to be devoid of intellectual capacity of any 
kind and to demonstrate a general inferiority of personality and inadequacy* 
It will be readily apparent that I am more interested in the conse- 
quences of stigma and stereotyping for its victims than in the actual con- 
struction of the label. I am aware that I am taking such labels as a 
'given' (FILSTEAD, 1972; WEST, op. cit; OLIVER, op. cit), rather than deal- 
ing with the meanings which give rise to the creation of the label in the 
first place. However, I contend this would shift an over-emphasi8 from 
the defined right back to the definer once more - an eMphaSi8 which the 
early labelling theorists rightly stressed, but one which has been very 
much overplayed (LORBER, 1967; WILLIAMS and WEINBERG, 1970; ROGERS and 
BUFFALO, 1974; and LEVITIN, 1975), and one which I wanted to avoid. It is 
what the hearing impaired do with the label and the meanings it holds for 
them, as much as the evaluations of others, and the concommitant nego. 
tiations over desired outcomes, which are indicative of the essentially 
dialectical nature of the labelling process. 
THE ABILITY TO RESIST - STRATEGY MANAGEMENT 
My concern with strategy management is thus an attempt to redress 
this imbalance. To view the hearing impaired as passive victims, per- 
manently locked in their deviant status, 
is quite misleading. Deviance 
defining can best be understood within a framework of constantly changing 
states in which bargaining - 
however small-scale - over favourable defi- 
nitions 
- 91 - 
of self is continuously taking placee , dhilst there may often be a hia- 
tus, when movement is barely discernible, this often reflects the recoup- 
ing of resources -a Ireculer pour mieux sauter'. Very rarely is capitu- 
lation. absolute in all life domains, even in total institutions described 
so eloquently by GOFFMAN (1961). What is being sought is a redefinition 
of the situation which minimises the centrality of stigma and stereo- 
typing which I have been describing. 
It is for this reason that I have preferred to use the typology of 
GOFFMAN and SCHUR rather than that of LEMERT's (1951) classic distinction 
between primary and secondary deviation. Whether intentional or not, 
LEMERTI s "ultimate acceptance of deviant social status" seems to betoken 
a distinct and solidified culmination of commitment to deviant roles, 
His argument that It.. deviations are not significant until they are organ- 
ized subjectively and transformed into active roles and become the 
social criteria for assigning status" 
is at odds with the innovative and dynamic nature of strategy management,, 
Thus I perceive the hearing impaired person as an active participant 
in what is a dialectical process. It is here that differences chiefly 
emerge and where the notion of a continuum of communicative competence 
and the distinction between discreditable and discredited status are esp- 
ecially relevant. It is also, contrary to the statements of many critics 
of the labelling perspectivel where the issue of power supervenese It 
is via strategy management that issues of superordination and subordination 
at the micro level are settled. It is integral to the whole process of 
deviance defining. As SCHUR (198o) points out: "Placing some persons in 
these disvalued categories necessarily implies valued status for 
others ... It is their rules 
that are applied, their standards that 
are legitimated, their 'respectability' and power that are sus. 
tained and reinforced". 
The power to negotiate definitions varies with the situation, the 
actors involvedl and the personal and power resources of 
the individual. 
CriticallYt howeverg I contend that for the hearing impaired it is depend- 
ent on the degree of communicative competence possessed. 
Although inevi- 
tably resources such as classi. morkey, ý educational and occupational 
ý 91 
status have a role to play, both the distribution of the condition of 
impairment and the response to it appear to cut right across class bound- 
aries. (It is for future re8earchers to investigate, for example, the 
extent to which - if at all - middle class evaluations of speech incompe- 
tence differ from those of the working class). I have focussed on the 
particular theme of communicative competence as being of crucial import- 
ance 
/cf. overleaf 
- 92 - 
variable because in interaction with hearing peoplej it is their chief 
referent for social underirtanding - and misunderstandingo 
To some extent I all options are narrowed. This is particularly so 
When I Oome to oonsider exohange and negotiation within the field of employ- 
men-te As SCHUR (1979) notes: "One of the key contributions of a label* 
focus on deviance has been to show how being treated as a deviator 
is itself likely to reEml-b in a narrowing of one's negotiating op- 
tions and resources in subsequently encountered situations* Once 
tainted with deviantnessp a person, by that very factf will usually 
have 'less to bargain with' in the future"* 
Even so the position is rarely static over time* Novesent in and out of 
disoreditable/ditioredited status is always taldn plaoeo In additiong stre- 
tegies are not operated in isolations they are often used in combination 
and dhange situationally and over-time* 
One further point: strategy managem has perhQs been misconoeived 
as ooourring at a sooio-psychological level rather than an a manifestation 
of the oolleotive aotion of individuals* In the owme that each persont s 
individbaal 13juDwer resouroes' are different and uniqmej this in so* But im 
MATTHEWS (1979) has suggested in her study of the elderlyl their methods of 
ooping with stigma are not peculiar -to them, but are "bath familiar and in- 
genious and point -to the similarities between social actors". 
Moreover, strategies also arise oollectively, ancl, in acne oaseel aotion ig 
undertaken at a oolleotive level. It is as a result of this that shared 
meanings and definitions are arrived at, develop and ohangee 
I have dealt with strategy mansqMment under the following heads: 
(i) Passing - concealment , pretOnO6; 
(ii) Normalising - deviance disavowal and 
deni&lp avoidanoe, neutralisation-, 
(iii) Deviance avowal - CaPitalisatiOnt capitulation and oonfrontationj 
with a section on the Deaf CommunitY; 
poli-ticization 
(a) Passing 
As with WEST's and OLIVER's epileptiosp passing 
is the strategy whioh 
-the discreditable hearing impaired, 
whose impediment is neither evident 
nor obtrusive on encounter* most 
assiduously strive to achieve, 
- 93 - 
It is much less a role available to the disoredited hearing impaired 
and those with strictly visible impairments eg. paraplegicm (COGSWELL, 
sufferers 
19670 amputees (CHALKLIN and WARFIELD9 1977; ) and jns. /(CUNNjNGuAN, 1977)o 
A hearing impaired person who is able to lipread adeqmately and whose ex- 
Pressive speeoh is well preBerved may be able to paBi; aB normal until 
or unless ".. he demonstrates in interaction his inability to co intoate 
or to receive communications through the auditory prooessIO 
(SUSSXAN, M. B., 1965) 
LOPIAND (1976) has detailed some of the components to successful 
passing. These include: learning the "normal 9 point of view and into- 
grating this into one"s view of self. Fbr the hearing impaired who opt 
for this strategy-, it entails a denial of deafness and a total praotical 
and symbolio rejection of the deaf experience* 
A seoond factor involves passing off the sign of one stigma, such 
as the request for repeatog as something else less sluonful. An assumed 
Pre-occupation with other-mrldly troubles or d&yw-dreaniiag will be 
dealt with in the section on deviance disavowal. 
Thirdlyp establishing what IDFLAIND calls "a oonstrucrtive cirele" 
of 'wise' helpers may significantly improve one's abilitY to Passe 
SDGTWON (op. oit) demonstrated the importanoe of -this tactio in his dis- 
cussion of the role of Obene factors IN for discharged mental retardatese 
Whilst relatives, spouses and close friends may be relied upon to 'fill 
in' gaps in the conversation, this poses trickjy problems for the hearirg 
impaired. Attempts to summarise sot-to vooe are themselves attention 
attracting devices. The role of "bensfactorm tends to 
be more a feat- 
ure of the profoundly prelingually orally deafs strategy management. 
Indeedq such moral Obenefaotors" were found to assume an entrepreneurial 
role, as I shall discuss. 
Finally, concealment of all potentially visible stigma symbolst pri- 
marily the hearing aid, 
is critical to passing. Since the availability 
of Behind-, the-Piax aids, ooncealment can 
be effected by carefully arranged 
- 94 - 
hair-do's for women, and the simple expedient of growing one ts hair by 
men. Unfortunately, hearing aids have a disooncerting habit of revealing 
their presence by whistling, or leaving their wearer stranded by the 
sudden cessation of battery power. 
However, the prioe to be paid in psychological and social term 
for this is heavy. In psychologicua terms , the person who attempts to 
pass is literally #living on a leash',, in case any inadvertent remarkt 
miscuing, inoongruenoe between question and answer whioh oannot be"amoun- 
ted"for (SCOTT and LYNAN, 1968), should disolose what he in at suoh paim 
to oonoeal, The threat of disclosure is ever present* The hearing im- 
paired person must be constantly on Ired alert' to avoid being caught out, 
suffering the twin problems of biography and tension management. Al. 
though GOFMN suggests this payahological strain in somewhat overrated4 
SCHUR (1979) argues, and my findings confirm that ".. it in difficult to 
believe that concealment can often be practiced[ without some detri. 
mental psychological consequences or at least without the exper. 
iencing of a great deal of unpleasantness"'. 
Strain is the salient phenomenow for the discreditable hearing impaired 
victim - althoughg of course, in the sense of Ia front 19 it is 
equally important for disoredited subjects. 
Sociologically, ramifioatiOns may be even more damaging, Whatever 
advantages passing may achieve, it ensures an on-going pre-oocupation-, 
with onets potential deviantness- To quote SCHUR 
(1979) againr "Thw 
passing reflects, andt at the saw time, strongly reinforces 'role 
primacy' that deviance situations so commonly exhibit*. 
More insidiously for the hearing impaired it pregmpposes that the 
stigma of impairment has been more well and 
truly internalised than 
possibly even situational capitulation may 
indicate, It ensures that 
".. the deviatiom becomes a key reference point for the cleviator 
even in those areas and situations 
in which it should be least 
relevant" 
(SCHUR9 1979) 
Moreover, passing may bring in its train a B6nse of guilt, 
djsloy6.. 
alty to one IB deaf oolleagueB . 
It e nililB adopting majority hearing nor= 
partioularly those oonoerning 
the abnormality of hearing impairment, 
- 95 - 
and accepting %. the societally framed interpretations that lead to the 
conclusions that speaking is a prerequisite to normality" (NASH and 
NASH, 1981). 
COnflict and marginality are ever preseirt , as 
if PaBSing were totally 
successful, the question of potential deviantising would not arise* 
Probably suoceBB in paSBing iEi reBerved for very few hearing impaired 
People 9 and is often oonfined to speoific situatiom suoh as oasual sca- 
ial enoounters where expomn-e is less likely* Yet Emch are the peroeived 
rewards attached to tnormalityt that those who are in a position. to do 
so and at least partially carry it off* will attempt it. Yany hearing imi. - 
paired resort to pretense in order not to disrupt the flow of an enooun- 
ter, oonveying the imPression that they have board and understood wbon 
they have not in the hope that they can repair the onission later. Of- 
ten respormes are kept to a minimim. Bizarre results and conoomitant 
sooial rejeotion are the risks attendant on trying. 
As ooncealment beoomes inoreasingly problematio, we move along a 
continuum of strategies from fairly sucoessful normalising to failed 
normalising, and deviance avowal (volitional or non--volitional)e 
Normalising 
(i) Deviance Ihsavowal. and Denial 
Such strategies oentre round the attempt ".. to convince others 
(disavowal) and oneself (denial) that the deviation is not really 
an impediment to normal. exist enoe"' 
(SCHUR, 1979)o 
It represents the efforts of many physically impaired people to achieve 
some degree of ordinariness in their everyday interactions with others. 
Simultaneouslyp it suffers from many of the difficulties associated with 
passing, Inormalityt by definition being unattainable. Again, for the 
hearing impairedt success is at the expense of tacitly accepting the 
legitimacy of hearing peoples' imputations. 
DAviS (1961) has neatly highlighted the practical problem cvf this 
form of normalisation. He suggests several stages of 
interaction must 
- 96 - 
be 'worked through' before any semblance of normality can take place. 
The best that can often be hoped for is what he terms a "normal, but.. " 
Outcome: the continuing problem of ".. Bustaining the normalized defi- 
nitiorL in the face of the many small amendments and qualifications 
that must frequently be made to it". 
This involves a oertain relinquishment of freedom of ohoice in return for 
being spared the worst indignities of being stigmatised: for instance, 
ooncu. rrence in the 'inability' to handle the phone in return ror raee- 
saving 'ooncessions in other areas. 
Fbr those hearing impaired whose expressive skills are still reason- 
ably intaot the use of humour as a lubricating device is a useful ten- 
sion reliever. "Acting the buffoon'll howevert hm a way of reinforcing 
those stereotypes already in existence, Andt importantlyp because the 
frames of reference of hearing and bearing impaired are often inoongruentq 
jokes may baokfire. It is not , of oourse 9a devioe open to those whose 
communicative skills are more than mildly derioient. 
The chief probleml therefore, about deviance disavowal is that of 
persuading others to go along with it. This kind or denial is seldom 
easy and requires considerable personal and power resouroesy as well an 
commitment, to make a emooess of 
it* 
(ii) Avoidan hdrawal 
COGSWBLL (opocit) notes of her paraplegics: "Mriends are attached 
to definitions of the paraplegic as he once was and have difficulty 
relating to him as the now person whom disability allows him to be". 
A frequent finding partioularly for the n9wlY stigmatised persong for 
example with acquired deafness, 
is the tendency to withdraw into isolation.. 
Indeed intense isolation and loneliness were oharaoteristio features Of 
the hearing impaired investigated by HRRBST and THOXAS 
(1980). The 
turning to people of a lower social status -a strategy adopted by DAVIS, 
polio victims 
(op. cit) - does not seem to represent the reactions of 
those with acquired hearing 
impairment. Hearing loss9 apart from the 
- 97 - 
culture evolved by the signing deaf, is essentially a lonely handicap. 
Total avoidance, howeverg is not generally common although perio1c 
mental lowitohine-off I may charaoteriBe a hearing impaired person's re- 
sponse to exclusion by others. Day6-ýdreaming, for instance 9 may be re- 
garded as a kind of avoidance, resulting from being unable to follow 
what is going on. Contrary to the suggestion of BRUM (1983)t it is a 
Ploy UBed by both diBcreditable and diBoredited respon&ntB. 
A more usual response is simply to shut off various aspects of their 
lives which had previously been taken for granted. A restricted social 
life was particularly oommon amon6gst disoreditable respondentgra As SCHUR 
(1979) notes: "*, the teohnique is less one of oompartmentalising differ- 
ent established parts of one to life than of avoiding intolerable 
compartments". 
The interaction neoessary in the sustained context of workq howeverv may 
mean the problem oannot be so neatly disposed of, Only a relatively few 
hearing impaired people are able to taice rethp, for example, in the 
noise of an engineering maohine room as an excase for lack of social 
interaotion. 
What avoidanoe does aooomplish,, however, is a defleotion of pain. 
It Eruccessfully heads off the antioipated avoidanoe of others, 
(iii) Neutralisation - and rationalisation 
SYKES and MATZA (1957), ROGERS and BUFFALO 
(op. cit) I and SCOTT and 
LYMAN (op. cit) have addressed themselves to this device. The former, 
although primarily concerned with 
juvenile offenders, cite a number of 
defence mechanisms, of which "condemnation of the oondemners" is partio. 
ularly apposite. Many hearing 
impaired people not only despise the 
apparent inability of 
hearing people to concentrate at work but hearing 
people are disparaged 
for their ignorance, intolerance and lack of und. 
erstanding of what 
deafness means. Sometimes, the attempts of hearing 
people to sign, will provoke 
laughter, particularly if the attempts 
result merely in crude pantomime. 
- 98 - 
Dý 
flecourse to 'faooounts", such as day-dreamingg pre-oocupation with 
other affairs, a bad oold - and the attempts to explain these - are used 
a great deal to justify "gaffes' whioh might ooour as a result of having 
Misheard. It is a oommon situation. A delioate balanee must be stmok 
between the risks of eliciting irritation and impdienoe by requestm for 
repetition, the Possibility that one's Racoount" will not be aooepted, 
or risking total disolosure by failure to respond appropriately. 
it Aj 
Sometimes such acoounts take the form of rational iBationB for appar- 
ent inattention. Their function is that of "redofilnin the activity in 
suoh a way as to reduce the shamefalmes" (SCHUR, 1979)o 
Againg communicative skills as well as the situation and status of the 
it A 
actors axe all important. Acoounts may 'pess' in some situations and 
totally misfire in others* SCM (1979) notes: "Mere are probably 
types and degrees of aooountability and types and degrees of acoept- 
abilityt to various audienoeB, with respect to the justifying 
aooounts that people offer"* 
Note on Prior Disclosure 
Insofar as a prior choice still existsl opinions regarding the dis. 
closure of impairment and its effect on subseqaent interaction vary. 
Some argue that advanoe, disoloEmre, of handi cap, if handled in suoh a way 
as to convey the impression that it is of little oonsequenoeq can very 
effectively neutralise the strain and u ase which would result if the 
impairment were immediately evident or obtrusive on encouzrter 
(HASTORF, 
WILDMCML and CASSMAN, 1979)9 But no distinctions were made in their ex- 
periment as to which impairments elicited this more favourable response. 
I would suggest that for the discredited hearing impaired advance diB- 
closure would make little difference. 
The handicap is interaction. 
For the discreditable hearing impairedl the question becomes one of 
how to do it. To announce "Itm sorry but Itm deaf" is likely to result 
in total disruption of the encounter, if not embarrassment and outright 
withdrawal - reactions very similar 
to those following interaction with 
-99 - 
the dii3oredited hearing impaired. To say, on the other hand "I'm sorry, 
I'm a little hard of hearing" is likely 80 to. miniMiBe the extent of the 
handicap as to be quickly forgotten. 
As WRIGHT (op, cit) oomments of the dilemma of whether to "tells or 
not: "One ought at once to admit to deafness. One seldom does as one 
ought. My own strategy all(Wo X to run on, in the often jtwtified 
hope that Itll begin to pick up the thread .. Unless I have to I will 
not let the deaf oat out of the bag. This is partly vanityq partly 
a curiosity to Bee how long I can got away with it; and to some ex- 
tent because acknowledgement of deafness must momentarily unbalance 
the relationship so far established". 
It seemSq thus -9 that where feasible, most hearing impaired pre. 
rer. - the oomplioations and unprediotabilities of avoiding direct disolos- 
urel antioipating the response of imputations of stupidity whioh dis- 
closure would entail. 
Failed normalisation takes us into the life area of disoredited re- 
spondents and here strategies are rundamentally different. refleoting 
the further redbiation of options avai3able oonoomitant on inoreasingly 
deviantised communicative performa"Oee 
(c) Deviance Avowal 
is generally something which is forced upon discredited victim. Fbr 
the hearing impaired, three strategies are-available, one of which, that 
of confrontation, has become the almost exclusive preserve of the signing 
deaf, Pbr the other disoredited hearing impaired, options are lialted 
to those of oapitalisation-, and capitulatiom 
(i) Capitalisation 
is one of the ways in which a stigmatised person can 
turn his situation 
around to his advantage 
(cf, SCOTT's blind beggars, and HIGGINS' deaf 
peddlars; although HIGGINS notes 
the latter tend themselves to be stigma- 
tised in the deaf world). A much more acceptable way 
is to make one Is 
deviation into a respected job or profession, 
- 100 - 
Perhaps of all deviants, the physically impaired are uniqaely 
Placed to do this and create sooially accePtable roles for themselves* 
The fact that so few impaired people apparently do take this way out - 
Jack Ashley * is a notable exception for the hearing impaired - is init- 
ially puzzling. I suggest, howeverl that whilBt there are indeed a small 
band of deaf Booial workers for the deaf t this involves no redefinition 
of the situation via 
la 
via the hearing world. Although laudable, such 
occapations are hardly "challenging" (CRAMATTE, 1968). Nore fundamen- 
tally perhaps it indicates the lack of socially acceptable roles for the 
impaired analagous to the Parsonian nSick Role* modele 
(ii) Capitulation 
Pbr the profoundly prelingually orally deaf who are additionally function- 
ally illiterate I avowal can become almost a form of role engulfment. This 
response amy superfioially appear to be near total in sow life &mains , 
Particularly that of employment, where the hearing impaired atten regLrd 
themselves as "nothing but I fdoaf and dambl and respond aooordingly. Con- 
currenoe in the verdiot of others and a dill 1--acquiescencag resignatiom 9 
demoralisation and constant humiliation reflect Fmch a reaction. There 
am, however, fine gradations of engulftent and it in largely a matter 
of degree the extent to whioh self doubt and self-dievaluation are inter- 
nalised. It is, however, important to note that even minute attempts -to 
bargain - as well as failed attempts in the form of ineffective aggress- 
ion - are significant indicators of a refasal 
to introject totally the 
definitions of others. The situational nature of deviance defining is 
also relevant here: in their home environment the 
incorporation of such 
ill, putations is often strongly resistede 
(iii) Confrontation 
is a strategy confined almost exclusively 
to the profoundly prelingua. Ily 
* one respondent I interviewed was Pessimistic about 
the efficacy of 
Jack Ashley's attempts at reform. "Though he's deaf himself, he works 
for all disabled people. 
Doaf people don't like to think of themselves 
as disabled" 
- 101 - 
signing deaf. The deaf culture or, in Amerioav 0ounter-culture, is 
Perhaps something almost unique amongst the physically impaired. No an- 
alagous community exists for the blind, who are without that crucial 
differentiating in-group language of their own. Braille does not serve 
such a fanotion.. 
In fact the formation of a deaf Oulture runs Cluite counter to the 
usual assumptions held that ".. avowal is less likely to occur in the case 
of physical disability than in the oase of other deviant minoritiesq 
because rarely does a oaunteroulture exist that insists that a stig- 
ma is a badge of honour rather than a discrediting discrepanoy. 
While many homosexuals claim that 'gay is goodt and that om ought 
to be proud of onets sexual tastes, those with physical handicaps 
do not make similar assertions about themselves or their handicaps" 
SAGARIN, 1975) 
Yet in Americaq and now at the tim of mriting in the UK, the signing 
deaf avow their status with pride. The situation is tbus very different 
for this group of discredited dear subjects with an entree into well- 
structured social organisations: deaf oormmint ies 
(iv) The Daaf CommanitZ - colleptive oonfrontation 
Much has been written about deaf communities reoently (HIGGIM, 1980; 
jAcoBs. 198o; BECIM, Gj 1980; FADIXNt 19W; RASH and RA , 19M; SRIIRLI 
1982). Allegianoe is based on shared early experienceel partimlarly 
those associated with attendance at special schools for the deaf I and Ithe 
knowledge that members of the group are likely to share "., similar cri- 
teria for judgements of values and evaluation of performance .. 
Thus, interaction within a group is generally easier and Te ex- 
tensive than with outl3iderS" (PADIRN and XARKOWICZ, 1M, ) 
They are not surprisingly charaoterised 
by an innate conservatism and 
parochialism which often denies membership to the doubly stigmatiBed - 
Black deaf (ANIERSON and BOW&q 1972); and Gay Deaf 
(ZAKAREWSKY, 1982). 
However, shared allegiances and pride in being deaf are neoessary 
but not sufficient conditions for membership. 
It is pride in Bign lan. 
guage and open preference 
in its usage which are integral to this commit- 
ment. As BECKER 
(1980) notes: "The creation of a speech community based 
on sign languagO is probably the single most significant 
factor in 
- 102 - 
the formation of a deaf community". 
The same may be said of other minority groups: Hebrew, Spanish for the 
Chioanosq and Black English. Preservation of their native language is 
often the only souroe of survival. SOTOMAYOR (op. oit) has documented the 
rebirth of ethnic pride and identity amongst the Chicano population, con- 
sonant with a revitalisation of their language. So it is with the sign- 
ing deaf - and explains the many fears of its adulteration, 
The formation of suoh oommanities with the aimg ultimately, of 
ohanging sooiety's stereotypes about deafness is one of the few wayi3 in 
which a dominant stigma, ideology may be challenged and modified (of 4, 
GUSSOW and TRACY's 1968 stucly of a Isprosy Home). For the hearing in- 
paired it is perhaps the only way but by definition, mast exolude that 
numerically larger population of the orally deaf who eschew sign - the 
'rubber lipst, 'flapping lips' or tgoldfisht as they am sometims dis- 
paragingly known by their signing colleagues. No such sense of cohesion 
oentres round skill in lipreading. 
Membership of a deaf colominity has profound implioations for stigma 
management. It deoreases feelings of devianoe whilat simultaneously 
heightening a sense of belongingness. It enables menbers, to preserve 
their ".. personal integrity from societal aggression through the media 
of rationalisation and ideologies of the specialized culture" 
( LRMM 9 1951) - 
HIGGINS argues that the profoundly prelingually deaf have experienoed 
alights and ridicule all their lives. It is the signing deaf pzwtected 
by such communities who have, to a large extentv learned to shrug it 
off. Unlike those trying to merge with the 
hearing world, to whom stig. 
ma is highly Baliento he argues, 
11.. inemberB of the deaf community often 
deal with particular stigmatizing behaviors of the 
hearing by ignor- 
ing them. For examplev members are so used to the stares that their 
signing attracts they no longer pay attention 
to them",, 
(Critically, howeverv this is not a device which guarantees immunity at 
work wherev as will be 
demonstratedv the signing deaf are treated more 
or less on a par with 
their profoundly prelingually orally deaf colleagues. 
ý 103 ý 
Sign is irrelevant in oonfrontation with a. hearing world)* 
Gallaudet College is a unique example of such a deaf community. 
Not Only has it triumPhantly rejected the stigma theory of the dominant 
hearing culture* It has developed such an effective aounter stigma ideo- 
logy that minority status has been transformed into majority Status - 
within its campase Roles are thus effectively reversed* At Gallaudety it 
is the hearing person (and the orally deaf unable 'to sign) who become the 
new I cmtsiders I -P The most a hearing person or an orally deaf person may 
hope to achieve is courtesy status* Nevertheless, the implications for 
change are staggeringo The College is now in a position to redefine prqp-- 
viouBly entrenched power differentials - on the outsideo 
Until a couple of years agog it oould legitimately be said of the 
deaf comnamity in Englandl traditionally organised through the 19th oen- 
tury survivors of the Nissions for the Deaf (Deaf Clubs)q that tt had not 
reached anything like a similar degree of poUtical maturity and sophisti. 
oatione They provided the traditional functions of reassurance and a sense 
of belonging and protection from the harsh lities of a hearing world* 
With the publication of the "Deaf Ymnifewto" (Appendix 10) and the 
National Union of the Deaf "Charter of Rights", the sismin deaf co I *Y 
is on the move. Perhaps a double paradox is at work here. The sigming 
oommtmity is on the move precisely because it is repudiating the process 
of stereotyping and its accompanying denial of differences. It is emphs. 
sising its one unique difference: its language. At the same time, it 
perhaps cannot yet afford to accommodate the differences of its orally 
impaired colleagues, Deaf toog they tend to be located too near the 
values of the hearing world for comfort. And its discredited membersq 
with no vehicle of communication other than ges e and home-made sigm 
have little to offer* 
(d) politicization 
ý 104 - 
iB thus a relatively rare phenomenon* To date, it has only been with the 
above-mentioned creation of a militant signing oounter--culture - with its 
own stigroa ideology. that has ande, some change possible* As a strategy 
it is much closer to a political solutiom, than any of the afore-mentioned 
tactics and represents a highly developed collective Pocial response to 
labelling* The Law Centre on Gallaudet Campmal for exampleg has been in- 
strumental in taking oases to the Supreme Court concerning the non-Pro- 
vision of interpreters7 - Howeverg despite assertions that benefits will 
ultimately aowne for the orally deaf 91 an unh&PPilY Of +, he OPiniOn' 
that this may not materialiseo 
Neverthelessq the emergenoe of a pc)litical xvle for -the signing deaf 9 
inoorporating legislative measurew against discriminatiow together with 
a positive poliqy of re-eftcation isq perhaps, the only means of evwt. 
tually eliminating the problem of stigm and stereotyping of the hearing 
impaired. It is a strategy I should like to see being &dopted in con. 
junction with other impaired groupso The demonstrations alp3. inBt the non- 
implementatiom of sections 503 and 504 of the 1W, 3 Vocational Rehabilitation 
Act whioh led to a smit.. int by many impaired groups in Madison Avextue 
in 1977 are beginning to make an impact* Such action is barelT in its 
infancy in the tM8 * As noted the ftotionalim charsoteristio of the 
hearing impaired world itself is also a featwm of wLny other ormni sations 
for other impaired people* 
Re-ednoa-tion on i-ts own has been slumn to be singularly ineffe(rtive 
(CUICKM and CUXMG9 1957; OLIVER9 1979)o Yet Politicization does have 
its diffioulties* As SCHUR (1979) points out: "Even as it seeks to leg. 
itimate the deviation such effort necessarily gives great primacy 
to it', * 
There is also the danger of alienating more moderate elements of one's 
group* For non-oonformism -to 
be a success above all i-t must be credible. 
Neverthelessg despite many hearing impaired peoples, preference for 
- 105 - 
strategies other than confrontation and politicisationg and the schisms 
which unite rather than divides it seems there is growing recognition of 
the limitations of reliance on traditional channels to achieve change. 
SCHUR (1980) argues: ItWhat is possible for individuals d groups pa tici S an r 
pating in stigma contests keeps changing, in part through their own 
continuing efforts to maximise resourcesq manipulate key symbols, 
monopolise decision-makingt and in general gain and wield social power. ' 
The attempts of the deaf to have a say in how their children are educated, 
rather than having educational policies dictated to them by the hearing 
majority is one such small h6tep. Ultimately the issue is one of power: 
of the power of the defined to reverse negative evaluations made of them 
and impose their own definitions. Inevitably, perhaps, such strategy 
managemen will proceed unevenlyl some groups being more successful at 
any one point in time than others, 
OUTCOMES 
The applicability of stigma, stereotyping and strategy management 
to the world of work as conceptual tools will readily become apparent in 
discussing the empirical findings. Indeed, indications as to their -1 
fit' 
have already been noted. It isl however, in relation to outcomes that a 
deviance model has particular relevance to the field of employment. De- 
viance emerges. The prevailing situation is shaped by preceding outcomes 
which in turn may have ramifications for further outcomes. 
I have used the notion of deviant outcomes in both senses referred 
to by SCHUR (1979), ie. as "a concrete state of affairs"., and as "a defi- 
nition of the situation", rather than choosing to focus on a Beckerian 
model of a 'deviant career'. Two reasons are responsible for this: one 
practical, the other theoretical. 
Firstlyg it has been difficult to trace sequentially the employment 
careers of all hearing impaired respondents as representing distinct 
phases in the incorporation of deviant status. 
This would have required 
a longitudinal analysis. However, 
the implications for further devian- 
tising are readilY apparent from the material at hand. 
Sec ndlyl I contend that such a model, focussing as it does on the 
- 106 - 
apparently regular phases through which people pass on the way to be- 
coming fully-fledged deviants - "learning to act aooording to the norms 
of the deviant, learning to reject the tsquarel society.. " (SAGARIN) 
with which BECKER (1963) describes his marijuana users takes insuffioient 
aooount of the situational nature of devianoe defining. 
Its applieability to the problems of the hearing impaired in emprlor- 
ment is questionable; it is only spoially that the signing deaf oon- 
sciously enter the deviant oulture of the deaf oomunity, Rmployment is 
but one - albeit a critically important - life domain. It is a moot 
point whether other hearing impaired people do pass throagh such eouven- 
iently mapped stages of moral oareer development. I prefer a viewpoint 
which posits the existence of many pathwaysp exits and entranoest and the 
"unoertain mobility" Emggegited by 11JCKMILL and BEST (1981) to cluwao- 
terise the oareers of hearing impaired respondents at work. 
Nevertheless, the prooesmall amplificatory nature of the clovianoe 
defining prooess is a partioularly useful vantage point from whioh to 
look at 'Noutoomest within a situation where interaction has to be Ems- 
tained but which does not have all the characteristics of a total insti- 
tution. The stigmatised hearing impaired oan only esoape Physioally from 
an aocumulation of negative definitions at work by disniosal or volun-- 
tary walk-outs. Sach taotics, howeverg carry deviant penalties and fur- 
ther deviant outoomes in themselves. Whilst definitions have a tendenoy 
to snowballo however, this is not an irreversible, irrevooable prooess. 
It is, nonetheless, one whioh is both more likely and more visible in 
a sustained situation than 
in casual sooial encounters. 
Thus v in the situation of 
employment, deviant outcomes may be located 
on a continuum: those tangibly evident as 
"a concrete state of affairs" 
such as unemployment, underemployment 9 
lack of promotion prospects; those 
less tangibly conspicuous in terms of exclusion from participation in work- 
related tasks, such as use of 
the phone, participation in Meetings; and 
very much a definitional 
problem in zelation to exclu3ion from social activities 
- 107 - 
centred in and around the workplaces and in the incorporation of feel- 
ings of strain, lack of self-confidence, inadequacy and anxiety. 
have used the term 'secondary deviant outcomes' to characterise 
the latter. However, the situational and fluctuating nature of this pro- 
cess suggests that LEMERT's somewhat fixed notion of 'role primacy' is 
Slightly misguided. The incorporation of such a discredited identity 
based on such feelings ".. may or may not become the basis .. of a lasting or substantial identity" (FABREGA and MANNINGj opocit). 
Nevertheless, these particular outcomes did tend to be more univers&Uy 
incorporated into definitions of self. They are 'secondary# only in the 
sense that in the context of employment they seemed to provide a sustained 
backdrop against which other, more tangible outcomes, were highlighted, 
What is central to my argument is that outcomes are themselves the 
results of a complex interactional process whereby meanings are attri- 
buted to a condition - in this case communicative incompetence. These 
outcomes in turn give rise to new problems for their victims and fur. 
ther deviantising. 
In no sense do I regard my societal reaction stance as in any way 
incompatible with a more structuralist approach. The implication that 
structural issues are somehow prior to interaction totally misconceives 
the fact that interaction is fundamental to the instigation of such 
structures or outcomes. Alternatively, the two may be seen as standing 
in dialectical relationshipo As SMF, 7 (1982) notes: "Larger social 
structures and relationships are continually recreated and sus- 
tained through these interactional processes" - and, at the same 
time - "These structures and relationships also provide the con- 
text within which any interaction can occur". 
But I contend it is the interactional process which is the prime insti- 
gator of change and development. The ability to impose one's own defi- 
nitions over alternative constructions is above all a human accomplish- 
ment. It is precisely the thrust of my argument 
that any breakdown of 
interaction which accompanies violation of interactional norms is a funda- 
mental element in the creation of negative outcomes. 
- 108 - 
THE ISFINITIONS OF OTHERS AT WORK: ADDITIONAL OBSTACL&Sq PENALTIES, 
EXPOSUR3 AND CURTAILED BARGAINING POWER 
Having looked at how stigma and Btereotyping manifest themselves gen- 
erally in reaction to communicative incompetence, and explored some of 
the varying strategies differentially available to discreditable and dis- 
oredited respondents, thethrustof this thesis oantres on an extexmion cir 
theBe working oonoeptis into one area oritioal to suxvival: that of work. 
Some incUcationB of the potential fruitfulmi3s of suoh an approach have 
already emerged in the foregoing discussion. I contend it is one of the 
key areas where the shared experience Of clsvalued status - oomon-, to a 
range of hearing impaired people - is at its most exposed., 
First , however, the reader okay wall wonder at the onission within 
the text- of the traditional section relating to the literature on employý-- 
ment. It is precisely the limitations of the existing body of literature 
however, whioh have largely justified -this present exeroise. Whilst I 
have been obliged to take what is quite a vast body of literature into 
account - and a fall description and analysis may be found in Appendix I 
ý it is marginal, and thus distraoting, to my argment, It is almost 
exolusively of a fact and figu" orientationg charaoterised b35r diverse 
methodologies and data collectiomprooesses, so as to rendor any attempts 
at comparison otiose, It is also largely devoted -to an examination 
of the profoundly prelingiially deaf (however defined). No attempt is 
made to locate the data within any kind of conceptual framwork to give 
ooherence to the findings* Although providing a useftl springboard to 
this research it is this latter dimension which I hope to provide. 
Hence the extension of my perspective. 
It was an application hinted at by GOFFMAN 
(1957) in one of his 
earliest writings. He suggested 
that by looking at how spoken enoounters 
suocee9d or fail I 99(e have a 
lead to follow in the understanding of other 
kinds of commitments ., By looking at the ways in which the indi- 
vidaaI- can be thrown out of step with 
the sooiable moment, perhaps 
we can learn something about the way he can become alienated from 
things that take much more of his time". 
- log - 
Paradoxically, at a time of chronic recession and escalating unem- 
ployment, the symbolic value of work and financial independence have never 
assumed such importance. The pacwer of the Calvinist work ethic Be6MS tD 
be in inverse proportion to the means available for satisfying it. Work 
Plays a crucial role in the formation of a 'core identityt, and in the 
general evaluation of a personts status. It is one of the ohief oriteria, 
by which others evaluate our oompetence and effectiveness as peopleo 
Deprived of it and more importantly of the lby6-prodacto I of work, 
particularly the tieB with BOOial 'reality' which Bhared experienOSB with 
others outside the family bring (JAHODA, 1979; 1982), a personts self-es- 
teem tends to be effaoed. This also applies -to a form of unemployment, 
that of underemployment which particralarly appears to affect the hearing 
impaired, For the purposes of my argumnt it needs to be appreciated 
that it is the social world of most adalts which is actually stractured 
around work activity. As WILINSKY (1967) notes; "Work remains symbolic 
of a place among the living". 
The implications of this for those deficient in oommudoation skills 
nay be taken a step foxthere Jobol of oourse, differ markedly in both 
the amount of interaction they recpUre, and the amount they will allow. 
Generallyt howeverg jobs have beoome inore commnioat ion-orient ate d, with 
the well-documented shift into the service sector; and it is oral commini 
oation whioh is the PredOminarlt mOde for this kind of work. As NASH and 
NASH comment (1981): ".. urbanization and the increased speoialization ef 
work has created more white-collar jobs. Essentially, these now 
jobs may be thought of as 'information' jobs. They Mal in various 
ways with telling about something, organizing or processing some- 
thing * Such occupations place a Premium on oommi-inioation". 
In addition, oommunication skills within 
the work setting are a pre- 
requisite for tgetting on'. 
%. the deaf adalt who overlooks or ignores 
opportunities to learn 
how to establish good interpersonal relation- 
ships with hearing people on the sooial 
level greatly minimiseS his 
chances for employment or continuity of employmnt" 
(AMM, 1963). 
Not only are tensions and difficulties 
typically 'talked through': pro- 
motiong for example, 
is heavily dependent on an ability to 'oil the wheels'. 
- 110 - 
Moreover, it is not enough just to be able to communicate to tmake 
it I in the world of employment -A more formal style of language is app- 
ropri e in the employment situation than in casual social encounters 
( such as in phone management, handling an interview, group meetings). 
One needs to be able to talk toorrectly, - if there is suoh a standard 
to adhere to in many work situations. This often requires ".. the use of 
a form of oommunication that is elaborate in style" (NASH and NASH, 
1981) 
rather than resting on presumptions about understanding social context. 
ARGYIS (1972) farther suggests that this more formal approadh is re- 
flected in the faot that "There is more talk about the task in IhsAndg as 
opposed to general ohat; more oonoealment of personal problemst 
emotional states, irritation with others, finanaial situation and 
ambition; more ooneern with what others think of one, and more oon- 
oern with personal appearanoe; a greater need for reoiprooity from 
others before helping them a seoond time" (mW itals. ) 
Whilst, not agreeing with some of his oontentions, I am ftlly in ao(wrd 
with the stre"a on aPPearan0e (which, I argueg includes speech tappear- 
anoe"), awareness of the importanoe of the evaluations of others, and 
his emphasis on reoiprooity. 
Thus the possession of a restricted speech code, whether it be Black 
Rnglish, tworkingw-class' dialeot or aocentg or that arising from a do- 
fioienoy in communicative oompetenoe - all of which in varying degrees 
violate the norms of interaction socially - leave its possessors at an 
added disadvantage in employment. 
I am therefore inevitably conoerned with the additional commuzic). - 
ative demands which employment poses 
for the hearing impaired in terms of 
what might be conceived of as 'semi--structural' 
difficulties: problems 
with the phone, participation 
in meetings, supervision, following instr_ 
uctions, which themselves may give rise 
to deviant outcomes. 
My arguiment isp firstly, that 
these 'Obstaoles' are defined as Buoh 
because of the way violations of expected norms of 
interaction are so 
negatively evaluated by the 
hearing majority. Secondly, many such pur- 
- ill. - 
Ported 'difficulties' could well be surmounted were it not precisely 
for the operation of the prooesses of i3tigma and stereotyping which I 
have described. The very fact that such constraints are seen as tinamp- 
erablet attests to the pervasiveness of the underlying prooess. IRX- 
trinsic limitations beoome legitimated as "intrinsiot to the hearing im- 
paired person's handioap. It acoounts in large measure for a reluotance 
on the part of employers to tackle difficulties -which, in many cases, are 
amenable to solution. Untackled they further deviantise. Flor profess- 
ionals engaged in placing the hearing impaired, the range of jobs for 
which their clients might well be suited is restrioted and stereotyped; 
on employers' parts the availability of equipment, such as amplifierst 
TDDs* is rarely taken up. Job opportunities and the quality of working 
life generally is significantly reckoed. Noreover, it, is reduced in a 
way whiah goes well beyond the limitations inherent in the nature of the 
handicap itself. (This is a theme to which I shall be making constant 
re fe renoe) * 
'Constraints' lead to farther deviant outcomes in the form of denial 
of economic opportunities. Enacted stigma is as relevan+, as felt stigma 
in the realm of I'm mPloyMentv underemployment, lack of promotion pros- 
pectse 
As noted earlier the issue is one of power henoe my emphasis on 
strategy ma gement - Whilst I accept that basic straotural questions re- 
garding the distribution of power are not within the interactionist Is 
special provincev they are reflected in the negotiation and bargaining 
for'status at the micro-level. As SCHUR 
(1980) has noted: "Di3viance de- 
fining represents one key arena within which such distributional 
outcomes emerge and undergo change .. by definition, since they are 
modes of disvaluing and discrediting, the designation of deviance 
and the deviantizing of individuals involve the exercise of power 
and affect the subsequent distribution of power". 
Individuals who have been designated as in some way shameful are both 
sociallY and economically subordinated 
in the general scheme of thingp. 
* Telephone Davioes for the 139af 
- 112 - 
Extending a societal reactions perspective into the specific field 
of employment has meant that stigma and stereotyping are peroeived to man- 
ifest themselves at different levels: overt and covert, informal and more 
formal proceBSing, one level reinforcing the other. 
I have argued that what happens at the micro-level in face-to-face 
interaction generally is cruoial to the construction of meanings about 
what constitutes hearing impairmnt. This can be translated directly 
into the employment situation. ROonomio oonstraints - or stigma reactions 
- are intimately interwoven with nW basio conoern whioh is to exýlore 
what I consider to be the more crucial informal level of social contacts 
at work. The interfaoe between hearing and hearing impaired at this level 
is pivotal to the whole framework of my thesis. It is here that evalu- 
ations are madev definitions aocpxire their nalienoe, and the impact of 
stigma and stereotyping possibly at its most subtle and pernicious. it 
is these small beginnings which set the stage for fature deviant status, 
It is the faoe-to-face oontacts daring the daily round of work, the ab- 
ility to 'have a giggle' daring the tea breakl to gossip in the ohanging 
a 
room, to share in the back-chat when the boss is not looking, as well as 
aooomparlying One's wOrkmat6s tO the pub and sharing in meal breaks, whioh 
form the fabric of social cohesion at work,. Exclusion from this farther 
legitimates the more tangible outcomes I have indicated. * The importance 
of such lFback-ohat I cannot be over-emphasised. In making an otherwise 
intolerable job marginally congenial, its role has been vividly daBoribed 
by ROY (1976)9 
Thus, more intangible stigma reactions in terms of avoidance, ex- 
elusion, teasing, ridicule, mockery or segregation from the intimacy of 
offioe or factorY life are both powerful 
identifiers of shameful status 
in an exposed situation and 
deny the victim that acceptance in an area 
critical to his self-esteem. 
As indicated in Chapter 19 the response in terms of strategy manage- 
- 113 - 
Ment is likely to be situationally Eiomewhat different fi-om that in cas- 
ual encounters for a number of reasons: 
1. The hearing impaired are required to interact and function in a com- 
pletely hearing world - the number of jobs where more than one hearing 
impaired person is employed is negligible. Thus opportunities for avoid- 
anoe strategiesl or seeking the solaos offered sooially by membership of 
the deaf community are radically redaoed*o 
2. Any departures from 'standard' comiminicative oompetenoe tend to be 
more nakedly exposed. igmploymnt is generally a situation where one ts 
abilities - and deficienoies - are public property (in oommon with life 
in a total institution). Thas the areas available to the oontrol and 
maintenanoe of more favourable definitions of self tend to be signifi- 
oantly cartailed. Strategies of passing and oonoealmixt are mttoh less 
likely to sucosedo 
3, Most hearing impaired people are eoonomically dependent on the hear- 
ing majority for a job (few are self-employed), Hearing people contro3L 
work and monopolise definitions of trealityt in the job situation* Thus 
hearing norms must be oomplied with. Confrontation, or the presentation 
of an alternative stigma ideology are strategies whicht resPectiVOlYp 
either tend to lead to 'trouble', or fail to oarry aZY OredibilitY- 
If the hearing impaired are to be self-cmMoient and maintain their 
eoonomic independenoet the situation has to be sustained. The Oontinp- 
uous experience of humiliation and shaming which, as we shall see# ohar- 
aoterises the pereeptions Of Many respondents at work, has somehow to 
be lived with . Escape avenues, as 
I have argued, tend to be not only 
ineffective but to lead to harsher deviant outcomes. This gives no 
encouragement to strategies of Politicization, 
Flexibility for manoeuvre is therefore somewhat eiraumscribed, The 
weaving in and out of discreditable/discredited status characteristic 
of more casual BOoial encounters is much less a feature of the work sit- 
uation. Not that mom fbr manoeuvre is ever totally iestricted, as both the 
- 114- 
studies of GOFFKAN (1961) and COHEN and TAYLOR (1981) have shown. Employ- 
ment, perhapaq represents a mid-poizrt along a oontintium of situations rep- 
resenting optimal and minimal manoeuvrability, sharing oharacterintios 
from both extremes. 
Thus the extension of a labelling perspective into 'the field of am- 
ployment. means we are dealing with an extended oontinuum of stigma responses: 
from sooio-payohologioal and moral defilement at a close interpersonal 
level of peer oontact; 'to eoonomio *oontainment"q manifest in 'the denial 
of equal access and participation in the economic goals of our societye 
And, generally, the greater the degree of devistion frm I standard' oamum.. 
niowtive competenoeg -the greater the difficalty the hearing impaired will 
tend to find in negotiating desired outoomen for themselveso 
I contend that the choice of employment as an area for extension of 
interaotionist analysis is more than amply justifiede It most vividlT 
illustrates the interface between he&ring and he&ring imPair0do OQtOGm9s 
are often publio* Defilement may be exposedo The differential inoorpor.. 
ation of fairly uniformly applied stereotypes against a badcground of 
relatively oircumsoribed means of defleating or mmtralisin stidna, re- 
actions demonstrates clearly how oomunioative incompetomm in evaluated 
in one particular setting which places such a prosiva on orreative per%.. 
foruanoe in -that areao 
my primary interest lies in assessing the meanings the hearing im- 
paired ascribe to such processes. Their perceptions am embodied in 
. I, - 
their many descriptions of events and happenings at work - often ooalesoed, 
such is the nature of biographical reeonstruotion - and often very pain- 
ftl. It is to an exploration of these peroeýtions and how they are dealt 
with -to which I now turn** 
*For details of respondents' communication patternsl how they perceive the 
nature and severity of their hearing 
lossq and particulars of their employ- 
ment careers and aspirationsp the reader 
is referred to Appendix 2. The 
Communication Group in which I have ranked each respondent is indicated in 
the text 
- 115 - 
NOTES 
11 Its stigmatising effects are reflected in the low incidence of 
hearing aid Usage - even where this could make a pronounced difference 
to receptive skills. BIRD and MIEWAINS (op. cit) found that whilst all 
their sample owned an aid "Three of the thirty, -four subjects said that they never wore the aid .. while a further eleven subjeots reported that they turned their aids off under certain conditioru3". Other studies 
have reported a similarly low usage (SCHRIN, 1968; DIISOEJZA et al., 1975; ) 
HAGGARD et -al., op. cit) found that hearing aid ownershipq regardless of 
usage, was less than half of those with a 35dB+ loss in the better ear* 
2.11 In the attempt to take part in the current conversation without 
engrossing it entirely, one who is deaf will encounter some curious 
difficulties. It has been my own custom to inquire from time to time 
what turn the conversation has takenj and then, perhapst the general 
drift, or some pointed observation which may suggest it is reported to 
me. I am then promptedto make an observation on that subjectl which I 
mayl perhaps, think striking or suggestive; but the difficulty is how 
to discharge it. The eyes are thrown round the circle again and again, 
to catch a moment when no one else is speaking. But nothing is hardeir 
to catch than this. After long watching for the happy moment in which 
a sentence may be thrust ing it may seem at last to be secured. Rvery 
tongue is at rest. Then I begin, when a start of divided attention . 00 
apprises me that the ball of conversation had again been struck up in 
another part of the circle in the brief interval of an eye-blink, and 
I find myself involved in the incivility and rudeness of having inter- 
rupted another ... If, howeverg it so happens that I do succeed in 
launching my observation without such utter wreck at the outsetl I have 
often the humiliation of finding that it has become stale by keeping 
and that it applies to a subject which the rapid curzVnt of oral talk has 
left a mile behind oo Sometimeog howeverg the very reverse of this 
happens: and the observation may prove to be the very same which is 
being made, or has just been made, or is about to be made oo.. The 00- 
incidence of utterance is esom8tims so much the Sam --aS to call 
forth many merry exolamations of 'Tou hear)" "You hear)" tTou are found 
out I"". 
39 1 am somewhat apprehensive that the recent experiments trying to 
teaoh chimps to sign - Washoel Nim, Kokol Sarah - have not improved the 
public image of sign, however valuable they may be to research. More- 
over, these experiments leave much to be desired methodologically. 
Neither Washoe nor Nim was exposed to 'native' deaf signers, so the 
experiments do little justice to Sign Language proper. MDre concern 
should be dovoted to the ality of sign to which they are being ex- 
posed. (SWONISON, W*q 196) 
4. This is contrary to the assertion of CRAIG (1980) who found that 
stereotyping was rather a function of over-exposure to the more visible 
end of the seizure spectrum, rather than ignoranoe and lack of direct 
exposure. Howeverl I suggest that the findings of BUNTINGfs (1981) 
study quite misconstrue the purported knowledge amongst hearing people 
of hearing impairmenty particularly of the signing deaf 
(cf. Appendix 1). 
5- Aristotle: t, Men that are born deaf are in all cases dumb, that is 
to say they can make vocal noises but they cannot speak 
(]@, rom 
'Historia Animalium, quoted in HODGSON, op. cit). 
Unlike other minority cultures, membership is generally delayecL 
- 116 - 
until attendance at special residential schools for the deaf give peer 
access. Much is made of this as a factor contributing to the 'unique- 
ness' of the deaf culture. Yet poverty may also be construed as a 'cul- 
ture's and one is not necessarily born into that either. However, sign 
language is rarely acquired as a 'native' language. Most profoundly deaf 
children are born of hearing parents with little or no knowledge of the 
deaf community and an ambivalence, to say the least, at the prospect of 
their offspring severing family for deaf peer socialisation. 
7. Barnes v. Converse Collegel 19779 was the first s. 504 case to be 
filed concerning the provision of an interpreter. It took li years, how. 
ever, before the Health, Education and Welfare Department finally decided 
that the College's failure to provide an interpreter had been in vio- 
lation of the law. Other courts have ordered colleges and universities 
to provide interpreters: Crawford v. University of North Carolinat 1977; 
and Herbold v. Trustees of the California State Universities and 
Colleges, 1978. 
In Camenisch v. University of Texas, 1978, the Supreme Court, how- 
ever, 110 *chose to pass up an opportunity to decide whether a college or 
university must spend its own funds to accommodate the needs of a handi- 
capped person" on the grounds that as this particular student had now 
graduated, a temporary order by a lower court to provide a sign language 
interpreter "had lost its legal meaning" (N. C. L. D. 10 1981) 
8, Nevertheless, the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation 
(U. P. I. A. S. ) was writing in lgr? 6: "In our view, it is society which disables 
physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of 
our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded 
from full participation in society" (in OLIVER,, 1983)o 
A further exception to this appears to be the efforts of Chris 
Davies to form a Coalition of All Disabled for the impaired themselves 
to press for political action. At the time of writing, this is known 
as "Interface". The publication of the proceedings of the Committee on 
Restrictions Against Disability (C. O. R. A. D. ) (1982), and the subsequent 
attempts to have anti-discriminatory legislation put on the statute 
book have not, so far, been successful. 
- 117 - 
CHAPTER 4: GAINING A FOOTHOLD: 
TIC, DIFFICULTIES OF OBTAINING A JOB 
I have argued that the hearing impaired are disabled over and ab- 
ove, the intrinsic nature of their communication handicap by the negative 
evaluations with which society reacts to deficiencies in one of the bas- 
ic human competencies: speech performance. In terms of employment pro- 
blems and prospects, I shall argue they are doubly, if -not trebly penal- 
ised. 
This chapter focusses on the interweaving of both official and low 
formal sanctioning processes. It examines the more irtermediate levels of 
labelling relating to the perceptions the hearing impaired have of their 
experiences of being rejected - or being deterred from applying for - 
jobs. It also looks at the perceived effects of stereotyping and stig- 
matising whioh tend to form the Btoak, routine responses of professional 
helpers, both as a result of, and reinforcingl stereotyping at the micro 
level. AB a result, lowered expectations and negative evaluations of 
ability tend to affect many hearing impaired respondents. Daviantising 
occurs at several levels here: in placing "obstacles I in the way of the 
hearing impaired getting a too-hold in the job market; by way of the re- 
stricted nature of job choice presented to them; and in the routinised 
nature of help whioh is peroeived to be offered. Both formal and in- 
formal labelling processes culminate in the faoe-to-faoe encounter bet- 
ween hearing impaired and prospective employerl in what I regard as a 
classic stigma confrontation, that of the interview. 
Referring to the contirmium of stigma reactions which provides the 
framework of analysis for this empirical data, it is in the withholding 
of opportunities, the restriction or denial of access to various economic, 
social and legal gdals, and the sanctioning of those who step out of 
line and demand more, with which I shall principally be concerned here. 
These relate much more closely to the end point of the stigma contin- 
- 118 - 
uum I disaussed in Chapter 3o But the defining prooess is essentially 
similar in all the situations I shall be oovering to do with work* It 
is worth reiterating that all deviantiBing involves the basio elements 
of moral and socio-psychological defilementv and its manifestation in a 
range of reactions from unease, and impatience, to ostracism and Begre- 
gatiom. (which I shall be disGUBsing in greater detail in Chapter 5)* Mr- 
clusion from access to economic goals can not be considered in isolation 
from these small, but highly i3ignificant beginnings. In this chapterg 
however, they will remain largely implicit* 
As indicated earlier, general cultural stereotypes tend to be attr- 
ibuted to the hearing impaired regardleBs of their oommunicative oompe- 
tence 9 and, in the field of workj generalised to enoompass a negative 
evaluation of all their other abilities. I propose to show how obstacles, 
some of which are extrinsio to the limitations of respondentst hearing 
loss, are created and legitimated as part of 'the process of denial., 
Outcomes to stigma reactions generally, it has been arguedt vary 
aooording to the differential oomminicative oompetenoe (andt to a lesser 
extent I salience of resources) of respondents, In this ahaptery however, 
it will be seen that relatively little soope for public redefinition- was 
apparent in the face of official labelling. 
(What went on privately, 
howeverp war, a rather different matter). Rationalisation, or discredit- 
ing the discreditors, or simply byý--passing the official channels alto- 
gether were the most effective techniques adopted in an attempt to neu- 
tralise the impact of stigma. However, the fact that communicative com- 
petence seemed to have less of an impact on outcomes than was the case 
in encounters with informal labellerm - even within the oircumscribed 
setting of work - was less well antioipated. 
Similarlyp little manoeuvrability was poE; sible in the face of a 
refusal to hire by an employer. Responses to such intermediate labelling 
by superiors tended to be of a sense-seeking nature, tyPioally oouched. 
in terms of the well-known incompeliension employer3 are perceived to have of 
- lig - 
hearing imPairment. This was seen to manifest itself in a general lack 
Of Sympathy, if not antipathy, a disinclination to botherv and the lack 
of any efforts to ciraumvent the diffioulties whioh are inherent in 
those with a communication impairment. I contend this illustrates not 
onlY the commonplace nature of the process I am describing. Such re- 
aotions are also iistrumental in defining the situation as 'insuperable I. 
The result is a vicious cycle in which both the able and the less 
able hearing impaired arej in varying degrees, looked in society's ster- 
eotypes of them at work Lacking oommillnioative oompetenoe, or having 
to prove their overall oompetence to a generally unreoeptive audienoeq 
the negotiation of favourable 'Outoomes ' or re-definitions of self is 
rendered doubly problematio. Finally, the meaninV and peroeptions of 
unemployment as a tdoviant outoomet are explored. 
First, I will turn to an examination of -the more general faotors 
whieh are peroeived as inhibiting a hearing impaired personts ability to 
acquire a job. These include the internalisation of employerst attit- 
udes to their impairment, and attempts to rationalise and explain suoh 
imputations of devianoe in terms of a 'natural" and Ilogioalt preferenoe 
for hearing people, or an ecpxally Ilogioal" fear of an inoreased risk of 
incurring accidents. Jobs requiring -the handling of phones had the 
effect of actually deterring BOMe respondents from applying for thear. 
Strategy management was essentially direoted towards making sense - and 
thus attempting to neutralise - imputations of stupidity and alleged 
incompetence. In regard to the latter issue, strategic avoidance was 
often employed by discreditable respondents; discredited respondents 
were themselves simply br-passed. 
10 FACING THE: 'WORLD OF WORK WITH U94ANTED ISTICKEMI 
Having discussed in a very general way the kind of stereotypes which, 
suggest q tend to 
be applied with a fair degree of uniformity to the 
hearing impaired, regardless of communicative difficulty, the question is 
ý 120 - 
how the hearing impaired themselves regard these as affecting their 
entrY into the oompetitive job market* 
The form that stereotyping and stigmatising were peroeived to take 
was fairly predictable# in that the images have cropped up in much of 
the literature on 'the deaf'* A few examples willq thereforeq suffiee to 
illustrate the fairly common pattern of anticipated reaction* 
Stupidityl and the attribution of this to all hearing impaired res- 
pondents, was a oonstantly reourring theme in the samplelp and was mentioned 
quite spontaneously by respondents across all Communioation Groups* Of 
the ten specific references to itj one will suffice to illustrate the per- 
VagiveneBS Of 'the imagery: Xr. NX. 
(I) "It's in the way you relate to 
peopleo If you oantt hear theml they feel youtre stupid ... When 
peo ple are aware of your 100B it makes your intelligence look smaller". 
With a B& in Theologyj he felt it an especially unpalatable inav to dig- 
esto As SCMR (1979) has oomma-tedl, it is difficult to resist "acrosewthe- 
board" redefining by tlu)se who "Oount" in one way or other* Outside his 
marriage to a bLearing wifeg., ooj3Le&gu, *s at work "Counted' mooto 
Other derogatory images were also mentionedg such all ohildishnesol 
being lmen+. alt (in the sense of being 'men-tally disturbedI as well as 
Ire-barded'); inferiorityl inoapabilit7, and - for the parposes of miy argxt. 
ment - equation with the extreme end of the "deaf* spectrum* 
Kro P*J,, (III) remrked: "People thought if you were deaf you were 
childish"* 
Recollecting his schooldaYst where everything was done for his and "ycm 
were always over-Protecrtive 
(SiO)", 
there does seem to be some objective justification for such a belief* As 
has been suggested (NACKIR9 1972) there is no empirical grounding for the 
belief that stereotypes are always inacaurate. Profoundly prelingually 
deaf children educated at special schools for the deaf 
do sometimes show 
a pronounced lack of sophistication and maturity which makes 
the trans- 
ition to adulthoad difficult* Howeverg any lack of maturity 
is often 
quickly remedied* Xro FoJ * appeared 
to have thrown this off 9 as he stressed, 
- 121 - 
by a vigorous rebuttal of the deaf world. 
hering to hearing norms. 
The struggle was one of ad- 
Stereotyping in the form of defining the hearing impaired as Imentall 
was commented on by Mrs. C. O. (I), The association was what bothered 
her. "It's like if you've been to a psychiatrist., You can visiblY see 
your image fading in someone's eyes when they know you're deaf". 
For those who assert the impossibility of making comparisons across 
the range of hearing impairment, I cite the following, quite iin olicited, 
example of how stereotyping is perceived by respondents to function. 
Mr. B. S. Wcommented: "The deaf are always associated with the pro- 
foundly deaf who sign". 
Similar remarks were made by two other discreditable respondents., Mr. 
A. E. (I) and Miss C. G. (II). Not only were stereotypes perceived to be 
located at the most severe end of the spectrum - bearing out the conten- 
tion of WEST (19? 9). They indicated a vivid appreciation of what ALTMAN 
(1981) has described as the power to depersonalise and obscure other 
abilities. The master status trait of hearing loss, with all its atten. 
dant ascriptions of witlessness and mental deficiency, effectively denies 
the possession of any positive attributes with which to present to a 
prospective employer. 
Two respondents were particularly aware of the imputed master statU8 
of their handicap in the eyes of potential employers. As Mr. S. L. (II), 
endeavouring to come to terms with a fast deteriorating hearing losa re- 
marked, "One is identified with the disability. The category defines 
the person". 
And Miss N. P. (I): itHaving to admit that one's deaf ,, It's vanity .. 
But it's how people would then begin to treat you .. They'd shout. 
Your image would change in their eyes ... I want people to see me' 
as I am, not as deaf". And, perceptively,, INhen you don't think 
you're in this category and suddenly find you are, everythi 
has to be re-thought". 
The varying degrees with which such stereotypes are internalised 
have affected the way respondents view their employment prospects and their 
perceptions of the obstacles hindering 
their access to the job market. 
- 122 - 
2. 'OBSTACUCS' TO BRING HIFED 
That 'communication difficulties' constituted one of the basic pro- 
blems was aocepted without oommnt by all but one respondentt Xre B. S. 
(who tPassed' in both work and leimn-e i3ituations)o It was so muoh a 
taken-ror-granted ractor as not to require elaboration. In one oaset that 
of Mrs. A. B., (I) it provoked mild amasement: "Well that go obvious isn't it". 
The more subtle prooesses underlying this, however, require more 
oareful investigation* The peroeived attitudes of prospective employers 
were a not unnatural initial area of enquiry. 
(a) "They Dc)nlt Undorstando Itts like having fits", 
There was a marked disinclination to go so far an describing employ6-. 
erst hiring policies and practioes an constituting prejudice, although 
this was more charaoteristio or respondonts in Coumnioation aroups I and 
II than IV and V, Conceivably, to be obliged to view oneself an the ob- 
ject of prejudice confirms to the world the taoit acceptance that there 
in something shameful about one's status, Rationalisationa and "accountalk 
were a more common response. They tended to take the following form: 
Mrs. G. L. (I) "Hearing people are deaf to doafness - lite epilepsy"q 
The eqaation by two respondents of hearing impairment with epilepsy 
is interesting, again bearing out the oonteirtion of WBST (op. cit) and 
CRAIG (op. oit) that lay images tend to be looated along the 'grand =at 
end of the seizure OP60trum- It Provides more substanoe to the ids&, 
that a similar foroe is at work looating the image of hearing impairment 
at the 'deaf and dumb' end of the oontirmumro Unintelligible speech is 
perhaps not so far removed from lay images of frothing at the mouth. 
In fact ignorance of the condition 
(rather than expomire to it) 
and the perceived fear stemming 
from such ignorance, oharaoterised the 
meanings and shared unclerstandings most reSPondents 
had of prospective 
employers' views of them., They appaared 
to be more acoaptable th&n 
an outright admission of 
disorimination itEMlf,, 
- 123 - 
As Mrs. L. L. (I) commented: "People are frightened and ignorant and not 
interested enough to learn. On this course (sic) I had new equip- 
ment, E19000 worth, donated by Blue Peter, but no one was interes- 
ted or asked how it worked. No one asked if it made any difference 
to my hearing lectures". 
Respondents from all groups elaborated on this theme: Mrs. B. L. (IV), 
for instance: "It ts a fear of the unknown .. They dontt know how to cope 
with it. It ts like a fear of withoraft .. a fear of the supernat- 
ural. They"d rather not touch it". 
It is indicative not only of the struggle to make sense of the often 
oontimous experience of rejections and rebuffs to whioh respondents were 
subjeot; but also of the attempts to dislodge the impaot of such per- 
ceived evaluations by redofining the issue in terms of a lack of apprec- 
iation on the part of the definers., An will be shown, it is a strategy 
to whioh reoourse is often made, when room for manoeuvre is limited, 
In addition, reference has already been mado to the difficulties 
hearing people are known to have in trying to empathise with this par- 
ticular impairment, and the discomfort and stickiness which follows in 
not knowing how to behave (of, HILBOURNS, op. cit)e FeeliioV of "'oogni- 
tive dissonanoe " (SUSSMAN, A*E, t 1973) are powerfal stimulants to stigma, 
posing a threat to our take n-for-grante d assumptions conoerning expeoted 
norms of interaotion. I suggest that for those in a position to hire 
and fireq they are likely to be seen to trawlate into stigmatising ard 
discriminatory praotioese 
It is signifioantt for example, that Nrs. NoF. 
(IV) feels she pro- 
bably 'swung' her job application beoause her proj3pective employers 
were familiar with hearing impairment. As the literature showsq the more 
general tendency for employers at least to give someone a try 
is oorrel- 
ated with previous favourable experiences of 
hearing impaired employees - 
without necessarily according the suooessfal applicant equal E3tatus 
if 
hired. Any modification of stereotyping tends to be very pragmatically 
based - such as paying 
lip--service to approved attitudes. Previous un- 
favourable experienoes have disproportionately the reverse effeot. 
- 124 - 
And other remarks indicated a readiness to acknowledge that employ- 
ers were no more immune from incorporating lay stereotypes about the 
hearing impaired than anyone else,. Mrs. B. C. (I) "Jobs available are 
very limited because employers feel you're not normal. Employers 
don't think that a deaf person could be as intelligent as a hearing 
person". 
(b) A Preference for 'Normals' 
A further rationalisation was expressed as the 'natural' predeliction 
of employersl especially in a tight labour market, to avoid hiring some. 
one whose physical faculties are not entirely intact. Only 7 respondents, 
significantly discreditable subjects, in the entire sample considered 
that hearing loss, in itself, was not an obstacle to obtaining a job; 
in Group I; I in II and 1 in V. Miss H. Q.. here was probably fortunate 
in having experienced the more favourable American climate to deafness 
with which to sustain her). 
Two comments, one from a respondent with acquired hearing loss, and 
the other from Miss B. G. (I), prelingually partially hearing, Mustrate 
this perceived preference for normally hearing people. Mrs. E. I. (II): 
"Employers would sooner take someone that can hear perfect than 
someone half deaf or completely deaf which is worse". 
And Miss B. G.: "Employers just don't want to know .. If he's got a choice 
he's going to hire someone who can hear .. How do you show an em. 
ployer you're good? " 
In part this may be viewed as realism - reflecting an awareness 
that employers are not benevolent charities. In part it reflects a much 
more insidious internalisation of deviant status from respondents who, 
in other circumstancesl successfully normalised their roles and relation- 
ships. Miss B. G., for example. had already proved her undoubted capa- 
bilities by the acquisition of a Diploma in Catering Mamagement. The fact, 
however, that a perceived preference for Inormals' is seen as a logical 
and legitimate reason for refusal to hire appears to represent yet fur. 
ther attempts to make coherent sense of, and derive an acceptable explan- 
ation fors anticipated or repeated failures. One cannot live with con- 
tinuous assaults on the self. Its insidiousnessl however, lies in legiti- 
mising 
- 125 - 
the status quo. 
(a) "You're a Fire Hazard" 
Much attention was focussed by respondents on the peroeption of 
themselves by employers as a fire or accident risk., Again the fandamen- 
tal logic behind the issue gives it sparious credibility. Of those res- 
pondeirtis who oommented, 16 indeed felt it presented "a real problem": 
in Group 1; 3 in Group 11,2 in Group IIIf 1 in Group IVt and 1 in V)* . 15 
subjeots, on the other handp felt it was simply a Oonvenient exause to 
justify a refunal to hires (7 in Group 11 1 in Group 1119 2 in IV and 5 
in Group V). Nevertheless, there was oonsiderable ambivalenoe, 15 res- 
pondents vaoillated or offered qaalificationgs, imoh as it being "depend. 
ent on the place of work". 
Yet the literature on acaident rates shows that the hearing impaired 
are, if anything, not only loss aocident proney but also have lower ab- 
sentee rates, than the normally hearing (ZABBLL, . 1962; SILVER9 N. H. p 1974; 
BENMRLT, 1980), This would augpat strongly that it in indeed an ob- 
stacle mwmfaotured and rationalised by employvre, and for the 16 respond- 
ents quoted abovev internalised an such. For this former grcmp, Kies 
V. G, (I) for e3mmple oomented: "I do have a certain sympathy for employb- 
ers* If a teacher didn't hear a child scream or didn't hear a fire 
alarm ... I often ask myself to what extent I as a hazard. I think 
if you are responsible for people, the old or children, you have 
to develop a very special moral consciousness" 
Fbr the latter group, both Mr. C. R. (I) and Mr. C. P. (I)put the 
question of aooidents firmly aside. Both respondents had many years, 
experience working on machines. As Mr. C. R. commented: "After a while 
you become attuned to the machine. You can tell by the vibrations 
whether it needs greasing or not, or whether somethingto wrong". 
As far as the question of failing to hear fire alarms is oonoerned, 
Miss B. G. commented with exasperation: "It"s been put to me so many times 
at interviews. So that one time I've said 'Well go ahead and press 
it and then I'll tell youl". 
As a well-qualified apPlicant, 
her subsequent refusal for the job was 
- 126 - 
seen in terms of employer rationalisation. The possibilitv of other 
workerS alerting the hearing impaired to any danger situation does not 
Beem to be a relevant isBue. 
The additional oonstraintB impoBed by the POBSeBSion of a oommuni- 
cation handicap at work possess the same tobviouslf Ilogioalt groundx for 
a refusal to hire an the lobstaoles' I have just discussed - difficulties 
with the phoneg oonveying and understanding instraotions, supervision, 
partioipa; tion in meetings and so on, My argumentg as indicated in ear- 
lier Chapters, in that these are by no mans either neoessary or inimper- 
able oonstraints. With a more Positive evaluation of the abilities of 
the hearing impaired at workq such apparently inswarmountable tobstaoles' 
may readily be overoome. That they oontinue to be peroeived an insuper- 
able and as #an inherent part of the handioapt . suggests the very oper- 
ation of the processes I have described in the last chapter* And the 
situation of work itself often oirounscribed opportunities for bargaining 
over these 'obstacles". However, there was one tobstaclell which, above 
all, actually deterred some respondents from applying ror a particalar 
Job-, - the phone* 
(d) "Jobs with a phone - thevre non-starters". 
In considering jobs reispondents might, or might notq apply for, some 
re spondenti3 imposed their own strictures on jobs which involved phone 
duties. It was a situation often totally avoided by subjects whop in 
other oircumstancest passed or normalised other oompartments in their em- 
ployment lives with some degree Of BUCCeSB - reflecting the situational 
avoidance of some areas described by SCHUR 
(1979). Miss V. G. is fairly 
typical of such respondents: "I wouldn't take a job where I had to 
use the phone". 
Similar reactions came from Mr. S. G. (Ij), Mrs. A. H. (I), Mr. L. M. 
and Mr. D. O. 
(I). Their expreSBiVS communication skills still tended to 
accord them discreditable status. 
When it came to phone management, 
howeverv they perceived themselves to be disoredited. 
- 127 - 
As I shall Bhow later, many respondents already in jobs were either 
afraid to ask, or had been rebuffed over the queBtiOn Of ini3tallation of 
amplifiers. Yet not only are they relatively inexpensive; F but equipment 
such as TTTs*(now VIS799L) are regularly used - and their installation has 
legislative baok--iup in the States to faoilitate job aoquisition and per- 
formance for the profoundly deaf, 
Whilst the iru3tallation of amplifiers oannot readily resolve the pro- 
blems of the serwori-neurally deafenedg for whom amplification simply 
raises the threshold of already distorted speech soundt some respondents 
oould have benefitted. The pervaiveness of impattations of inoompetenoe t 
or of 'not being worth the trouble It was perosived as limiting the job 
applioation range of discreditable respondentst denying them acmess to 
legitimate eoonomio opportunities. Ibr disoredited subjects, (Nrs. N... P. 
IV, apart) it hardly oonstituted an isarme when it oame to the question 
of hiring prospects. They were not expectedt nor did they expeat, to 
handle the phone (or any equivalent). Upitulation in the verdiot or 
others was near oomplete., However, an I W! Lall discass later, capitul- 
ation, however laoouratelyl it appeared to represent a respondent to un- 
derstanding of the situation at the time of the interview(s), is rarely 
more than partial or spisodioe It did not neoessarily generalize to 
antioipated reacitions in other work aotivities. 
(jenerallyj howeverv it was felt by most respondents that hearing 
impairment presezrted Pr'08pective employers with Oproblemet. I suggest 
that this is indicative of a much more insidious internalisation of do- 
viant status overall than I had hitherto thought., Competition in a tight 
job market highlights the way any impairment is evaluated by sooiety. 
For the hearing impaired, to regard oneself as a 'problem# indioates that 
felt and enaoted stigma aiv strongly inoorporated into one Is self-image, 
le and_disoredited erubjeots &like. 
Teletypewriters 
- 128 - 
OFFICIAL LABELS: HELP OR HINIWCE? 
(a) A Diminished Range of Jobs: "There's no encour!! g2ment in the 
Deaf world to expand" 
It is at this point in the attempts of the hearing impaired to ob- 
al. n a job that the impact of professional definitions obtrudes. As ex- 
Plained in Chapter 3, this was not anticipated. I had considered only 
employer and rellow employee derinitions -to be relevant., Howeverg it is 
apparent that -the situation cannot be quite so neatly oompartmntalimed* 
Definitiom of teachers, andiologistal careers officers, and IN)m are 
carried over and make their own impact on the respondent in employment. 
laoh respondent is burdened with an autobiography or derinitioxist oolleo- 
ted at each significant lire stao, which precede - and often limit as 
aooess to other life domains. It isl therefore, almost impossible to oon- 
oentrate on one process to the exclusion of the other, The two are inex- 
tricably intertwined. 
Integrally related to the qaestion of job evaluation by statutozy 
plaossent offioars, the range of jobs oonsidored Isuitablel for the kear- 
ing impaired to do illustrates the way in which stereotyping and subee- 
quent stigma-tieing are applied fairly randomly aoross the whole spectrum 
of hearing impairment. Routinisation by offioial definers in wm&lly 
grounded in the stereotypes and typifications whioh are part of -the oomm- 
on sense world of the labeller. At the same tins, the kind of information 
put out by officsial labellers about a loondition' adds to thO ooamn- 
sense stock of knowledge of the public - in this particular oamet that 
of employers - reinforcing stereotypes already held, 
Thus respondents are often plaosd in jobs well below their level of 
oapabilityq as is indioated in the 
literature. It is a prooeseg however, 
whioh affeOtB disoreditable reBponclentB as W611 as 
disoredited viatims, 
And reBpondentBI peroeptions of 
the range of jobs oonditidered 'suitable' 
for them refleots, revealinglyg in many caseB, at least BUperfioial 
acoePtance Of BUch Btezeatyped exP80tations, and 
the difficulties of oo&- 
dik 
- 129 - 
batting such stigma reactions. 
AsOriptiOnB of incompetence had often Btarted as early aB i3ohool 
days. It is here that professional definitions of teachers of the deaf 
have their major impact. Often scarcely equipped with career knowledge, 
they have played an influential and powerful role in the atanipulation of 
expectations and aspirations. It was commented on by Mrs. L. L.: "I don9t 
think the deaf have a choioe of jobs. It starts in sahoole. Hear- 
ing people totally underestimate their eapaoity. So the range of 
jobs is very narrow". 
This lends some ErabBtanoe to the findings of NONTGOMRRY (1967),, IAWUN and 
GUILFOYLE (1970), STORER(1975) and others disoussed in the literature. 
Although their findings were generally applicable to the proroundly pro- 
linimally deaf (however defined), it is grist to mY argument that BOMO 
respondents without the experience of segregated schooling also felt them- 
selves penalised by similar expeotations when they oame faoe-to-faoe with 
the statutory Plaoement servioes and employer resistanoe. As Mr. D. O. 
commented: "It's a case of 'give his the broom and let him sweep up, 
Then he can't oause any trouble'. Anployers keep the jobs simple* 
.. The deaf have all got low-grade jobst cleaning out 
toiletst 
swee ping--up *e 11 
Thus, the relative uniformity with whioh the hearing impaired per- 
ceive themselves to be categorisedg generally at the lowest oommon denom- 
inator of oompetenoe is vividly highlighted. Andq as indicated in Chap- 
ter 3, the integration of low expectations of others has a tendency to 
become self-actualisinge 
Respondents tended to polarise into two oamps: a small number (5 in 
Group 1 and 1 in Group III) who thought that the hearing impaired were 
capable of doing most jobs, given the ohance, encouragement, appropriate 
qualifications and educational attainments. These responses 
tended to 
reflect the experiences of those whose own range of employment 
had not generall. 
been circumscribed by hearing loss, and who 
had not internalised poteAtial 
stigma threats. 5 subjeots in Group It 
4 in Group II and I in Group V 
were unable to comment at all on the question, regarding 
it as "outi3ide 
- 13o - 
their experience". 
However, the majority of respondents who commented generally con- 
demned the range on offer as narrow and restrictive, reflecting, in many 
casesp the perceived reality of their own experience* Comments span d 
all Communication Groups, numbering 13 in Group 1,3 in 11,2 in 111, all 
5 in IV and 8 in Ve 
Those suffering most from a peroeived restriction in their range of 
job opportunities tended to be those whose communioation skills deviated 
most markedly from the norm (although this did not hold entirelyq vis, 
Mr. D. O. 's comment)* Yet it is important to note that the range of jobs 
experienced hardly reflects the innate t or in some caseeg acquired abil- 
ities of respondents: witness Xre H, H. (III) with 1-i aredits Prom the 
Open University -to his name; Mr. R. B. (IV) and Mrs. B. L. to (IV) liter- 
ary sophistioationg and the native intelligenoe ofq amongst othersq Mr. 
P. J. (III) , Mr* M. C. 
(IV) 
, Mr. G. C. 
(V) 
t Miss N. A. 
(V) 
9 Niss Re Ce 
(V) 
and Mr. D. S. (V)o 
And even with creditable qualifications -a IkLploma in Catering Man- 
agemirt (Miss B. G. ) I and a degree in Theology 
(Kre BX. ) , and efrecrtive 
interpersonal commnication skills,, the phone was effeotively seen an 
an insuperable obstacle to any consideration or expanded job opportunities, 
Some respondents perceived the restriction in terms of both felt 
and enaoted stigmat and the imposition of hearing norm by professional 
(and other) labellerso Againg this was a feeling characteristic of 
pondents from all Commanication Groups. Xre LA. (I) : "There's no real 
reanon why deaf people can't do most jobs. An umised range is 
available. I think hearing people say what jobs deaf people should 
do". 
MIL- 
. Phe 
imposition of dominant hearing norms and definitions was a theme 
seized on by Mr. E. B. 
(IV): "People have very definite immges of how 
they expect you to be, They say 'You can do this, but that's as 
far as you got. You have limitations. They say what your limi. 
tations are. You dontt have a chanoe to say what your abilities 
are.. The range is very rigid. Same old thing .. social vc; 
ýrs 
say you must be gratefal for the Job yougve got. People beze havq low ex.. 
- 131 - 
Pectations of you* I don't want to be sitting here until I go to 
collect my pensiono I want to use the ability I've got* But I get 
told off for being too aggressive* I'm told it doesn't matter what 
the job is so long as you've got one* But I'm a very questioning 
Person"* 
At corroboration interview,, more than a year laterl his position had 
mellowed oonsiderablyq owing -to his appointment as voluntary Organiser 
Of the local Breakthrough Club* As he commented sigaificantlyl "I"ve got 
a position now* And responsibility" 
- this for the first time in his life* His definition of the situation had 
tbus ohangedo Able to "slip in' Breakthrough administrative work whilst 
others were "gossipine enabled him to view his previously despised post 
a oopy typist almost as an advantage* Such abilitieng howeverg had been 
obscured behind the all-embracing master-status trait or inoompetent speech 
and lipreading performance as far as his paid employment was ooncernede 
S*T. (IV) provided a ray of insight in-to the aoculturation pro. 
cesses which had oocummd at school: "AA deaf schoolog girls taught 
laundry and sewing; boys shoe-repairing and bakery"* 
it is hardly surprising that these are the expectations, if not the aw. 
pirations which are carried over into adult lire - with predictable re- 
sults in some cases* Both Xn3. S*To and Kiss I. Ao, (similarly instruated) 
had spent a large part, of their employment careers as machinists* 
Niss Koko, howeverg had wanted to be a fashion desigmero lvident37 
the Careers Offioer had asked Miss NA. what she could dog as opposed to 
what she would like to doe The response was predictable. "I can sew* 
So was machinist"# she signed* 
The inexorability of the process was further comented on by Xiss PJ, lw. 
(V) mother. "School teacher told them only jobs you can do. Not much". 
Niss R. *Co 
(V) jog howeverl somewhat exceptional* Her schooling had 
consisted largely of embroidery -tuition and religious instruction,, She 
left school un ble to read or writee She oomented: "Teachers think 
/me/ stupid *. Feel I ýas taught an a ohýld". 
- 132 - 
At the age of 18, it was her mother who taught her to read and write. 
Miss R. C. has now escaped peripherally from the expectations of her 
teaohers and has a Civil Servioe post as a typist q with the possibility 
of being trained as a word prooessor. The attainment of literaoy skills 
with which to enhance her job prosPects represents quite a unique attOmPt 
to reverse her disoredited status. It is all the more so, as her resis- 
tance to the Pejorative definitions of hearing colleagues at work is in 
marked Oontrast to her total avoidanoe of then sooially. She shiln hear- 
ing people, feeling herself to be totally shased in their eyes. This 
avoidanoel however, is not without a oartain elemirt or loondeaming the 
oondemners'l essential to preserving some reminiants of self-respeat. "Some 
hearing never learn sign* So 012EI" 
Like most signing deaf, however, her distrust of theariest is an active, 
dyn&mio foroe. She would only oonsent to my interviewing her with the 
help and support of our mutual friend, Miss N. A. I was the first hear- 
ing person (not on professional business) ever to be adadtted to her 
flat. The situational nature of strategy nt is well illustrated 
by these oontrasting behaviour patterns in dirfdrent life domaizw* 
Miss H. Q, and Kies MP. (V) had also resisted definitions of then 
which would have circumscribed their work lives - although not without 
some diffioulty. And Mr. G. C. (V), after many years# 'hibernation' as 
a Clerioal Offioer, was attempting -to "blase a trail" by applying to 
Goldsmith's College to train as a youth worker for the deaf, following 
several years' voluntary part-time work as youth club leader for the 
deaf. "First deaf person ever ý to go there", he signed. The provision 
of an interpreter at the College may allow such a proposition to mater- 
ialise. The critical difference to aspirations whioh a positive eval- 
uation of other aspeots of his self in his CaPaoity as youth olub worker 
hardly needs stressing. It should also alert one to the dangers of re- 
garding apparent quiesance as 
indicative of passive acceptance of c4hers' 
definitions. Total absence of struggle 
for more positive definitions of 
- 133 - 
self is rare. (This is a theme whioh will be more fully developed later). 
However, varying degrees of oapitulation with others' definitions 
. 
did often oharacterise the peroeptions of other Group IV and V respondents* 
The dirriculties involved in re-training without the help or an interpe- 
terp and faoing a seemingly blank wall of resistanoe to having occupat- 
ional ideas 'above one to station' t had resulted in a kind of lassitude 
and ooncurrenoe in the verdiot: as far an job choioe was oonoorned, op- 
tions were firmly limited. "Sam, same q Sam" as Miss CA. signed suoo- 
inctly. To the extent that apathy prevailed at the restricted range cf 
jobs availableg partial and episodic role engulfuent tended to occur. 
Those respondents who felt the hearing impaired had the chanoe to 
tackle most jobs tended to have little experience of the diffiamIties in- 
volved. The faot that the obtaining of qualifiostions and asoeptanoe on 
to training oourses are predicated on positive definitions Of PO*Gm*: i&l 
oapabilityl, rather than the almost automatio aucrip*ions of witlowness 
with which the ooAmunioatively incompetent were often subjeat, seemd 
to go unappreciated,, A typical response was that of Miss P,. L, (I)* 
"So maoh depends on employers" attitudes. Given the shanoe, Ild 
say there were a lot of opportunities .* ir somwonaos skill is 
good and they're capable of the jobj I don't e4w mby they should 
be restricted"o 
Any alleviation of this situation is ultimately only resolvable# I 
su&; est , by a renegotiation of 
the statue or he&ring ispaired people in 
sooiety. This is hardly likely to be forthooning from the well-intentioned 
but paternalistic efforts of professionals, whot additionallyg often 
have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. The oatalyst whioh 
might disentangle the amplifying nature of this prooess has yet 
to nat- 
eriabse in the world of work. 
Nevertheless, awareness of the used for politioal impetne for change 
from the hearing impaired themselves oame from Miss A. S. 
(I): "A lot cf 
firms oould make jobs available to the deaf but don't because they 
havnIt got the imagination. The stimalus 
is going to have to come 
ý 134 - 
from the deaf themselves and their families". 
It was a feeling echoed by Mr. M. C. (IV). "It to up to deaf people to 
fight. As in the U. S. This country is way behind the States where 
they have deaf doctors and lawyersoo"o 
This was not something most of the other respondents I talked with were 
either oonversant, or oomfortable with. Politiois&tion as a strategyq 
Was oonspiouous by its absenoe. Tot, not only in the traditional range 
of jobs limitable t for the deaf disappearing. WithOut POlitiG&I imPstuB 
to exploit the advantages of developments in tole oonummioat ions teohnol- 
ogy, prospeots for the hearing impaired are bleak* 
(b) Keeping in Line: 'Helj2t frOm ths Statu'tOEZ P14LoGmzt SsrviOO8 
Any disaussion. of the diffi(mlties hearing impaired fa(w in aoquir- 
ing a job would be inoomplete without referenoe to those agenoies whose 
fanotiong ostensibly, is to facilitate this, The paradox, howeverg lies 
in the penalising impaot of definitions made by agonoies cast in the role 
of helpers (a paradox well documented in 'the literature in relation to 
those with other impairments)o Gontrol agents, too, are interaoting with 
others, butj unlike informal definereq organinational imperatives tend 
to impose an additional dimension, Orrisial labelling imrolven categcm-.. 
isation - +, he offisially sanotioned typioation or aiient/pationt/belpse , 
as a means of getting through the buBiness in hand, and 
keeping the 1work 
prooess moving smoothlyo Flor the olient, the oonfrontation is gener&lly 
a unique experience; to the definer, 
it is routine. Pbr the former, it 
tends to be eateew-lowering and prospect diminishing. 
In the searah for jobs, respondsnts are often brought up against the 
statutory plaoement services: careers offioers 
for those with segregated, 
residential BOhOOlingl and 
the IRO and sooial workers for the deaf for 
the hearing impaired in adult life* 
The foous is both on an ability to acquire positive information about 
a range Of jObsp and 
to secure referral for interview. It is, perhaps, 
another classic example of 
a stigma-oontest. We are dealing with a bar- 
ý 135 - 
gaining process of attempting to impose favoured definitions of self 
against an institutionalised armoury of potentially negative definitions. 
The deviant outcome is reflected in the kind of jobs to which the hear- 
ing impaired are referred. As notedv the range is not perceived to be 
encouraging. 
In- -A. 
Particularly for those whose oommnication deficit is obtrusivat 
the hearing impaired are apparently perceived by the statutory services 
as 'hard to plaoet (with all the negative oonn tations which suah a dosig- 
nation implies)# equivalent in status to epileptics, and the "mentally 
disordered' (BROWN, 1982). This was an ascription, however, which tend6d 
to enoompass all hearing impaired clienteg almost regardless or the evi- 
dentnesis of their handioapq onoe the trait was identified* 
It was explained that it was as much the unprediotability of the 
hearing impaired which caused plaosment probleno ao the communication 
loss itself. Moreover, that it wax wriften rather than Verbal 00mltumi- 
oation defioienoies whioh was the doterring faator 
2aI disagree, I 
maintain it is oral competency which sets the scene, and which indicates 
the direotion ftrther outoomes and definitions will takeo 
The precise meaning of lunpredictabilityt wLs diffisult to pin down. 
It appeared to refer to a range of unexpected disruptive oocurrenoe in 
interaction with oolleagues and employers, from -the stickiness and un- 
ease arising from breached expectations of normality, to outbtursts of 
frustration and recourse to physical tsolutionst. It is Preoisely these 
kindwof stigma reactions to oral skills which are evaluated as deviard 
with whioh I am oonoerned. 
This was, nevertheless, a partiaularly sympathetic Careers Officer, 
anxiousl wen, to learn Sign Language to 
facilitate communication at in- 
terviews. If her expectations had already beoome fixated at this level, 
the expectations of the averaAe LRO, with 
little or no inoentivq to 
aocruire skills and oontetenos in dealing with hearing impaimd clients are likely 
- 136 - 
to be further diminished. 
Predictablyq registration increased with severity of impairment. 
Registered respondents mwbered: 4 in Group 19 2 in 11,2 in 1119 3 in 
IV and 9 in Group V; unregistered numbered 19 (plus one lapsed subject 
in Group I), ie. 9. respondents in Group 1,5 in 11,1 in Illt 1 and I 
lapsed in Group IV, and I in V. (xi, 3s H, ýq. was oovered by the lffirw- 
ative Action programme in the U. S. )3. 
It is pertinentl therefore, to look at the shared meanings and under- 
standings respondents held of these professional helpers in their seamh 
for employment. mhere reoourse mw made to their servioes. Respondents I 
peroeptions of the serrioe refleoted their varying degrees of direct oon- 
tact with it. Actual registration with the IRO did not necessarily inply 
use of her servioes. 1 r9BPOudlmt in GrOUP II, I in 1119 2 in IV and 6 
in Group V were registered, but used other souroes, after a history of 
bitter experienoes. Not surprisingly, those with most diffioulty in ao- 
quiring employment were most vooal in their disparagement or the mo, 
Negative commentel howeverg ooourred ao"ss all Comuni ion GroupsE6 
moreover, it is noteworthy that increased eontaot wax not neosssarilr 
a ftnotion of decreased oommnioative oompetenoe, Those in Gomnini ion 
Groups I and II were as likely -to have voluntarily oonsulted the servioe 
as their oolleagaSs in Groups IV and V. for whom it was often a matter 
of oomplianoe with decisions already taken for them. The peroeptions of 
the former groupp however, were hardly more favourable. 
Generally, positive oomments oame only from those respondents who 
might have registered wei "a preoaution"q but who had little or no 
direat 
experienoe of the IIHO on whioh to base their judgements. 
Mr., N. N. (II) 
oommented, for example: "I would 
have registered if I hadn't miastered 
what I IV6 done in the past few months. I possibly will as a pro- 
tection in case of redandanoy"o 
pr, edictably, some respondents did not know what the IRO or the quota 
system was (Mr. AJC. j for instanoe); or it was perceived as having little rele- 
- 137 - 
vant to offer, if respondents were securely placed. 
Other respondents totally misunderstood the functions of the DR09 
4 
confusing the Green Card with a bus pass (Mr- C-S- 
(V)- Or, as Kre H. H. 
(III) commented: "I was put on the Green Card. I find it a legal pro- 
tection for other calamities, like your house burning down. You'd 
get that much more compensation". 
(These are findings borne out by my earlier MA dissertation). They are 
illustrative of the routine assumptions of officials that the-, "explanations' 
they may give are readily understood, although these are rarely grounded 
in any kind of appreciation of the commonsense underistandin s and expec- 
tations of their clients. The Quota System has been under review since 
1979. Contrary to many predictions, as of July 1982, the Government do- 
cided to retain it, with all its imperfections. A Voluntary Code of Prac. 
tice is being drawn up,, but it is doubtful whether an improved rapproche- 
ment between DRO and client will materialise when evaluations concerning 
I deviant I speech are still part of the official meaning sygitems of DRDs. 
Respondents I talked with in these sub-samples, being adultt have 
often been critically affected by the stigma I contend registration brings 
in its wake. As part of one's identikit, the Green Card does not function 
in the same way as possession of an Access Card. Only Miss R. C., out of 
the entire sample, felt she had been positively helped by the Service* I 
understand that IxI only agreed to employ her if she agreed to register,, 
rather than employing her because she was registered already, 
The 'Stock' Response. "They're not geared to deaf 212ELe" 
Mr. L. M. recounted his frustrations with the Service. "Bo useless. 
I got the impression he was so bored with me .. I've been asking 
for a re-training course since May. It's not for want of trying I 
haven't got one yet" (First interview). ".. He mattered something 
about electronic wiring - the RNID's running a course, but it's for 
the deaf not the hard of hearing .. I've suggested interior decor- 
ation, gardening, but they say I might fall off a ladder*. I wanted 
information on other jobs, and they sent me a leaflet on accoun- 
tancyll' (his previous job). 
Stigma reactions, the lack of interestscare in communication2 and 
Vertigo is one adverse side-effect of some kinds of hearing impairment. 
Mr. L. M. told me he did not suffer from it. 
- 138 - 
a routinised disinclinatica to bother overmuch OnlY served to OsPh"i'Oe 
the second. -clauills status which many hearing impaired have already absorbed 
into their self-concept from other sources* 
The lack of resourc*fuliness in searchin out alternativo employmmt 
options to the traditional rung* of I jolm for th* deaf I was strongly ON- 
Phasis*d by many respondents frcm all Commmication groups* I suggest 
that for placement officeral certain categori*z of jobs are considered 
suitable for the hearing impaired - as they are for all impaired groups - 
according to a set of preconceptions about each impairmento These are 
culled from tkat readily available stock of comon-sens* knowledge in our 
sotiety an to what 'the disabled' are capable of, Any client who queries 
this, or wishes to step beyond the boundaries set is a threat to the 
smooth flow of the organization, and the efficiency of the officer hezvelfo 
Stereotyping : Lg Seatly geared to smooth wSanizational functi=JIM * 
In faetg routine organisatio»1 typing in a»'la ous to the informal noc- 
Jai stereotypin with which I shal I loo soncermod iz the n4mt chapt*ro 
Th* two aro couplemmtaryo Both d*porsonalino and deny tho actual k*tero- 
g*noity asonVt the heaAng ispaired population, An Nr* lr*J, (In) 
commented: "The, Job Centre - what they *xpoot a deaf person to do in 
narrower and lower,, They push the dirtiost jobs that a hearing 
person wouldn't take an to you. They 1pram you to take thee. 
Th=q boycad routine att*upto at obtainjim interviwe witkiu tho 
strictly circumscribed categories of I jobs for the doaf II little trouble 
was seen to be taken to extend the range into new areas. Reactimis from 
two respondents in Groups I and V are illustrative of this commonplace, in- 
stitutionalised response: Mrs* A. R.: "No one says you are capable OUý 
doing this* No one taken a positive attitude. They my Look at the 
cards; and then if there's nothin that taken your fancy, then 
it's Bye--byeo There's no real hel to look for options. 
mrs. P. K. commented: "Pls been asked to do cleanine. Miss P. K. intek- 
jected at this pointj fiercely indicating she did not want to do cleaning. 
Mrs. P. K. continued: "A32 they want is for her to nop and tidy up and 
got them off the dole. They don't take into consideration the deal 
- 139 - 
ohild hersel: rl. 
Thus oultural stereotypes concerning the levels of oompetenoe of 
the hearing impaired tend to be generalised to all hearing impairedg re- 
gardless of ability and qualifioations, and are suocessfully intezb2alised 
by officials. The result is that the IRO functions as a very effective 
gatekeeper to any attempts at job enrichment or enlargement- Her defi- 
nitiozu3 have prima0y, In turn, suoh stigmtising oraoially arfects the 
self-ooneept, of those they are purlmrted to help, and are passed on to 
employers, reinforcing any negative evaluations alreadýy held* This is 
exemplified with clasedc suooinotness by Nr. D. O. , additionally stigma- 
tised as thopelessf. His weekly trip to the Job Centre evinoes the 
stook response: " Got nothing at all, dearieo Come baak in the middle 
of the week when it"s quiet'"* 
(ii) Handling the System 
Suoh are the power differentialis that bargaining over alternative 
definitions of self is largely to the detrimont of the hearing imumdred. 
olient , although the extent of disreputable status imputed Is still a 
funotion or the degree or oommunioative oonpetenoe, Howeverg faoed with 
orficial labellerst whilLst oommmioative compe-tenoe made mom diffbreium 
to outoomes, it made mach lens of an impacrtg partiaularly for dinomdit. 
able respondonts, than had been antisipated, 
However, unlike more inforaml definereg the Job Centre or IRO are 
readily identifiable targets against which minor strategy managementp 
for a-rample attempts at noutralisation, oan be waged, Disorediting the 
discreditors is a not uncommon tactio, witness -the emstio remark or Mr. 
S. B.: "Theyfre all old boys sitting their time out until retiremut"o 
Otherwisep a robustj Positive rejection against the possibility off 
being anf3nared in such negativev institutionalised definitionB was mani- 
fested by onlY two resPOnclOntst interestingly from Groups IV and V, where 
communioative competenoe deviated markedly from the norm. The sooial wid. 
- 140 - 
emotional resouroes of Mrs. N. F. and Miss G. F., in resisting this and 
other OtigmatiBing ProoesE3es, will be mentioned in other oontextso Aotive 
resistanoe to institutionalised labelling seemed to be a much less oh&r- 
acteristic response of other respondents from these (Iroupse Nrs. N., F* 
commented wryly: "The IRO at ex, has got a speech impedisentl e. I've 
always avoided registration., I'm not, -too keen on being a statione 
tio. There's this Big Brother inagee ir I thought registration 
would help organise the deaf into a roroe then I would* It"s no I help otherwise". 
G, F. had similarly reftsed, shrewdly aSSeBSing its effect on restrio- 
tingg rather than enhanoing her job prospecrts. 
Itr-passing official ohan Is was a more Emooessful patterned adap- 
tation used, on the whole, by signing respondents, who were generally 
able to rely on membership of the deaf oommunity to support them and fao-- 
ilitate introdaotion, -to Jobs, thus obviating the labelling promes to 
some extent. Miss N. A. . for example , had found her latent post with the 
help and intervention of a friend from Claphas Deaf Club. 
Such reliance of respondonts fron Chroups 1119 IV and V on persondl 
intervention from friends and relatives in in keeping with the literat-o 
ure on the subject, It is, however, often the result of long and bit-ter 
experienoe with the offioial plaosment servioes, It represents a sit-a 
uational avoidanoe of definitions whiah are not only painftll bat ulti- 
mately totally demoralising- 
On ocoasiorm, Miss M. A. and Mrs, S. T, displayed still rw4her skill 
in avoiding the impact of penalising definitions by approaching 
firms 
direct, rather than relying on the mediating practices of an inter- 
preter Rejection had been the usual outcome following recourse to 
this latter approach* Miss M. A. commented: "JobB difficult. Unless 
you can meet boss face-to-faoe and he Will Use his own 
judgement. 
Hiring a matter of attraction. $I don't like the look of her' or 
fI think she looks OKI". 
partioularly affectedg howeverl were those most in need: the Pro- 
foundly prelingually orally deaf with no conventional oomaxinioation 
-141 - 
skillBj with whom IRW were totally unable to eoumminicate. If respond- 
ents are unable to oonemit with the appropriate serviae beoause the staff 
are inad6cfuately trained to oope with their particular handioap, one may 
well question the usefulness of Erach a servioe. Xr. X. R. (V), for iný- 
stance, was unable to visit the IRO, preoisely for this reason. The on- 
us fell heavily on his mothert who was obliged -to take freqaent time 
off work to fill the gap. 
Such prents generally felt they were raoing an impenetrable barrier 
of professional indifference and inadequaove There was a very real 
sense of desparation in their attempts to make the system work for their 
hearing impaired off-spring; but family engulfment in failure wa often 
a oharacteristio reature or their understanding of the situation, Wit- 
ness the remarks of Mrs. 
found him both jobs 
IIHO she didn't like 
lot at Job Gentres. 
trated 4, * Itts been 
hospitals .* done a 
C. S. t "I feel no one's taking any notioeo I 
at IxI and "xxt. Bat when I approsehed the 
me interfering. He's been messed around a 
He keeps going baok and forth and gets fras- 
going on now near an two years ** I've rung 
lot of activity for him. No one wants to help". 
Pareirts in such a situation were obliged -to adopt what IMRT 
(1979) has referred to as an Rentrepreneurial role'" in an attempt to 
fill the gaps left by inadequate or non-existairt statutory or voluztary 
provision. The Deaf oommnity filled to a large extentt SuOh a ftmlftiOn 
for its signing members, but was oonspicuously absent as a souroe of 
support for its more vulnerbale non-signing oolleagmes. 
DS. , bewildered that his son had not 
been taught sign langý- 
uage at school , and faced with the oonseqaenoes of 
his sonts illiteraoyj 
had subsequently dOne all the negotiating for D's entry on to training 
courBes, including attendanoe at an Employment Rehabilitation Centre, 
a Goverment Skilloentrep and Queen Elizabeth's College for the Disabled 
at Leatherhead. He commented bitterly: "They don't lead you into a I- 
career, at school. Careers planning was nil. I shouldntt have 
had to do all this. I did it, but I shouldn't have had to. Leather- 
head, that sort of area, just wasnIt investigated by careers 
People when it should have been ... 
The Government Trai ing 
- 142 - 
Oez'tre at Ix" had no provision to take boys of 16. And they didntt 
want to beoamse of D's deafness. I got him in - on a person-to- 
person basis. So they took D. on eventually to train as a ailler". 
80oial workers, whilst no longer speoifically geared to help with 
job plaoement , were similarly seen as offering little supportive assisý 
tance in this areap although being better equipped to oommunioate., with 
their olients. (A disoussion of the aontrolling powers of these, large- 
ly hearingg possessors of an arcane visual language, and their poterow 
tially powerral role as interpreters/sediatorst iog unrortunately bom 
yond the soope of this thesis, I wrely note it in passing)* 
An extremely uncomfortable hour was spent, with Ifti3. X. R. 9 bitterly 
engaged in oritioising the peroeived inaotion of her sonle sooial wor. 
ker, who was personally known to me* It posed vividly for m the dilemm 
of "Whose Side am I on? " 
Mrs. P. K. sumed up the peroeptions of this group of respondents. 
"All the jobs she to had has bosh me. I've always helped her. 3Mt 
when P. wanted help from outside she's never got it". 
The unfulfilled expeotations of help whioh tend to aharacterise re4m 
spondents in Cbroups I and II, and the total dvj2! nd*zm)e on It by the dis- 
oredited proroundly prelingually orally Group T dear respondents, high- 
lights the disillusioncout experion(nd across all Coommaica-tic)n ctmups 
at a service which not only stigmatises, but in term of delivery, is 
seen as to-tally ineffectivw-ý, 
This has been a somewhat brief , bat salutwy, exoursion into -the 
world of professionals as tagents of sooial oontroll. The faat -that re- 
spondents repreSenting &11 Coniminioation Groups felt they had experi6uOed 
very similar evaluations of their oapabilities - regardless of wido 
differences in capability and oommunicative oompetence - lends sub- 
stance to my case. Any distinction between discreditable and discredited 
status beoomes somewhat blurred. 
Opportunities for renegotiation of status in an attempt to nfflitra. 
- 143 - 
lise the impact of such stigma reactions were strictly limited. Thus, 
to have ignored the official dimension would have been to distort the 
impact of the labelling process on definitions and outcomes. It is with- 
in the institutional framework of an agency that stereotyping has as 
much power to obscure the natural heterogeneity and differing abilities 
of respondents as occurs in informal, less structured encounters, Whilst 
the similarities in evaluation that I am concerned to explore are en- 
hanced, the differences which recourse to strategy management provide 
are minimised. Contrary to expectations, the theme of comm2nicative 
competence was of less relevance as a tool for imposing more favourable 
definitions of self* 
This may well have something to do with the fact that we are not 
dealing here with stigma contests primarily between peer equals. It may 
well be that the power gap between definer and defined here is too 
great to be bridged by the kind of manoeuvres possible at a more infor- 
mal level. Only the more forceful forms of strategy maziagements princi- 
pally politicization, are likely to have any lasting impact on defini. 
tions sanctioned by an institutional framework. (This may well account 
for the allegations by critics_of the presentation of stigmatised vic. 
tims as passive recipients of the opprobrium heaped upon them, most of 
the labelling studies having concentrated on official sanctioning). How. 
ever this view does little justice to the "minor mutterings" (NAMELWS 
(1979) which occur at this level. 
The complex interweaving of official definitions and less formal 
processing culminate in the face-to. -face encounter between hearing im- 
paired applicants and prospective employers. 
FACING A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER 
The successful handling of an interview is perhaps the classic test 
situation encountered of the management of communication skiU8 in Up- 
wardly mobile Western societies. The emphasis on oral competence -i 
some cases supplemented by literacy skills in the prior completion of 
appl. icat i o,, w forms astapikee- at 
the very heart of a hearing impaired per- 
- 144- 
son's deficit. It is the meanings aBoribed to such a deficit in this 
situation which are of significanoe here- I* is my 4ýontention that daý 
viations from expected norms of izrteraction are heavily stigmatised in 
this confrontation - which also places a Pr8MiU[A on oral style* 
(a) Prior Preparation: Applioation Fbrms 
The problems of prior oompletion of applioation forms not unnatur- 
ally affected those respondents whose written Jb3glish and oompr*hension 
were poor, For signing respondents, written Maglish syntax is very much 
at variance with BSL, and attempts at trawliteration. can lead to quite 
bizarre results, Mr. H, H. (III) emphasised an important point: "Pbrms 
are biased - 
in favour of hearing people, You've got to follow 
their jargon. That's the problem". 
Although the pattern of linguistic retardation may well be slowly 
ohanging with the inoreased use of T. C. in sahools, my prelingua3ly 
deaf adalt respondents with the typioal, ream age of 7/8 or less 
(CONRAD, op. oit)l are bound to feel at a disadvantage. For Kro F. J. 
(III), for examplej "Ilve trouble with &PPlioation forms. Spelling* I 
oan read but I oan't spell"* 
Mr. Go Co (V) who is a signing respondent 9 nevertheless writes tolerably 
well. Yet he oonoeded: "Some qaestions on applioation forms diffioult, 
Had to get help". 
'Odd' syntax and grammatioal errors on a form are readily penali- 
sed. Sven if the applicant is lucky enough to reaah the interview stage 
after having so nakedly revealed his limperfeationst, the odds against 
obtaining the job have already been Btaoked agaimt him. AB SILVER 
(1974) notes: "That the applioant is unable to oomplete a form properly 
only enhanoes a prospeotive employer's preconoeived idea or spork... 
taneous impression that the deaf applioant is mentally slow or 
generally sub-standard". 
(Unfortunately, the implications of such a statement were ignored). 
It is those respondents, prelingually Profoundly deaf, with no 
speeah, and funotionally illiterate, who are the most stigmatised and 
disadvantaged in the job acquisition process. It is for this group, as 
ýq 
145 - 
MONTGOMERY and MILLER (1977) and MITCHELL (1979) have argued, where lit- 
eracy may make that crucial difference -I suggest between total role 
engulftent and mare discredited status in the search for employment. 
There iiB additionally the problem of deolaration of the impairment 
itself on the application form, whicht in the eyes of Miss B. G. (I) 
imnediately highlighted her deviant status. She commented: "Where you 
can fill in forms beforehand it's not too difficult. I went for 
one interview in a hospital. I was nervous. I had to fill in the 
form on the spot. It got difficult. I sensed they just werenOt 
interested when it came to the question about being disabled". 
Pbroed avowal was bitterly resented by such a respondent who was pro- 
lingually partially hearing, but able to normalise many oompartments 
of her present employment, and giooial situa-tion. 
Strangely, this was not. an imme which respondmnts weemd to asso- 
oiate specifioally with applioation forms, for jobs. Namy respondents 
found jobs without having to oomplete form. It emrged more generally 
in relation to aooeptance or rejeetion of handioapped - and disoreditoo 
able or discredited - status. Only one other respondent, in Qmmp V, 
commented on an employer's requiremnt to avow her handioapq whiah she 
felt to be so detrimental to her self-esteem, Miss R, C, h&lf---migmd/ 
half-wrote : "Went to interview on own. Very nerwo so Filled in appli- 
cation form. I thinic CK., Asked m to put 11doaf anddumbi on form* 
I wrote 'Ideaft. Embarrassed, Hate it"o 
(At oorroboration interviewq interestingly, she was endeavouring to 
learn to speak. It appeared that her oomitment to &Ohievemsnt wag, &+. 
least as strong as the values the deaf Oommunity plaoes on sooiability 
rather than pursuit of the suooess motif, as her attempts at penetrating 
the hearing world of work attest. It also represents an attempt to re. 
pudiate her disoredited deaf status in the employment situation, ) 
(b) The Interview 
SUOOeSBfUl interview management is a reflection not only of what 
the person says but how he says it 
(XATARAZZID, 1965). The problems 
assooiated with lipreading and deviant speech have already been dos- 
- 146 - 
cribed in detail. The oorrect interpretation of non--Verbal cues is 
also important. Together, they form the c; hief sources of information 
for the interviewer. If performanoe, fails to accord to culturally aoo- 
eptable standards the interview is unlikely to be suooessful. Commini- 
oative competence is critical in projecting the image of a sucoessfal 
work persona. 
The interview represents a highly stylised oommunioation situationg 
generally dominated by middle clasil OXPOOtatiOns Of 8PO00h ($OmPet"Oeo 
Decisions are made on the basis of what ist as LCOM (1951) Points 
out, a "limited segmental oontaot". Any skill in self-prosentation gen- 
erally has to be made within the spaoe of half an hOur or lesso 
Decisione are made about people on suoh a rirst impression basis 
as the interview stipulates (applioation form apart)* For th* hearing 
impaired, STELL13 (in ADIAIR) suggests. - " Perhaps the most difficalt 41. 
angigzmnt that the average deaf job-seaker might face in that of 
selling himself to a prospective employer *,. The impressions 
that are made on the employer usually determine whether a job 
is to be given "* 
As Beatrioe WRICET (1960) has noted "rirst impressions of a person are 
espeoially potent in that they set up a direotion, that exerts a 
ooiritinuous effbot on later impressions of that person** 
Stereotyping is readily brought into Play to fill any breaches in ex- 
peotations. Foons on one partioular trait -a hearing aidl the physi-m 
oa-1 tension and strain of lipreadingg or linoompatent' speech often 
means a person is categorised as being of this or that 'type'. Retro- 
spective interpretation takes place. Not only is a person of type xe 
He was 'that way all along% Negative judgements may be made at this 
juncture which often have a direct impact on Bubsequent job status 
and identity. 
While first impressions are not necessarily the main criterion 
determining the suocess or failure of a deaf applioant I they are fre- 
quently the criteria actually used. AMMIS 
(op. cit) study of pro- 
foundly prelingually deaf unemployed man comments farther on this 
- 147 - 
*threshold" problem: "A deaf man's inability to oommunicate effectively 
and thus make a Batisfaotory initial impression on employment 
perBon 1 offioers or employers is reoognised as the great Btum- 
bling blook to employment"* 
Only when a hearing impaired person is actually in the job is he able 
to negotiate further whether his deviations in communioative perform- 
anoe are to be generalised to other fields of activity or not. YwW 
hearing impaired never pass this threshold, suoh is the pervasiveness 
of stereotyping and master status ascription of deviance operating at 
the interview enoounter. 
For some respondents, the question of interview management was not 
relevant, having been secure in their jobs for a considerable period of 
t ime (Miss V. G. , Mr. W. C. 
(II) 
, Nre. G. L. t Mr. N. C. . Mr. G. C. 9 Miss 
R. C. ). For others, the interview level varied with the nature of the 
job, some being of a mach more cursory nature than others. Nevertheless, 
the interview situation oan fairly be said to present problem of sm. 
agement to respondents right across the Comanioation sPeotrun. 
(i) To tell-or not to tell 
The question of disolom: Lre is of oritical importanoe, particularly 
for respondents in Groups I and II. OnlY 4 respondents (in Group I) 
felt oonfidont in their oapacity to loarry it off". The extent to whiah 
an employer arrives 'blind$ to the situationt or whether the hearing 
impaired applioant is preoscled by offiaial definitions of others is int- 
portant in making the deoision. 
For those actively engaged in interview management, or able to re- 
call their perceptions of the situation, or simply speculating about it, 
reactions ranged from those who oonsidered that telling would isse- 
diately jeopardise their chances of obtaining the job (5 subjects: 3 in 
Group 1,2 in II); to those who oonsidered that it would not pose a 
problem (10 respondents: 
8 in Group 1,2 in Group JI); to those whose 
handioap was immediately self-evident, sow of whom were sanguine about 
- 148 - 
the Possibilities of disclosure eliciting a tolerant response (4 sub- 
jeCtB: I in Group 1,3 in V), to others a great deal less so, numbering 
16 subjects (4 in Group 1,2 in 11,3 in 1119 3 in IV and 4 in V)e 
Forced disolomxre is not generally perceived by discredited respondonts 
as leading to a successful outoome. 
Reflasal to tell * was therefore oomimonest amongst those most able 
to pass. Yet ironjoally, the pervasiveness of Oultur&l stereotypes 
surrounding hearing impairment was such an to make the whole subJect an 
issuee Whether or not stereotypes or stupidity and inoompetenoe are 
tobjeotivelyt applied to the hearing impaired, they are most oertainly 
perceived to be soe 
Mro C. P. illustrates this I and his respozoe is fairly typical of 
respondonts in the first category: "I might have had difficulties get- 
ting the job if I9d told anyone because their &ttitudsis ahange 
immediately. They think theylve come up against a natter".. 
It is a paradox which lends substance to my argumnt that those 
rurthest away from the tworst I end of the oommni ion sPeotrus appear 
to be at least as pre-oooupied with stereotyping and the possibilities 
of oonsequent stigma reaotions as their oommmioatively inoospetent 
oolleagues. HIGGINS (op. cit), however, wmld argde that the signing 
deaf are not thus pro-oooupied. Having experion(MR otigma all their 
lives they are able to shrug it o". This may wall be so sooially, but, 
as I shall demonstrate I isolated in a totally hearing environment at 
work, the ability to neutralise stigma assaults has a tendency to evap- 
orate. And the orally discredited deaf are most certainly constantly 
aware of it. Neverthelessl my point holds: Miss N. P. (J), for example, 
is one of the least impaired responderrts in the sample t wearing no 
IhAwaring aid, and ohatting easily as she 
led the way up the staircase 
to her fj. -jt I without a 
backward glance at my lip movements,. Yet she 
commented : "Itd feel terribly nerv us if I had to go for an interview. 
I wouldn't admit at the interview I couldn't hear very well. I 
don1t think I'd Mt the job .. I know I'd be rated as second 
-0 
-149 - 
ohoioe if I declared my deafness"o 
This is a policy she puts into practice in her own work, confirming 
both the internalisation of stereotypes and the not uncommon praotias 
Of Stigmatising other stigmatised groupst a oharaoteristio of those 
whose identity is already threatened: "I farm out disabled on my job, 
I don't say so in advanoe. A firm isntt going to want to see 
them - Blaok, deaf, women .. " 
It is, perhaps, the very unpredictability of an interview situa- 
tion whioh affects discreditable respondents: man or woman? A board? 
Will there be suffioient light to lipread? Will he/she smoke , suck a 
peng mumble into a notbook? What about the furnishings - will they ab- 
sorb sound or refleat it? Respondonts are, as it were, not only on trial 
for a job. Their ability to convince a prospective employer that any 
communicative dericienoyt ir evident, does not detract from overall 
oompetenoe, is also on trial. 
One interesting example of skill in manoeuvring a situation so 
that passing is just about feasible was dosoribed by Mrs. C. O. It is by 
no means unoommon for hearing impaired people to ttake over' a oormr- 
sationt giving one Is interloautors little ohanoe to interoede and pro- 
voke disclosure. It is not, however, a strategy which can be sustained 
over any period of -time I and wq boomerang with disastrous effeot on 
the enoounter. Nevertheless, it worked in this situation. Ift-s. C. O. 
whose peroeived clinioal loss is qaite severe, wears two hearing aids, 
which she neatly conceals with a well-managed hair-do. "Ny interview 
for this job, I didn't think I'd get it. But I manoeuvred the 
situation so I did most of the talking, so they wouldn't ask too 
many questions. Otherwise an employer would just think you're 
stupid because you havn1t heard"* 
Those 10 respondents who did not oonsider deolaration of their im- 
Pairment to be a problem had not inoorporated suoh devaluative 
images 
in-to their sglf.. ooncept. Like Miss N. P. , they tended to have well moni- 
tored expressive oommunication skillsp and little receptive 
loss. Such 
respondents illustrate the often neglected 
fact that stigma if; not uni- 
- 150 - 
versally applicableg nor felt. It mayv howevert be BitUatiOnally Var- 
iable, Miss N. P., for example, showing no disinclination to ask her 
employer for a phone amplifier if need be: "You dontt ask your employ- 
er if you can wear spectacleag do you? " 
It must be emphasised that these were respondents whose oommunioation 
impairment was soaroely evident , muoh less obtrusive. They oould pass. 
(This oontrasts with the very few respondents (4) , foroed to deolare 
their impairment, who did not oonsider this would pose problems)* Suoh 
respondents felt able -to take the risk, unimpeded by a stigmatised pro- 
sthesis, oonfident, on the whole, in their ability to -get by . As 
Miss P. L. remarked: "I've always declared it on application forms. I 
don't think I've ever been debarred from a job or an interview. 
There are no problems so long as I can strategically place myw- 
self. I dontt see it as Penalising me. I got jobs from agencies. 
I always declare it there, too, when I have to take a dictation 
testt. It's not been a problem". 
Similar responses came from Mrs. G. L. (similarly monoaurally deaf) 
and Mrs. S. B. (I)* 
Others' oonstruotion of events, however, was less happy. Several 
disoreditable respondents mentioned the struggle involved in Emocess- 
fally surmounting the interview hurdle. Kies B. G. 's experienoes with 
the fire alarm have already been mentioned, She now has a job as a 
(sook/general factotum which, despite her qualifications, had been diffi- 
cult to obtain, She had spent some months engaged in fftitless inter- 
views. Commenting on this she said "I know it doesn't sound muoh, but 
it took an awful lot of getting"o 
Thus, despite fairly well preserved expressive skills, passing was 
not always an option available to even Commanioation Groups I and II 
respondents, partioularly where receptive oommunioation was deterior- 
ating. Mr. S. L. (II) had a folder full of interview rejeotions whioh 
he Bhowed me. He deolared "Blight deafneBB" on any applioation form. 
A somewhat bleak pessimism oharaoterised the understandings he had 
oulled from his experiences. As he commented of his new, devalued 
BtatUBI t'I've conceded a lot in termB of i3elf-defeat over the past 
yearito 
- 151 - 
He d6Bcribed one particularly crudef brutal incident. Introduoed 
by a friend over the phone to a publishing oompany, the enquiry about 
a possible job took the following turn: Friend: A friend of mine is 
going deaf. Would you be interested .. 
". The reply was: " Has 
she got big tits? If not she oan f. off .* 
He talked about other interviews: "With the Ixt. 
was to got rid of the riff-raff. The seoond 
down. There was a total laak of interest in 
deaf e.. I've been turned down by others. 19 
beoause I oouldn't use the phone* And 1xxt. 
joli,, bat was turned down beoanse of deafness. 
Phone work involved". 
The first interview 
interview I was turned 
the fact that I was 
xe fxt lagal Ibpartmnt 
I waA ideal for the 
There was so much 
Whilst the Law is perhaps not the easiest of professions to aooomm- 
odate such an impairment, the kinds of accommodation which could have 
been made were strikingly absent. The "Reasonable Aooomodation" legi- 
slated for in the U. S. 
4 
which could have enabled Mr. S, L. to continue 
in practioe with the aid of Vistel, an inter ter and some job tail- 
oring, was consPicuously absent -a raotor noted in the literature 
(CRANKATTRI 1968; PHILLIPS 9 197 5ý 
(a) and (b) *) 
This was one Particular 'notance where even salience or zenouroes 
could not modify the overridin erreote or the stigma attached to one 
partioular master trait* Whilat professional status may lead to a 
4b 
hearing of sorts, it by no means has that insulting capasity to oon- 
trol or neutralise the potentially pajorptive definitions of others. 
Mr. S. L, desoribed his efforts at obrtaining employment whilat a-till at 
the Bar, and, ostensiblyj still part of that privileged inner sanctum. 
Some Empport might well have been legitimately forthcoming, an GOOIE 
(1967) argues. Yet Mr, S. L. oommented: "There were no helpful sugg- 
estions. Had they been employers they would have turned me down 
flat without making any attempt at justifioation, beoause I'm deaf". 
The critioal point where normal 'within-group solidarity oeases 
to function additionally carries disproportionately severe penalties 
in terms of the shook effect on its victimo A quite arbitrary out-off 
point seems to operate, where deficienoieB 
in 009minioative oompetenoe 
are just sufficiently evident to attract generalised 
imputations of 
-44 
- 1,52 - 
incompetence, and stigma reactions in the form of exclusion by colleag-. 
Ues and peers. 
Mr. D. O., with thinning hairg was also unable to oonoeal hiB iM- 
pairment. With a similar fistful of refusalsl he commented on his ex- 
periences as follows: "There was one partioular Personnel Manager. He 
said 'We mast have edaoated people. Tou people don't have edaO. - 
ation'. Bat held been looking at my heariRg aid* I oan't manage 
an interview without it". He went on "Some you never hear from 
again. Others say 'We have to have bright people we oan rely on'". 
Although without formal paper qualifioationov Mr. D. O. wan very far 
from being dull , There was little doubt in his mindq however, that 
his hearing impairment I as indioated by the obtrui3ive visibility of 
his hearing aid, and its assooiation. in the minds of others with stup- 
idity, was the major factor in his repeated interview failurese 
(ii) Excuses - and rej! ction 
As communicative competence decreased and deviated fm4her from 
fetandardt hearing normog passing and 'not telling" oeased to be viable 
options. Fbr those in Commanioation, ClroupD III onvardeg oommunioative 
impairment was so self-evident that attempts at oonoealment were quite 
impossible. Skill in interview mwiagenent deolined proportionatelyl 
as recourse to gesture and writing became more common* 
Miss L. S. (III) whose attendance at interview had been too numer- 
ous to mention said "I experience terrible diffioulties, They don't 
want to know youtre deaf. It's impossible to lipreado Employers 
don't take the trouble to put themselves in the light"* 
Thus, even where impairment was evident, thoughtlessness (or igrLorance 
of how to behave) q and a disinolination to bother were stigma reactions 
seen generally to characterise respondents' peroeptions of the inter- 
view situation. The search for acceptable reasons to jastify refu- 
sal (discussed earlier in this ohapter) attests to the strength with 
which generalised imputations of incompetence oontinae to be resisted 
or neutralised at a personal level. Little oould often be done at 
the practioal level. 
- 153 - 
Yet both discreditable and discredited respondents well appreoi- 
ated. the extent to which deficiencies in communicative performance are 
devalued and stigmatised by employers. Mrs. S. T. (IV) illustrated how 
excuse-finding, where employers bothered at allt masked a contempt for 
her lack of irdelligible spee0h. With a similar litany of refasalog 
she signed "It takes a long time to find jobs. Vve had difficulties. 
txxl rejected me. They never 2M it's because you're deaf. Al- 
ways something else". 
She has, however, now capilelised on her disoredited deaf status and be- 
ccme a part-, time sign language tutor. 
Mrs. N. F. has similarly capitalised on her handioap and demonstrated 
how a sooially tainted self oan be, at least Partially, reversed* IWL 
that people are ever totally passive re0iPientS of the stigmatising 
definitions of others, as some critics of the labelling perspective 
have maintaineda As IRMIN (1%75) notes: "Those labeled deviant be- 
cause of a physical handicap often take an active part in the 
labeling prooessq they initiate self-definition, they insist that 
others define them in preferr*d wayal and -the strategies they 
choose to negotiate and settle labeling issues vary with the sooial 
context in which suoh labeling ooeurs", b 
Mrs, N*F, has demonstrated a vigorous rebuttal of her discredited stat- 
us in her work situation, and, in this sense, in perhaps, the most 
Emooessfal respondent in the sample,, 
Nevertheless, her Emooess in obtaining a sooial work job with the 
deaf was dueg she feels, to a fortuitous oombination of oircumstanoes 
whioh just happened to work in her favour. Referring to her interview, 
she felt that in any other oircumstances, the ugmal stereotypes with 
whiah she was only too familiar, conoerning her speeah difficulties 
and poor lipreading skills would have taken preoedenoe. She commented: 
ItThe S. S. D were fair at the interview! There were hearing appli- 
cants. It was a hearing panel. But the boost parents are both 
deaf so they were aware of the problems. The panel was split 
3: 3. They thought I would have too many difficulties. But I was 
doing so much as a volunteer. I think I was accepted eventually 
because the S. S. D. was trying to prove that deaf people oould 
work as well as hearing. They're a very go-ahead authority in 
that respect"- 
Her suooess here has additionally enabled 
her to disgociate herseir 
- 154 - 
from a life-time's experience of rebuffs and rejection. She commented 
of our interview: "Looking at these questions I can see how far I've 
escaped from these statements". 
Her success is somewhat unique. It represents a major reversal of 
deviant status in favour of the primacy of her definitions of self in 
one specific setting. The salience of her personal resources is as im- 
portant here as it was irrelevant in the case of Mr. S. L. 
Other discredited respondents engaged in job searching - or re- 
collecting their attempts to do so - were far less successful in neutral- 
i8ing or disavowing the impact of stigma reactions in their face-to-face 
encounters with employers. Acquiescence in the pejorative evaluations 
of prospective employers characterised the perceptions of Mr. C. S.; 
whilst role engulfment was the reaction of Mr. M. R. to repeated interview 
failure. Although, as noted, apathy and indifference are rarely mis- 
tained over long periods of time, they may temporarily immobilise and 
create an image of fixity of deviant outcomes which may be at variance 
with later perceptions of self and the ability to negotiate other solutions. 
Thus,, whilst discreditable respondents were often plagued by the 
fear of eliciting stigma reactions if they exposed themselves to the 
interview situation - and several respondents assessed their actual ex- 
perience of refusal in these terms - for discredited respondents, the 
meanings culled from a history of rejections were of a very similarl if 
harsher, nature. The commonalitY of perceptionsl howeverl wa8 charac- 
teristic of respondents from all Communication Groups. 
(iii) To rely on a helping hand, or manage alone? 
Finally, the question of whether or not to handle an interview 
situation on one's own without the aid of a mediator, for discredited 
respondents, raises the issue of the effect a helping 'hand' has on 
what CRAIG and SILVER (1966) refer to as a person's "self-sufficiency 
image". Few signing or prelingually orally deaf respondents tackled 
- 155 - 
the Bituation on their own - Miss H. Q. and Miss R. C. possibly being 
exceptional. Miss M. A. called on help if Bhe got into diffioulties. 
Responses varied with the outoome. Favourably for Mr. D. S. whose 
father always accompanies him. He commented: "Although he lipreads 
reasonably well, I interpret for him. He's been very lucky with 
interviews. The men have been very good. It's been a three- 
cornered discussion"* 
In oontrast , Miss P. K. is mother biiterly reoalled one interview: "At 
one job they gave P. a really dirriOult job to try jast so Is 
they oould turn her down without saying she's deaf", 
Generally, I would concur Prom such experiences with CRAMYATTZ's 
verdict that some kind of catalyst is neoessary - although for rather 
different reasons. As personnel offioers; in the UK are generally to- 
tally inexperienoed in dealing with the hearing impaired. 9 if a mediator 
is not present to explain the problems involved in communication and 
how these oan best be alleviatedt the result in likely to be negative. 
However, the very presenoe of a third party immediately Ibrings in-to 
play other devaluative judgewnts regarding an applioant to overall oomm- 
petence. It is a moot point which prevailse 
The interview is thus a oraoial faotor in d0tsrMini" OutcOmes in 
employment. It is itself one outoome of +, he offiaial labelling prooess 
in determining the kind of interviews whioh hearing impaired respond- 
ents are likely to obtain. It is often, as noted, the prodaot of a 
series of prior decisions made by a range of professionals - from 
teachers of the deaf, to careers officers, and the IRO. Finally, it 
is also a reflection of more informal, on-the-spot evalnatiorw by pro- 
spective employers. It is a olassio stigma oontest, where jookeying 
for a position to iMPOBe favourable definitions of self against a back- 
drop of potentiall or aotuall stigmatising OnOBt takes plaoe. The 
power differentials, however, are often such that the possibilities for 
negotiation and exchange are limited. 
Not only is the interview one of the major settings where communi- 
- 156 - 
cative performance is at a premium, and where the lack of skills is 
Particularly likely to elicit stigma and stereotyped responses. It is 
also at this initial stage in the employment prooess that further def- 
initions regarding discreditable or discredited status are Bet in motion. 
These subSecluently permeate the whole employment experienoe of subjeotj3, 
BEING OUT OF WORK: ACTUALITY AND FRARS 
This chapter concludes with an eyagn ion of the peroeptions and 
meanings my hearing impaired respondents hadq both of the aotual ex- 
perience, of unemployment, and the antiaipation of it., 
(a) "Employment will almajo be bad for -the deaf ". 
Unemployment may be viewed as the first deviant outoome at the 
economic end or the stigma reaction oontimuw. in the process or deri&- 
ing and labelling which, I suggest , takes place throughout a hearing im. - 
paired person's employment career. It is, in a sense, a 'structural 
factor. But in terms of the oonooptual framework I have outlined, it 
is 1Doth "a oonorete state Of affairs" as well as a definitional issue, 
a. s are other loutoomes' resulting from the deviwAising of oommni ive 
performanoe I shall disouss, suoh as trouble and dismissals, underem- 
ployment , and lack or promotion prospects, 
This ohapter has domonstrated that the fairly uniform applioation 
of imputations of inoompetenoe and stupidity are per(wived as being 
directly related to difficultieS in acquiring employment. Bargaining 
for a job is the very stuff of stigma oontests, in whioh negotiation 
over favourable definitionB, and the movement in and out of discredit- 
able/discredited status ebbs and flows. I have shown that in the very 
prooess of assessing someone 'B employment prospects, the uniform manner 
in which the hearing impaired tend to be categorised, both offioially 
and more informallvp tends to lead to a negative outoome. 
respondents were ourrently unemployed at the time of interview 
- 157 - 
Mr. L. M., Mr. D. O. and Mrs. A. H. (Group I); and Mr. C. S. and Mr. X. Re 
(Group V). At follow-up interviews, 2 respondents, Mr. S. G. (II) and 
Mr- F. J. (III) anticipated u mployment, having been isimed with re- 
dandanoy notioes. 
Mr. L. M. had been offered a post as Registration Clerk with #xv 
and, almost simultaneously, after strenuous efforts on his partq a plaoe 
on a Government Training Course at Leatherhead doing horticulturet a 
job he had set his heart on. However, the Department of Nsployment has 
refused to oonfirm the offer until some agreement has been reaohed re- 
smrding responsibility for attention to his ears, "The Department is 
insisting that I see their N. O. for cleaning mW ears every " 
weeks. My specialist refases. They bavOn"'t got the eqtLipInnt* So 
I haven'-,. ttaken up /the clerical post/ in the hope of doing 'this. 
It would mean I could got City and Gaildm. It. all 'turns on the 
Department of Baployment Is reaction to my speoialist ts letter". 
The outoome of this impasse was, unfortunatelylp not known. The 
professional proprietorinesm over what is but a teahnioalityq and the 
oontrolling powers of the Civil Servioe bureanamay oauld a ffeatively 
jeopardise the future of someone already at risk* Mr. I#, X, ing howe. 
ver, a normal iser , His personal and social resources . and the preser- 
vation of near 'normal oominioative skills have onabled him to over- 
come many other obstacles with which he has had to contend to date. 
It is unlikely that he will be more than temporarily deterTed by a re- 
fusal here, One oannotl however, but ask what suoh sanotiorm are do- 
sigmed to aohieve? 
The experience of the other 4 reSPonderrts unemployed at the time 
of interviewv on -the other hand, reflected virtual oapitulation with 
the definitions of others on this fundamental issue. J(r. D. O. was 
Well aware of the oamulative impact of long-term unemployment on his 
on. going prospects of ever obtaining a job. He maintained his diffi- 
culties were due t1to the visibility of agr hearing aid and my deafness". 
It was diffiCUlt for him to separate the diffioulties attributable to 
'RE 
- 158 - 
his hearing impairment from those affecting any able-bodied person 
chronically unemployed. He described his perceptions of his situation 
as follows: "It's been nearly 2 years now. The level's dropped. I111 
take anything now - car washing..,, The deaf have all got low-grade 
jobs cleaning out toilets, sweeping up .. I went to Remplor but they felt I was a risk. I wouldn't hear if something was going 
wrong with the machinery ... The IRO promised to fix me up with 
something .. But I was told I wasn't suitable. No reasons were 
given. Itd like to return to the Commnity Home, but they say 
'difficulties with the phone', and then the Social Servioes ex- 
tend it and say 6difficulties with firel'"o 
Capitulation with the dual stigma of membership of "rhe Consoript Army" 
(POLDt 1977), and a minority disabled group had led to the incorpo. 
ration of a oertain degree of trole prinaoyl, Apathy had set im. He 
deftly turned aside my suggestions. Yet, like Ift-s. A. H. t preserva ion 
of self-esteem was still suffioiently important to have reaourse to 
rationalisat ions 9 
*acoounts"19 explanatiow - in an attempt to Blake 
aooeptable Bense of ohronic failure in the eyes of the majority bear- 
ing culture. 
The two respondents in Group V chronioally unemployed, were both 
profoundly prelingually orally deaf and ftnationally illiterate. tkL. 
employrwnt is probably a frequent ooourrenoe for this gzroup, Kies P. K. 
for example, having sufferedit until latterly, fairly frequent spells 
without morko 
For these respondents with no aooeptable vehiole of oomminication 
at all, other than natural gesture and home-made signt varying degrees 
of role engulfment had set in, at the time of the interview(s). Not 
only are such victims social and ooaupational pariahs in the hearing 
world. They are also rejeated by the cleaf world. The deaf oommnity 
provides no resource on which to drawo The entrepreneurial efforts of 
both Mrs. C. S. and Mrs. M. R. in trying to obtain jobs for their sons 
have already been commented on. 
An inabilitY4 to communicate acceptably with others has profound 
practical as well aS BOCial consequenoeB for job acquiBition: an inability 
--a 
- 159 - 
to initiate and follow up contacts; to use the few resouroes the oommu- 
nity has to offer; let alone perouLade a prospective employer that the 
lack of intelligible speeoh (and an inability to read and write) does 
not generalise to incompetenoe in every other sphere of activity, 
Indeed, Mr. C. S. proudly took me upstairs to a room he had wall--* 
paperedv painted and dooorated himself. Sven to my untutored eye, it 
had all the appeweance of a professional pieoe of worke Bat he is unable 
to over(wme the 14thresholds problem referred to earlierg where he oan 
demonstrate his abilitiest so strong in the initial rejecting. stigma 
occasioned by his lack of speech*. As Mrso C. S. 'ýoomnented of her sont 
"Unemployment is his most serious problem, He gets a little job 
but he never sticks ito Hets not had a steady job for a long 
time. Employers are espeoially prejudiced against the deaf. 
The disability isntt visible. C. dk)esntt wear an aid .. SommR. - 
times I think they think he's an immigrant because of his Ih-- 
glish,,. e One job he went back there* He wasnOt allowed to lift 
sugar. 0. just walked out. There's been trouble for abomt 2 
years now" 
The broader question of employability and institutionaliged 
pressure to adhLere to a work ethic which is fast booon' an anaohron- 
ism for respondents Fmoh as Mr, CsS, - and particularly Xr. NR, - is 
only germane to my argument to the extent that both respondeirts were 
peroeived by others to be thopelesw oasest. The master status trait 
of Idambness' has effectively preolud*d Xr. C. S. frou showing what he 
oan do. And the image had been suooessfally internal ised by Nr. N. Ro 
Mrs. MR, commented of her son: "N. doesn't understand what's going one 
He just accepts things .. He used to be late at Ixt. Sometimes 
he went in, sometimes he didn't. Hets not really worried about 
job loss. He can't see the reason between deafness and job diffi- 
culties-. He sort of doesn't make con otions. He doesnIt really 
understand hes lost his job. He keeps on going back there. He 
doesn't really understand about the world of work and different 
types of jobs, He doesn't see too. much wrong with sitting in 
the house"'o 
The image was not only internalisecl* It was a self-oonfirming image, 
in that behaviour ao0urately refleoted others I definitions of him. 
It is diffioult to gauge how much of this inability to 'make oonn- 
ections' is due to total lack of commnicative skills and a life-timets 
- 16o - 
eXPerience of exclusion from knowing what is going on; or to what ex- 
tent it represents true unemployabilitY - in the sense that no re- 
appraisal of capaoityp cessation of constantly being ridiculed and humi- 
liated, would lead to the inculoation of different work habits. 
(b) "I don't oare what I do so IoRg as I'm employed" 
Howeverg for alinost all other resPondentst Wn mPIOYMOntv or the 
threat of un mployment, generally menaoed their sense of self-vorth, in 
muoh the same way, ror example, as it affected NDGERTON's retardates, 
Mr. B. S., for example, oommented "As long as Its working I got a sense 
of self-esteem. I want to do an honest dayls work. The ty pe of work 
is immaterial - almost". 
This was often despite the fact that their work lives were often punts- 
tuated by humiliation and rebuffs from their oolleagues and peers, 
making lifel in some oases, very hard to tolerate. Yet it was a theme 
oommented on by other respondents. Mr. CoR. (I), after being made re- 
dandant a year agog found this to be his first brash with the mechanios 
of job applications sinoe 1948. He admitted: "Ny terror of unemployh- 
ment runs very doep"4, 
To what extent the (often unack ledýged) rooognition by respond- 
ents that in a reoession, stigmatised members of the labour foroe are 
likely to be hit disproportionately hardl is difficult to gauge. Suff- 
ice to note that of the 7 respondents recruited to their jobs before 
the onset of hearing loss ( (5 in Group It I in 11,1 in Group V), all 
felt that were they to apply for jobs now, their hearing impairment 
would effectively debar them, such were the internalised. expectations 
of asoriptions of inoompetence - aoross the board. 
Other reBpondentB felt the preBsureB tO Btay pUt in otherwise un- 
congenial jobs. Miss M. A. signed: "Realistic about job security now. 
Want to keep present job. But bored. Want ohange. Dc)n't like 
it much. But if I lose, very very difficult to get another". 
And Mr. E. B. , although at 
first interview over a year ago, had been des- 
pexate for a changel was now relatively resigned to his lot. As noted, 
this has much to do with his newly aoquized status as vOluntary organiser 
- 161 - 
for the looal Breakthrough Club. As far as looking for another job was 
concerned, he shuddered: "All that business about interviews. Work"s 
bad for everyone . But for the deaf -* It would terrify me". 
Something of a paradox operates here. Boredoing general dissatis- 
faction with work, and constant exposure to varying degrees of stigma 
reaotions were endemio amongst many respondents (as will be seen in 
the next two chapters)* At the same timev it seems that security of em- 
ploymentg at whatever levelt is peroeived. as a demonstration of worth, 
of the ability to hold one's own in an alien, unaooepting world,, as the 
ultimate disproof of disparaging allegations of inoompetenoe. Whilst 
this was an attitude perhaps more oharacteristio of respondents from 
Communication Groups I and II, there were respondents in Groups IV and 
V who spoke disparagingly of other deaf oolleagaes "always jumping in 
and out of work" (Mr. M, C. ). 
as though they were somehow showing the hearing impaired in a bad light. 
Job stabilit. Ty howeverp was rarely equated with job dooility* 
The work ethio was still highly meaningful to respomients, and ad- 
herence to it a feature of giubjects from all Commnioation GIroups (W. 
M. R. excepted). To be excluded from legitimate aooess to integration 
into sooiety via woric took a painful peyohologioal toll. Unemployment 
seemed to be equated with the inoorporation of sooiety's most pejorat- 
ive images of being "deaf and daft'. Again this held when the most 
cruoial elements attaohed. to being at work, identified by JAHODA 
(1982) 
were, in varying degrees, withheld from respondents., Yet 'Significant 
Living without Work' was not an option whioh held any attraotiorug for 
most respondents. 
51-ar of unemployment amongst the hearing impaired sample I inter. 
viewed was alBOp I suggest, partly responsible 
for the lack of member. 
ship of T. U. s or profeBSional bodies, in all but a 
few oaseB& Mr. B. S., 
Mrs. A. B. and Miss R. C. Active membership had been confined to Mr. F. J. 
as one-time shop steward 
for U. S. D. A. W. (He had not been re-elected 
- 162 - 
because of Itoomrmnication difficulties) 
Unions were not only considered unhelpful to the hearing impaired 
in work. To my knowledgel Trade Union representation of a dismissed 
hearing impaired worker at an Indastrial Tribunal oocurB infrequently, 
if at all. It is speoulative, but I suggest thatj like other members 
of the general publial orade stereotyping also operates at the level of 
tbrotherhood', Communioative incompetenos is evidently not worth rep- 
resenting, 
In the same way that the tmentally retarded' rarely attract T. U. 
support of their rightst the hearing impaired see themselves similarly 
exoluded from any oruu3ading seal on -the part of the workers' movement 
generally. As Mr. H. H. oommented: "When the Union offiaial looks at 
your Green Cardt the first thing he wants to know is how mmoh 
time you take off work"* 
Additionally, Uniozu3 were peroeived an jOoPardizing clearly-won job 
seourity by "stirring up trouble". Responsibility for initiating this 
partiaular form of ttroublet in rarely seen an part of a hearing impaired 
personts province, Xr. F. J. noted "When you want a spokesmang ym &)not 
turn to a deaf person". 
The laak of politioization at work as a strategy has already been 
oommented ono Yetj as I shall argue later, it is only by an artiou. 
lation. of their plight - using those hearing impaired who are able to 
straddle both worlds - that deaf rights, inoludin the right to a jobq 
may be implemented. 
Gaining an entree to the world of workp however, is only the be- 
ginning of the BtOry. 'Stjoking it out 
tI and, even, gaining SOMS Bense 
of fulfillment from a job are hurdleB whioh relatively few responclentB 
were fully able to surmount., We have seen in this chapter how the com- 
plex interweaving between offioial evaluations and more 
informal pro- 
oessing serves to deny the hearing 
impairedg in varying dogrees, acoess 
to the legitimate economic goals approved by our society. Interaction 
ýq 
- 163 - 
is at the heart of institutional PrOOSBSingg as demonstrated. Infor- 
mally, success, or the lack of it, in maintaining smooth interpersonal 
relationships underpins every subsequent activity in employment, and 
is crucial both to the retention of jobs, and in the acquisition of 
BatiBfying jobB, Raptured relationBhips are Ertigmatised- And Btigma., 
above ally exoludes. 
In the following ohaprter, I shall be oonoerned with this primary 
level of interaction between hearing impaired employees and their oo- 
workers (and to a lesser extent, relationships with supervisors and emi. - 
ployers). It is from these oritioal small begimiz4p that the larger 
issues - oovered in this present chapter and in chapter 6- are mam- 
facturecL 
16A - r 
NMS 
1. It maV well be argued that in a reoessiong with a large pool of 
surplus able-bodied labour, why should employers bother? In the lit- 
erature there is ample evidence attesting to the reliability of deaf 
employees at work. Effort may well be cost-effective. The other an- 
swer is a humanitarian one, which carries little credibility in times 
of labour surplus, and is increasingly being questioned: the 'right' 
of every individual to participate in the community via the institution 
of work to the fall extent of his capacities. The social cost of with- 
drawing that sense of 'being with the living# is only beginning to be 
appreciated. Fbr the hearing impaired, whether it be by unemployment 
or underemployment, deprived of that participation by Meviant' oomimini- 
cation skillog exclusion forms an integral part of their employment ex- 
perience. 
2* This is in keeping with the arguments of MONTOOMCRY and MITITAR (1977) and MITCHELL (1979)o The amount of written oomaninioatioEure- 
quired in any jobg of oourse, varies. My argumnt favaure the primacy 
of verbal over written oompetenoe. However, in the final analysiog 
for those disoredited orally deaf respondenteg it is literaoy - or the 
laok of it - whioh may make a oracial differenoe between total 'out- 
sider' status in the searoh for jobs, or marginal aooeptance within 
the world of work. 
3* Section 501 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act 1973 requires all 
federal agencies and departments to submit anwal affirmative action 
programme plans for the hiringg placement and promotion of handicapped 
individuals to the Civil Service Commission. However, the N. C. L. D*(1979) 
at Gallaudet argues this is something which has remained largely un- 
fulilled. Lacking precise standards for rederal agencies to follow 
in designing and implementing such plansq "Such a rule should include 
goals and timetables for recruiting, appointing, placing and promoting 
qualified handicapped individnals"o At the time of writing, this does 
not obt ain. 
4e Under so, 504 of the same Actl employers are required to make 
"Reasonable Accommodation" to a disabled applicant 'Is handicap, For the 
hearing impaired this may include the use of interpretereq (under the 
1977 Regulations), and TDD3 if it would enable such a person to fill 
the job as competently as a hearing person. However, as MARGOLIUS 
(1975) argues, "Reasonable Accommodation" goes farther than merely 
tailoring the job to meet the applicant's needs. It applies to *tan- 
gible concerns"l including promotion, transfer and training. 
5o 19nquiries to the T. U. C. to find out details of membership by the 
hearing impaired elicited the following bland reply: 
111)aaf people in normal employment are eligible for membership of an 
appropriate union like other workers and unions are also inoreasingly 
retaining and recruiting workpeople who are unemployed or on NBC pro- 
grammes. We do not have specific figures for trade union members who 
are hearing impaired The Assistant Secretary was unable to 
comment on why membership appeared to be so limited even within my 
small sampleg and noted "we do not oolleot information" on the question 
of T. U. representation of dismissed hearing impaired employees at 
industrial tribunals. 
- 165 - 
CHAPTER 5: 'STICKING IT OUT' - 
THE PROBLEMS OF JOB RETENTION 
In the last chapter I illustrated the way in which more formal 
processing and official labelling combined to produce and perpetuate 
stereotypes about the hearing impaired and create a range of stigma re- 
actions from personal rejection for specific jobs at interviews, to the 
denial of economic opportunities more generally. Room f or negotiation 
of favoured definitions of self was seen to be fairly circumscribed in 
response to official proce8Singj being restricted mainly to rationalis- 
ationg denial, or by-passing the system altogether where possible* And 
outcomes correspondingly reflected less considerations of commmicative 
competence and salience of resources. Nevertheless, somewhat greater 
manoeuvrability was discernible as between discreditable and discredited 
respondents according to others' evaluations of their commmication skills. 
In this chapter, the negative evaluations with which departures 
from expected communicative competence tend to elicit are explored with- 
in the more elusive framework of primary, inf orMal 80Cial relationships 
at work. IGNATIEFF (1983) referring to GOFFMAN's study of the inmates 
of total institutions (1961) comments perceptively on the "oeimmense 
possibilities of humiliation in the smallest human performance 
.* the degradation of people springs from the tizdest beginnin s". 
It is with just such small beginnings in the particular setting of 
employment with which I shall be concerned here. I suggest that 
nothing illustrates more vividly both the uniformity with which the 
hearing impaired tend to be categorised, and the differential impact of, 
and response tog stigma and stereotyping. 
A spectrum of stigma reactions, located at the moral, socio- 
psychological end of the continuum was apparent. It ranged from sticki- 
ness and unease, impatiences 'taking the mickey'. to outright ridicule 
and ostracism. Some stigma responses affected almost all hearing im- 
paired respondents, leading to 
deviant outcomes in the form of ex- 
- 166 - 
CluSion from gossip, and social activities at work, In their more ex- 
trene forms they led to 'trouble' for some respondent&, walk. -outs or 
dismissals* Secondary deviant outcomes in the fOrm Of f661in98 Of 
&train,, Pacy, lomw of self-confidence and isolation vere endemic. 
'Sticking it out' was problovatic for uwq respondents* 
Stigma reactions varied and were Aif ferentially dealt with by dis- 
creditable and discredited rompondents according to ald"s in oral perfor- 
sauce* Salience, of resources was a3Aeq to some exteatt a factor affecting 
outcomess although ita importanc* lay more within the 'umbrella' framework 
of possession of skills in standard comm=ication. 
This informl procaming,, I miggestg mirrwo fairly prosisely the zog- 
ative evaluations which s"och deviationslo the wearing of a preethesiss 
and the use of sign langmge attract in social relationshl ps outside em- 
ployment. Somewhat more f1wribility in strat*gy v" evident 
in r*spanso to informl than formal laboUlngq althou& tkw ellployamt s0t- 
ting still circumscrib*d overa3l manoonymbilityo The hearing impaired 
having been identified an deviants labels tended to remin. In thin way 
the power of informal definers to obstruct in as pernicious and insidious 
an that of official labell*rso It in only with a chang* of job that the 
possibilities of renegotiating statvA an a more radical scal* become 
feasibl* again - and even th*ze are deternin*d by Weviom evmtso 
Altho, Agh I stiold " it out s was certainly perceived aB a PrOblms a 
surprising number of respondents did actually retain their jobs,, often for 
many years (of. Appendix 2jo Table 2c). This does not necessarily ingy 
that perceptions of stigma and stereotyping modify vith timeo I suggest 
it reflects more the reciprocal nature of such bargains as my be struck 
which, j although potentially 
fluid and dynamic, tend to become routize re- 
m1ponses to dealing with the daily round of 
harrassment of that particular 
job situatiOno In other wordeq adaptations to stigma 
have a tendency 
superficially to stabilise over 
timeq obscuring the smaller undercurrents 
being ne atiatedo It is perhaps 
ironic that where strategy management was 
I-A. !&- 
- 167 - 
most innovative - although not necessarilY most effective in terms of 
desired outcomes - Istioking it out' was seen to be most problematic. 
Job stability across Communication Groups was as follows: 9 res- 
pondents in Group I and 5 in Group V had held their present post for 
over 7 years - some for a longer period. It was the faarginal t respon- 
dents in Group III (and to a lesser extent in Groups II and IV) who had 
experienced so ouch job disoontinuity as to virtually lose oount of 
the number of Jobs they had had, 
At a time of tight labour oompetition, as noted, almost all respon- 
dents realisticallv appraised their limited chances on the dole queue, 
whatever the Provocations suffered in their present posts, Within 
this general rubrict perceptions reflected the differing negotiating 
options available to respondents in the various Groups. Pbr instanoe, 
Group I respondents were more likely to be in jobs for which their qual- 
i fi cat ions and experience had equipped them. Whilst, as will be shown, 
the possibilities of farther advanoement were generally very negatively 
evaluatedl stigma reactions from colleagues and woompanying seoondary 
deviant outoomes in-be form of strain, isolationg lose of self--oonfid- 
enoe, were generally peroeived to be suffiaientlylliveable with' to do- 
ter respondentB from riBking the poBsibility of being unemployed, & 
Mr. N. M. (II) Bummed up his feelings: "You mustn't lose track of the 
normal likes and dislikes between people. It's not just a case 
of dislike between hearing and not hearing people... I'm holding 
my job, but it /deafness/ would be a handicap if I became redun- 
dant and had to change jobs". 
The argument of COWEN and BOBROVE 
(1966) that those most severely 
impaired tend to be better adapted to their lot is much too simplistic 
if not innaccurate a speoulation to explain 
the job stability of those 
in Communication Group V. (Miss M. A. apart). The fear of unemployment 
is very real. It masked, however, an equally real sense of 
disoontent 
in many cases. Miss R. C. saw 
the situation thUB: "Would find it very 
difficult if I had to go searching now .. No change. Feel safe 
where I am, but bored" 
-a theme 
to which I will return. 
lqq 
- 168 - 
In all three caBes in Group III, incidentsp rOWB? disrupted in- 
terper"nal relationships had been at least partially responsible for 
the many walk-outs and dismissals whioh appeared to characterise these 
responderrts' employment oareers. (The same applied to Mr. J. R. (II) and 
Mrs. S. T. (IV). Mr., H. H. commented: *Social acceptance is the pro- blem. NY face doesntt fit", 
For this group of Imarginalt respondents, both biography and ten- 
BiOll Management. are particmlarly Balient, in tx7ing +, o sustain some kind 
of modus vivendi. The need constantly' t9 re-define one to status via "a 
vis both a largely rejeoting hearing and deaf world meant that bargain- 
ing and negotiation were a constant pro-occupation in their lives. 
Despite the general surraoe stability, then, 'sticking it outt was 
emphatioally peroeived as a problem at -the level of prinir .V 
interaotion 
with hearing work oolleagues, and to a lesser extentv supervisors* 
How one gets on with one Is oolleagues is critioal in the aotual 
sustaining of a work situation. As most interaction which occurs is 
on a faoe-to-face level with oolleagues in the same or adjaoent depart- 
mnts, (STUCKI , SINCRCR and WAMR. 1975) 9 the importanoe of main- 
taining smooth interpersonal relationships is evident, However, it is 
here that speech deviations which violate interactional norms are most 
nakedly and ruthlessly exposed and exploited. 
ill WORK COLLEAGUES AS UNOFFICIAL LABELLERS: FRIEND OR FOR? 
Respondents themselves saw the maintenanoe of social relations at 
work as being one of the most difficult,, if not inmiparable, areas of 
management. Its crucial importance was well appreciated. Two respon- 
dents in Group I remarked in very similar fashion "If you can't get on 
with people you might as well stop at home" (Mr. C. R. ). 
Nonetheless, some disoreditable respondents demonstrated consider- 
able skill in handling interpersonal relationships at work, thus re. 
taining some oontrol over others' Potentially devaluative judgements 
ddlk 
- 1.69 - 
of them. In a few cases (Mrs. I. Y. 9 Miss P. L. 9 Niss A. B. and Mrs* G. L. 
) 
social relationships -were evidently no more problematic than they are 
between normally hearing people* 
As noted earlier, it is a mistake to oonoeive of the prooess of 
stigma as being universally applioable. Fbr respondents o0owinioatively 
able to handle encounters socially at workq partioularly in terms of 
laoceptable I speeoh performanoe and a mastery of lipreading skills, it 
was the absenoe of stigma and a positive evaluation of their oapabilities 
which were remark le in their suooeSB. Xroo CO., for example, found 
she was drawn into the easy inrormality or her offiose "We all know 
one another,, We all help out. Dealing with the bottom-of-the 
pile money6-wise makes for oloseness in the offioe". 
Her ooomminication defioit was well-oonoealed - possibly only her imm- 
diate supervisor was #in the knowto Nevertheless, earefal nmmgemnt 
was a neoessary oomponent -to sustaining suah easy informality: "You've 
got to be something of an actresse I've got to Play a role at 
work , it"s sort of dooeption. Vve got to prove that I'm as 
apt as them all the time. I won't go up to someone and say 'I'm 
hard of hearingt except in shops .. It means that IlIve got to 
work double hard all the time* Bat I don9t want sympathy, I 
want to be aooepted as a normal ooping person". 
The situational nature of deviance, defining is illustrated 17 the 
equally exoeptional nature of -the peroeptions and meanings of Miss 
G. F. (V). Despite her total inability to lipread and her grossly dis- 
torted speeoh perfornmanoep she found that the offioe atmosphere was her 
life-line to #normality'. A positive evaluation of her other oapabili- 
ties had enabled her to aohieve the position of Co-Direo-tor of the 
small company where she worked. Only salience of resources can per- 
haps aooount for the absenoe of the 'spread' phenomenon so typioal of 
the evaluations made of other discredited respondents - and of her- 
self in other situations. She commented: "There 
Is a lovely happy at- 
mosphere at work. I've always made a lot of friends there. When 
they're newl they do avoid me. But it doesnft last long. When 
the joe is broken, it Is OKI'. 
She explained her strategy: 
"Most people have said at first they don't 
quite know what to 
do- If you smile and show youtve got oonfi- 
denoe. it makes you more approaohable. You've got to proX# 
- 170 - 
confidence. Over the years Ifve got more confidence. It gets 
easier with strangers". 
Sociallyq however, despite her robust , aj3sertive personalityl she was 
utterly and totally discredited amongst hearing and hearing impaired 
alike, as I was to witness for myself. 
TheBej howeverl were atypioal pereeptionB of how to handle stigma 
oontests at work. For many disoreditable respondents, it is often only 
by the judioious Manipulation of situatiorm, the oarefal exploitation 
of otherwise small, incidental oirounstanoes, which help carw*1 out 
what might otherwise become 'false notes'q and potential avenues for 
stigma. Niss B. G.. for example, hinted at the aluost enforced together- 
ness which a uniform dislike of the manageress fostered amongst her 
workmates: "As oolleagues, we're oloser together because of a div- 
like of the boss". 
This tended to minimise the impact of other stigma responses to which 
she was subjectq suoh as exolusion from gossip and informattion. 
However, Booial relatioru3hips with oolleagtIeB more often preBented 
problems for the hearing impaired respondents in this sample whioh no 
amount of manipulation or aooommodation oould quite repair. Stigma re- 
actions such as unease and awkwardnesal impatience and irritability 
ocoasioned by reque'AS for repeato, often resulted from the kind of 
repeated interchange required at work which failed to Embscribe to the 
expeoted rules of interaotion. Restriated sooiabilityl if not speedy 
termination of such encounters, tended to ensue. Onoe having experienced 
disruptionj a work colleagues is less likely to tbothert again. The 
situation is, to some extent, sealed for that employment situation,, 
thus lending some substance to the findings of FARINA and RING 
(op. 
cit. ), CUNNINMUM 
(op. cit) , KIAICK(op. cit) and others on the 
tenaoity of 
stereotyping. Enforced proximity by no means neoessarily modified 
peoples, stereotypes, as I shall 
demonstrate further. 
Both discreditable and disoredited respondents were subject to 
suoh stigma Ivactions. The ability to minimise asoriptions of devianoe was 
- 171 - 
very largely a function of communication skillsp so that at least not- 
ional acceptanoe by work oolleagues oould be sustained for respondents 
in Communication Groups I and IL, Pbr disoredited respondonts, howevert 
commmicative performance was evaluated so negatively that the unease 
and impatienoe, oharacteristic of responses to the former group4 tended 
to manifest therwelves in avoidanoe behaviour and outright ostraoism. 
2.. STICKINESS AND UNEASE 
The ertiakiness and uneaset dooumented by 'IWVIS (1961) and HILBOURNE 
(1973), which oharacterises interaction between most impaired and tnor- 
mals'l particularly those with facial or speeoh defioienoies, were seen 
to apply to relations between hearing impaired respondents and their 
work colleagues. The tendency to classify all hearing impaired respon- 
derrtw aocording to stereotypes of stupidity and gormlessness is a re- 
flection of such awkwardness, It was a faoet of interaotion mentioned 
by respondents from all Commmnioation Groups. The intensity of felt 
stigma, however varied# aooording to disoreditable/disoredited status. 
Unease was often lao0ounted' for in teva of the lack or amo- 
priate guides for action onoe the taken-for-granted expeatatio=3 of 
normality have been broken. Mr. C. P. (I) commented, ror example: 
"Thereto a tendency to .. embarrassment - uncertainty an to 
how -to handle social relationships"o 
-Mrs. 
B.,. C. (I) similarly te3cplainedt the disabling effecits of deviant 
oommunioation on other aotors: *Hearing people don't really want to 
know. It oomplioates life. People haveu"*t go+, time to spare 
for those less normal than themselves". 
Other rationalisations: laak of understandingg fear, ignorancet 
difficulties of empathy with this partioular handicap, - aa with per. 
ceptions of employers" hiring practices - were the lexplanationst 
given by many respondents for the "stickiness of interactional flow" 
(DAVIS, 1961) suoh primary stigma confroutatiorm tended to elicit. 
Even well--managed situational withdrawal, however, left Mrs, B. C. 
with a hint of a tnormalg but -. 1 StatuS. As she explained: "I've mark- 
- 172 - 
aged to bluff my way. I don't like to feel not normal. You can't 
keep saying to people loan YOU speak more slowly'. So I sort Of 
submerge into the baekground. I withdraw slightlY_in that I won't 
Push my point of view". 
This iB in sharp contrast to her avoidance strategy following her 
stapedectomy* operation: "I went completely on my own* I avoided all 
academic parties. Now I'm trying to mix more. Making an eff. 
ort. It is an effort". 
Howeverl neither respondent implied this led to a total, disruP- 
tion of encounters indicated. 9 for example, by signing respondents. 
Miss M. A. 9 reflecting on her various jobs sigzwd "DDn't talk with 
other maohinists. AwkwardAth me". * 
Like many other discredited respondoirts, she was often left severely 
alone. Thus, although I have stressed that stickiness and unease tends 
to be more oharacteristio of responses to disoreditable viatiest dis- 
oredited respondents are also subjeoted to similar stigma reaationse 
Given the difficulties of Ifillingw-int to which any oommn ation 
defioit gives rise, moh of the unease and awkwardness and oonoomi. 
twA stereotyping and stigma in response to interaction with the hear- 
ing impaired fowssed round -the wearing or hearing aide (where visible) . 
and the evidentness or obtrusiveness or speenh inoompetenoe. I will 
look at stigma reaotions by woric oolleagues to both of these, reserving 
a discassion of the harsher reactiom provoked by the overt use of 
sign language until later. 
(a) "I feel deformed wearing one" 
Ample evidence attests to the strength with whiah hearing aids 
were peroeived as stigma symbolsl thus posing a threat to sooiability. 
Illustrative of the lengths to which some respondents are prepared to 
go to avoid having to expose to public scrutiny the wearing of an aid 
is Mr. B. S. (I)* 
Born in Burma, his hair is olipped in traditional South Past Asian 
style, making concealment impossible. He thus refuses to wear his aidl 
even though it would enable him to binction appreoiablZ better. 
* Removal of the stapes - an operation cbsigned to au, -e otosolezx)si, 3, 
the moErt. 490ma GOAAAtem- ---07ible for oonductive cleafhess. 
He 
one of 
- 173 - 
commented: "I try my best to cope without it. If I wore it at work 
they might think I'm a bit thick"* 
Passing was literally a way of life. Biographical management of his 
Past and orl-going tension management to conceal his current timper- 
feationt, as arguedv conoeivably does more to solidify his self-oonoept 
as deviant than reoourse to any other strategy* It aohieved the kind 
of role primaoy more usually assooiated with role engalfbent. He en- 
gages in the most convoluted manoeuvres to avoid being caught out, re- 
sorting to strategies such as "I'll say 11911 have a word with 
, 
you next 
time4- . or I'll Just shake my head vaguely - it could be either 
1yest or tnot. Or I'll say tDid you say something? I was miles 
away#, or 'I didntt quite pick up what you saide IlIve got a bad 
oold"'. 
He oonfessed "I live by my wits". * Similar to the devioes employed by 
illiterates, he remarked "If I was really oaught I'd smash my glasseW". 
The oonoealment of aids was widespread. 6 respondents from Comu. 
nioation aroup I resorted to the oarefal styling and growth of hair. 
Mrs. A. B. remarked "I try to oonoeal it,. I alwaTs keep it oovered"o 
Indeed, Bo suooeBsfally are her two aids ooncealed that, even working 
with her for som appreoiable timel I was qaite unaware of her oon-- 
siderable deahýss, 
Unease with hearing aid users is additionally attribatable to the 
mythology surrounding them. At one extreme , they are regarded as 
foure-alls' in the same way that glasses are regardecL Thus irritabi- 
lity oocurs, if the wearer still 'affects' not to hear. Stigma responses 
of disbelief lltWelre all a little bit deaf soinetimes, aren"t we-, " (to 
Mr. S. L. ) were felt as intensely galling. At the other extreme, un- 
ease exists from the ambiguityg noted earlierp which the sight of a 
hearing aid prodaces. It gives no indioation of either the severity 
or extent of the defect , nor of the efficacy of the aid 
1. 
Howeverl not all aids, if worng can be effectively concealed. 
Felt and enacted stigma were perceived by Mr. A. B. who also avoided 
- 17 4- 
wearing an aid wherever possible. His acting career was not necessar- 
ily condacive to sustaining a long hair out. He oommented: "Just look- 
ing at a hearing aid the immediate response is foh, problems'"* 
Although by no means a universal response (witness the asserti. 
veness with which Xiss G. F. w)re hers) q it was generally felt that any 
benefits accruing from amplification were heavily counterbalanced by 
strong feelings of dislikev shamey and embarrassment, and were per. 
ceived to oontribute signifioantly to uneam and awkwardness of inter. 
action, both at woric and socially. 
(b) "When tILeZ hear w z speech, they"re spoeahlesaj" 
As argued, it is above all reactions to incompetent speech which 
tend to be negatively evaluated and generalised outwards as indicat. 
ive of incompetence in every other sphere of activity, This was viv. 
idly illustrated by Mm. G*L. - who oommented of another matually known 
respondent: *I didntt realise what an intelligent person B. was at 
first P* You would probably downgrade her because of her voice 
The first impression you have of someone is their speech". 
noted in ChaPter 3 how the ability to monitor oness speeoh, its 
Pit0h, intonation, rhYthm and artioulation is a crucial fhotor in do. 
fleeting stigma reactions. In additiong as with some of EDCPIMTON"s 
retardates, illiterate speecht the inability to pronounoe oertain words 
oorreotly, or laok of knowledge of some vooabtilary altogether, rei&- 
foroe any diffioulties of modulation and imediately mark one out as 
linoompetentt. At workv speeoh pirformanoe is oritical in determining 
whether one is defined as disoreditable or disoredited. 
Incorporation of dominant values concerning the primacy of Istan- 
dards speech skills illustrated the anticipation of unease and asorip- 
tions of stupidity with which 'defective' or minimal speech 18 greeted. 
only signing respondents tended to re jeot, these values oonoerning the 
primacy of speeoh, but, as I shall demonstrate later, fluenoy in sign 
acoorded its users neither the respeot nor aooeptance at work whioh 
- 175 - 
they were accustomed to expect within the deaf community. At workq it 
was not only an irrelevance, but often an additional source of stigma, 
The Preservation and maintenance of intelligible speech was thus 
a continuing pre-ocaupation for respondents at workt partioularly those 
in Groups I and III and disoredited respondents -who wished to looate 
themselves in the hearing world* One illustration may serv to higb- 
light the tenacity with which this was pursued: Miss C. G, (II), pro- 
foundly prelingually deaf I had been forced by her parents to speak from 
early childhood - with commendable results as far as ease of interaction 
with hearing people was conoerned. (Sa. IiOnO8 of resourosis was oertainly 
operative here. Comeroial hearing aidst private tuition in speeoh 
training 'were the best that money aould buy)* Niss C. Gwfs peroeptions 
of this enforoed oralism were very positive- "Talkingg talkingg talk- 
ing .. It may be harder, but when youllre older you know how to 
behave in the hearing world. 9 partioalarly at workv without too 
muoh loss of dignity* Vve got the proper sooial, skills". 
Respondents in Groups I and II had, on the whole, evolved strat- 
egies for ensuring that their opeeah was under oontrol. Kiss V. G., for 
instance$ a primary sohool teadherg said "ir I have problem modalating 
my voice, I ask one or my papils to sit at the baok or -the olass- 
room and make hand movements if it's too loud or soft". 
But the worry and anxiety over quality of speech, and its effects on 
relationships at work, were by no means absent* Of those discreditable 
respondents who oonceded it gave rise to anxiety (9 in Clroup I and 5 in 
Group II) , Mrs. A. H. perhaps illustrates 
beat the worry it oansed her: - 
ffItfs sometimes very loud. I couldn't always modulate it at work 
,. what with other noises. People stared"ý 
Some signing respondents apart, it was also in Comminioation Groups 
III, IV and V where pre-occupation with the quality of speech was as 
marked as in Groups I and IIt and where the ohill of others' inored- 
ulity and s-ubsequent avoidance oocurred most often. Awkwardness here 
took on a rather different dimension in that without speech, inter- 
action was totally precluded. Discredited respondents, particularly 
- 1-76 - 
the Signing deaf, are known to be reluctant to UBe what 'voice' they 
have because of the reaction it provokes -a point poignantly high- 
lighted in the play "Children of a Lesser God% 
Miss R. C. half-virotel half-signed how she felt: "When I talked with 
hearing people I was nervous and /un/self-confident to talk them 
and can't speak well. Have to write down, I felt my voice pulled 
down inside and cantt speak properly. I always use with deaf people 
all the time. I am alright with them and easy communicate with 
deaf"* 
Thus deviations from expected. conummication skillst particularly 
relating to speech performance, disproportionately give rise to uneasw 
within the work situationg if not to more extreme reactions as we shall 
see later, Two respondents, one sucaessfully surmounting imputations 
of devianoel and the other coping less effectively, illustrate this 
prooess, 
Despite capitalisation on her deviant status, general awkwardness 
and unease were Been to characterise the relationships Kra* N. P. had 
with her new social work colleagues. Whillst her mastery of sign oarr- 
ied a oertain kadosp the very evidentness and obtrasiveness of her 
oommunication impairmozit inourred other penalties for ohallenging the 
stereotypes the hearing majority have of the generalised incompotenoe 
of the hearing impaired. Mrs. N. F. was,. in a sense, doubly sanotioned 
ý for being 'incompetent' as far as hearing norms regardin speech 
were conoerned in the first plaoev and for having the effronteP7 to 
challenge imputations of its awter status* She commented: "Al- 
though I get respect in my Department I've had to fight for it 
some social workers are uncomfortable with a handicapped ooll- 
eague* There's a lot of 'them' and "us'. They find it diffi- 
cult to accept handicapped people as equals - colleagues. Some 
have very preconceived ideas about handicap". 
This representB a rather unique entree into the pereeived mean- 
ings of those official labellerB whose interaction with others is at 
the level of helper/client. YIrs. N. F. has positively demonstrated her 
ability to do a job commensurate 
in status with hearing peoples' aoh- 
ievements, thus posing a profound threat to the value system on whioh 
- 177 - 
stereotyping is based. Working with hearing oolleagues in a heari 
environment, her professional commitment as a social worker for the 
d8af cannot quite be relegated to the status of "laudable but hardly 
ohallenging" (CRAMMATTE, 1968) with whiah fall immersion in work with 
the hearing impaired might be dismissed. And again, it attests to the 
reluctance of oommon-sense knowledge to yield to more positive images 
of the stigmatised, even when the challenge is sustained over time. 
At the same time, Mrs. N. F. has beoome adeprt at dimdsslng any re- 
sidualt oovert ascriptions of devianoe from tainting her self-image at 
work. A robust disorediting of her disoreditors has enabled her to pre. 
serve her wozic (as opposed to her social) identity relatively immune 
from the subtle imputations levelled at her. And as a one-time client 
herself, her observations additionally bear out some of my arguments in 
Chapter 4* As she remarked: "Itve rarely met a psychologically well- 
integrated social worker *I think some so-called professionals 
make clients exhibit the symptoms they"re looking for .. I can 
do what other social workers do standing on my head. 111m better 
read than many of them. And Vve an inside knowledge of deafness". 
Whilst the unease and stickiness experienood by Nro. N. F. might 
be regarded as a penalty for relative suooess, Yar, HeR. (III) was pen- 
alised for his failure. His relationships with his hearing work ooll- 
eagues might beElt bO desoribed as a "Perskanent rwaning 80relo ThOY 
were doubly oomplioated by problems of biography and tension management 
in both hearing and deaf worlds. He. toot illuErtrates the diffioulties 
involved in trying to impose more favourable definitions of self in 
the face of Bustained interpersonal avkwardneBB and uneaBe. 
HiB 93peOOh 
is flat, taffeatless' and ptmetuated by lodditiest in syntax, refleo- 
ting his use of BSL. 
Prelingually partially deaf, he is struggling to master written 
and spoken English and is in the process of taking an Open University 
course in Chemistry. Brought up entirely within the deaf culture, 
and married to a signing 
deaf wife, he is the olassic example of the 
- 178 - 
'marginal mantl straddling both worlds and at home in neither. Bored 
at Deaf Clubs because of lack of interest in his career ambitions, he 
has learned to keep quiet about them. The stress on individbialism is 
at variance with the norms of collectivity and sooial cohesion charao- 
teristic of the deaf culture. At the same time, aoquiring the 'Emooess 
motif I perhapB too late in life, he is not aooepted into the hearing 
world either, his speech performance being so much at variance with 
aocepted norms, and suffering tstigma-fall-out I from his signing wife, 
He peroeives the tension involved as follows: "In hearing company I 
feel at great unease and particularly in work plaOSS Where they 
oan be demanding at times ... I am on edge with tiredness and 
splitting headaohes". 
At Open University functions, such is the awkwardness generated if 
acoompanied by his wife, they are both virtually ignoredL. 
U&% 
no acknowledged -that his attempted penetration of the hearing 
world, - the interest and attainments of which he admires - involved 
some denial of his 'deaf t self, but 
ger deaf 9 four fingers hearing 
to get up and do something?... 
in two worlds. Hearing expect 
don't feel easy when you can't 
feeling of sohizophrenia"4D 
remarked philosophioally: "One fin- 
What do I do? Wait for the deaf 
I grew up with it, trying to live 
you to be the same 9 therefore they 
keep up with them. Tau get a 
The phenomenon of strain oann I as BRIEN 
(1983) has suggested, be 
seen as having applioabilitY only to the hard of hearing . His desire 
for aooeptanos in the hearing world, howeverg also involved a oareful 
monitoring of the use of sign language. At workq it was sorapulously 
avoided, apart from the one oocasion when he and his wife were employed 
together, when they loonversed' in sign overtly - to his oost. 
Awkwardness and dis-ease, although shown to straddle all Communi- 
oation Groups, are particularly characteristic stigma reactions to 
those respondents looated marginally between the two worlds. Nothing 
can be taken for granted in encounters with either. Common-sense mean- 
ings and shared understandings on whioh people rely are oonstantly 
being breached by untoward 'false notes'. Confronting the hearing 
world. however Mr. H. H. 's speech perforpIVLop had serious sti isjAz 
T- in a wi er sense ali hearing impaireQ are marginaiL -to -tile wider soc- 
iety 'outsiders'. 
- 179 - 
effects on his relationships with oolleagues at work and his employment 
career generally. As he himself commented "Relationships with work 
colleagues have been poor in the past. Hearing colleagues - 
strange People. Deaf people have a different way of saying things. 
A lot of younger hearing dislike deaf adults. 'They're not fit to 
run" is the attitude". 
Generally, howeverv fairly implioit awarenesB was shown by respon- 
dents of the responsibility they were forced to carry in "disabling 
the normal" and disrupting normalq taken-for-granted ease of interaction 
in the work situation., Hence the attempts to conceal the wearing of 
hearing aidal to reduce dialogue to a minimm if speeah is in any way 
slightly disoordant or bizarreq and to avoid the overt use of sign lan- 
gaage * 
Thus strategy management in response to unease and stickinesm wasp 
as erurmised, highly dependent on the aoquisition or preservation of 
skills in oomaunicative competenoe. Passing, oooasionally with the 
help of tsomeone in -the know', ort more routinelyt normalisation -tech- 
niqaes appeared to help neutralise the more damaging impaot of being 
categorised as "difficult f or *odds by other hearing work colleagues*, 
As in the oase of Mr, H.. H. t however,, where speeoh inOomPetenoe was ob- 
trusive and salienoe of resouroes unable to oompeimate, uneastj muLni. 
fested itself in harsher terms, Strategy management options for the 
imposition of more favourable definitions of self were proportionately 
reduced. The perceived effects of minimal or non-existext speeoh will 
be dealt with later. 
IMPATIENCE AND IRRITABILITY 
Closely allied to any discussion of unease and awkwardness is the 
equally pervasive stigma response of impatience and annoyance. In var- 
ying degreesq all hearing impaired respondents violated the antioipat- 
ion of a relaxed interchange, the opportunity for a 'breather' which so 
often dissipates the tension of a work environment. However, any evi. 
dence of tolerance by hearing work peers was conspicuous by its absenoe. 
-.. 
m 
- 180 - 
Repeated experience of irritation shames and humiliatesl denoting that 
lack of aoceptance whioh is characteristic of the stigmatised. 
The notion of levels of tolerance to varying degrees of departure 
from 'normal' communioation is a useful vantage point from whioh to view 
BtigmatiBing behaviour in response to the difficulties which lipreading 
inevitably brings in its wake. It was primarily a response directed 
towards discreditable respondents endeavouring to rely on this, but still 
able to monitor their expressive commanioation, and the discredited 
orally deaf struggling to enter the hearing world by the only available 
route open to theme 
Irritation was particularly evident as a stigma reaction to the 
problem of repeats. Missing key words or phrases and having to ask 
others to repeat what has been said oonfronted hearing impaired respon- 
dents in this sample with a constantly recurring problem, That it was 
often handled with delioaoy and tact by respondents in an attempt to 
avoid provoking irritation was usually at the expense of understanding, 
A constant balance has to be maintained between the desire to bear 
what has been saidl 6tfid -the probably provocation of irritation by an in- 
sistent request for repeatov partioularly when the remark may have 
been only a trviality. Mr. P. R. (I) oaught the Catoh 22 situation 
nioely: "I daren"t ask for repetitions. So I tond not to listen to 
gossip. Then people get irritate&- if you havenl. t heard what Ow 
going on". 
The anticipation of annoyance and irritation most oommonly led to 
a resignation that much, if not all, of what is said will be lost - 
with concomitant secondary deviantising in the form of an acute sense 
of isolation and exclusion. Miss A. L. 
(V) with no lipreading skills or 
amplification to aid her total deafness said with quite unizrtentional 
pathos: "You just sit there smiling and hope youtre smiling OKI',, She 
added "Sometimes I get into conversation but you Oanft keep asking 
what they're talking about .. Sometimes I feel more like oon. 
centrating than others. You get very tired when youtre deaf". 
- 181 - 
The aPParent role engulfbent in her discredited status was miti- 
gated - at least to outsiders - by the production of a collection of 
PhOtOgraPhs taken at work fdolst, demonstrating incontrovertibly to her 
her continued acceptance by work peers. Other remarks &iring -the course 
of the interview, however,, revealed her intense feelings of isolation 
at work. 
Strain - 'Managing a Front 2 
What is apparent from this extract is the salienoe of strain as a 
oritical faator in lumnaging froirts', WRINBERCOIR (1978) has defined 
strain as ".. anything which prevents a system of relationships from 
approximating integration". 
As with the oase of Mr. H. H. referred to previously, it oann4ft thus be 
oonfined to the understandings of the postlingually 'hard of hearingf. 
It was peroeived as an all too familiar part of trying -to manage in-ber. 
personal contacts by both discreditable and discredited respondents, 
faced with a hearing environment. It if; not jast a question or, for 
example I postural tension involved in trying to lipread., It is part of 
the muoh more general problem of biography and tension management, 
whioh, as GOFFUN arguesý are indispensable elements in potential and 
actual deviairtising. To suggest -that strain meaxLs very dirferent things 
to discreditable and discredited respondents is to confuse the issue: 
the diffioulties of biography managementj purportedly the problem of 
diBoreditable victims, also, I suMest involve the strain and tension 
of discredited subjects, as HOPKINS and SCAMBLER (1976) noted of the 
epileptic subjects they studied. 
All respondents in Groups I and II relied on speeoh, the use of 
such residual hearing as they Possessedl varying degrees Of competence 
in lipreading, and the use of hearing aids to oarry them through a 
working day. The sheer fatigue of doing so, and the impatienoe migi. - 
takes tended to elicit, were frequently mentioned. The situated nat- 
ure of deviance defining is important here. Social enoauzrterB outside 
- 182 - 
work are of variable ckration. Concentration at work has to be Erus- 
tained generally throughout an 8 hour day* Mrs. C. O. oommented on the 
feeling: "At the end of the day I can't take any more. The strain of 
lipreading is terrific. you have to work double-time... The first 
thing I do when I get home is take of the aids and ýM* Like a 
woman taking off her corsets and scratching herselfj" 
Mr. R. % commented on the ramifications this had for the attainment 
of interaction at all* OTou won't find deaf people the most relaxed 
people to be with. You oantt 
, 
be relaxecL Tou have to think all 
the time; think what you're sayingg think what others are sar- 
ing, think what you're doing in relation to what you think they're 
saying". 
This is, of eourse, in painftl oontrast to the sense of release from 
strain experienced within the protective confines of the deaf oommmi- 
ty by signing respondents., Howeverg strain immediately manifested it- 
self in oonfronting the hearing world of work for those respondents,, 
as it has done for the disoredited orally deaf subjeats, 
Thus, the visible wearing of a prosthesis, the diffioulties iro- 
volved in oonstan* monitoring biographioal information and ton ion oon- 
trol,, and the strain inherent in trying to keepi, abreastg however i&- 
adequatelyt with what is going an, add appreciably to the impact or 
stigma respozu3es arising from the violation of norms of cominleative 
performance. Whilst impatience probably does tend to be a aharacter- 
istic response to 'gaffes' in lipreadingg irritation is by no means 
oonfined to disoreditable respondents. The responses of Nra. R, I* (II) 
and Mrs. DS. illustrate the similarity of reaction to the oft-applied 
soubriquet of Idummyt. Mrs. E. I.: "Tou're straining to hear. It makes 
you look gormless ., Sometimes I get my sentenoes jumbled. 
People 
at work IýZo They say 'we know what you meant,. But all the ti 
they're thinking foh, she's a bit slow"". 
L%- 
Exasperation equally attended 
Mr. D. S. Is attempts to understand. His 
mother remarked of D: "People say he Is not trying hard enough. It to 
a oase Of loh, hurry RE. Oh, why oan't he hurry up and under- 
stand'. It has hurt him in the past". 
Strategy management tends to be geared to an outward acoeptance 
of deviant status in response 
to these stigma reactions, whilst dis- 
- 183 - 
creetly trying to repair the repeated assaults on e*jf-est**m* The 
Constant struggle to keep lau fait' with Mýgoing informaLtiong and the 
stigmatining effects of exclusion from its wi3-l be dealt with lat*r. 
Attempts at re-definition of self often had to tak* place in other con- 
texts* Mr. E. B., for instances illustrated the way in which any BPOR- 
tan*oUs reaction to the expression of annoyance or irritability an the 
part of hearing peoples he felt$ had to be findy suppressed. Other- 
wine, lack of control in this respect could lead to incidents and 'trouble' 
(as I "al I discuss later) * "IThej can be irritable with yormo You mint 
never be irritable with theme You f**l you are thmakiv, them for 
bothering about you* Some of my work colleagues think I'm temper- 
amental. D The deaf aren't allowed to b* tOMPeramentale I got 
told off for being too aggressivOo 
It in the anticipatica-9 an such as the actuKlityq of impstations 
of deviance which tand to ha" this solf-fulfilling f=CtiCU* TO the ex- 
tent to which stigma reactions of stickiness and uneasolo irritability 
and annoyance are intoromlizod, and a re-dofinition of self as shameful 
matorialisoal other socandary doviant outcomes - isolation, foolling of 
inadequacy and lack of self-confidonco - are likely to assort themselvon* 
An with strain and tension, they teadodj in varying dogrooeq to affoot 
most hearing impairod respondents in tho sample (and will bo dissussod 
lator), p Againg such dopendod an the oazo, or lack of it, with which 
such imputations could be zinimisod, neutralinod, rationali"d, or dio- 
avowod. by the exercise of skill ijL communication porformancee 
4* MMAGING STIGMA AT WORK: SOME ErM M T&CTICS,? 
Apart from Mr. B&S. passing was rarely a strategy which could be 
sustained long in work relationships, even with effective concealment 
of hearing aids and minimally evident departures from 'standard' commu- 
nication skills. The careful advance monitoring of situations and en- 
counters with work colleagues to mininise the threat of disclosure in simp 
not practicable within the very public framework of employment, It is al- 
go an extremely cumbersome 
device and, as indicated oarlierg ensures con- 
- 184 - 
tir=Ous Pre-oooupation withq and reinforoement of onets image as a 
devianty shamful person. However,, 6 Group I respondents felt they 
managed to Pass for Boma of the time (Mrs. B. C., Mrs. A. B., Nre. C. O., 
MrOe Ioy., Mr. S*We, and Mr. P. R. ), but for many work situations, pass. 
ing was generally used in combination with various normalising strate- 
gies, a few examples of which I shall describe* 
(a) Playing the buffoon 
The use of humour is a particularly effective device in neutralis. 
ing both awkwardness and irrittabilitye Ironioally, skill in its use do- 
pends on the preservation both of expressive ooominioation skills, and 
a shared understanding of a hearing person's sense of humoar, to which 
effeotive "standard' oommnioa+. ion gives ready aooess. This is not an 
option available to disoredited, respondents with Ideviant' speeah per- 
formanoeo 
For hearing peopleg the appreciation or hawar tenft to be largely 
verbal in nature. As NASH and NASH (1978) ooment: "o * joke telling 
is a regalar source of amsement, not so nxoh for the oontentq. 
but because of the way the story is told and the length of time 
needed to tell it . The joke becomes fannier to the hearing be- 
cause time is 'fouled up'"* 
It is often the long played-cut reomating of a storyg with appropr.. 
le 
iate pauses, and digressions to baild up to the final denouemnt which 
give hearing jokes their piquanoso 
Fbr visaal humour to be effective, it often demands the special 
talents of a Marcel 14aroeau., Signing hamour often tback-firedI. No 
hearing co-worker43 in this study had even rudimentary sign skills. 
Jokes told - in sign are often 
impossible to translateg as the idiom 
is so different. The possibilities for incongraity between vimial and 
verbal humour are widespread. And distortions in meaning are heavily 
sanctioned, 
I)iscreditable MiBB P. L. v howeverl Bhowed a lively awaremBB Of 
exploiting the possibilities of hearing humour, thus eounteraoting im- 
ý 185 - 
Putati-Ons Of stigma and 'enabling the normal'. She described her success: 
"I've -taught people I've worked with to laugh at my deafness as (sic) 
they aren't disoomfittedo At the same time I know they don't really 
understand *. * Another guyq he1B a deaf oolleagmet we put our two deaf 
ears together and say 'pardon? pardon? '. It's a huge joke in the office". 
Playing the buffoong the aacepted stereotype of the 'deaf I. does have its 
hazards, and great care bas to be taken in the seleotion of an appropriate 
audience for such a displayo Salience of resources as well as oommlinioative 
competence also obaracterised the success of Kre NoNo's performance* He 
was able to use his professional status as a sales executive and ebullient 
personality to turn a potential offioe farore, into a jokeo After*-the trauma 
of being recently adventitiously dearenedip when he oouldp potten-tiallyl have 
been a candidate for discredited status, he reoolleoted: Mlhen I first lost 
my hearing I was doing a lot of shouting. Everyone at work was shout- 
ing and going home and shouting at their husbands and wives. It be- 
came a joke. The Director brought me a ool%r of "Winter Weekend Breaks' 
and said 'How about having a nice quiet weekendV" 
Additionally, he had apparently been whistling to himself without being 
aware of it* "My oolleagues asked me if I realised I was whistlinge When 
I didn'tq everyone laughed"* 
Pbr discredited respondentsq Xr. D. S., with no speech and flanotion. 
ally barely literatel was the only signing respondent to capital-tse on 
an appreoiation of 'slipping-on-&-banana iddn' IMpe of hu uro It was a 
ahrewd assessment of the one kind of visual humour genemlly appreciated 
by hearing people. He has what he calls "joke-fights" at mork* "Not nasty. 
When you dontt understand, they have a good laugh", 
His pleasan*-t sunnY disPOSition may well have additionally amounted for 
the general lack of abrasion and inoidents oharacteristio of sone of his 
signing oolleagues at work* As his mother oommented: "D* always seems to 
mke it all right with people"o 
(b) Avoiding the Avoidem 
Howeverl suoh was the power of antioipated disloeation of relation- 
ships from the stigma reactions I have 
diSCUSBed for some discreditable re- 
spondents, anything even approximating to a social life at work was perceived 
- 186 - 
as hardly feasible. Mr. C. R. (I), even though far from being evidently 
handicapped conceded "I have no social life outside the family" and to 
having "Only acquaintanoss" at work. A life-long habit of sooial with- 
drawal from antioipated disorediting was in the nature of a self-ful- 
filling propheoy. Feelings of sooial. isolation at work, as a seoond- 
ary deviant outoome were firmly entrenohed. At the same time, diso- 
ooiat, ion and rationalisation were often employed in -tandem, enabling 
respondents both to head off antioipated avoidanoe of them by others, 
and to retain a grasp on their self-esteem and preferred definitions 
of self. 
So Mr. S. G. (II) stressed that his 'anti--sooiabilityt was as much 
personality trait as attributable to his deafness, his only admission 
of loneliness being "You sometimes get downhearted because yxm oantt 
piok up things as you should"* 
Otherwiset he firmly rationalined his avoidance. "I'm looking after 
the machine ee I donOt really six. If thereto talking to be done, 
sayq to find out something, I'll ask .. When I'm doing the job 
IlIve got to concentrate that maoh harder I oan't worry about 
what ts going on around"* 
It was a tactic similarly employed by Miss CA, 
(o) Looking for-Proteotive Cover 
The protective fanction of indastrial noise served to preserve the 
illusion of comradeship for Mr. W. G. (II). "With 
as people are all shouting Itm not left out. 
when I go to the loo. I'm dead as soon as I 
Work's my saving grace"O. 
Again the illusion of comradeship could be s, 
pany of other stigmatised groups at work. Social 
the ma, ohines running, 
I feel shut off only 
go out of here. 
astained in the oom- 
contact often appear- 
ed to fare better with other Imarginalt workers. As racial and ethnic 
minority groups share many of the same kinds of devaluative experienoes 
as the hearing impairedv minority groups evidently seek eaoh other out 
for mutual support in an otherwise potentially or actually hostile en- 
vironment. Both Mr. N. C. and Mrs. B. L. 
(IV) had found protection against 
;F &mploy-e-d- for 25 years as a Line-sevter, ne was well aware, but re- 
signed to the fact that industrial noise had largely contributed to his 
hearing loss. The question of claiming compensation had not occurred 
to him. Neither was it something he wanted to pursue. 
- 187 - 
stigma reactions by 'clubbing together' with black or Asian workers. 
As Mr. M. C. commented "I'm closer to coloured workers than -white. They 
accept my deafness more than white hearing people .. When I was 
moved from the City I felt more left out because no coloured wor- 
kers. Now I'm in Acton the staff are 50: 50 Indian/White. I have 
lunch with Indian workers". 
Unfortunatelyl however, this tends to aocentuate differentness. 'Stig. - 
ma fall--out" enoompasses both devalued groups to the farther detriment 
of both. 
The ohief limitation of normalising techniques,, namely the refa- 
sal of others to go along with them, was illustrated vividly by Mrs* 
R. I.: "You can get by so far. But then people tend not to believe 
you. They think youtre trying it on. Or sometimes you can patch 
up a conversation. Maybe you get the tail end of it. With people 
you know at work, you get laughed at if you get it wrong. Bat 
others think you're stupid. It can lead to embarrassment and 
ill-feeling". 
With deoreasing oompetenoe in oommnioation skillol options for 
strategy management inoreasingly narrowed; at the same time, stigma 
reactions were correspondingly more severe. These will be disoussed 
in a farther section* Firfft, I propose -to look at some of the major 
deviant outoomes to stigma reaotiorks of xweaseq stiakinessp impatienoe 
and irritability: namely exolusion. from aooess to gossip ohannels, 
Jokes and banter, and from partioipation in the small, but vitally im-- 
portant sooial rituals of pub or canteen lunohesq tea and ooffee breaks, 
games of oards, Suoh exolusion. is refleoted in the redaoed qaality of 
sooial relatiorwhips at work, and was responsible for many of the seo- 
ondary feelings of lack of self-oonfidenoe, inadequaoy, anxiety and 
isolation. In varying degreesq respondents from all COmMlInicatiOn 
Groups were affected. 
5o SOME STIGMA OUTCOMES: "ITIS NATURAL, ISNIT IT" 
As with other asPeots of oontainment disoussed in Chapter 49 ex- 
olusion sooially at work may seem to be a 'natural' outoomeg and in- 
trinsio to the nature of the impairment itself. To an extent this is 
- 188 - 
so, and it would be idle to deny - as some labelling theorists have 
tried to do - the 'objective' reality of what is defined as the dev- 
iant condition. Difficulties in picking up the often unpredictable 
and fast-changing topic content of gossip, for example, or group., ohit- 
chatp are part of the continuing dilemma of lipreading in other than 
a one-to-one situation* 
Ny oonterrtion, as disoussed in Chapter 39 is that along with other 
so-called lobBtaolest, it is the breaching of norms of interaction 
by defioient speeoh performanoe whioh is itself stigmatisedg as well 
as its ramifioations. Stereotyping - the uniform classifioation of 
those handioapped by varying degrees of oommmicative defiaienoy which 
impinges on BOmething so basic as ease of interaction - is the prior 
factor, 
Any tobstaolest or 'outoomes., j as noted in Chapter 4t are then 
rationalised and legitimated an "inmiperablet and JustifYthe absenoe 
of any effort to overoome them. The use of finger*-spelling the odd 
word (e"ily learnt) to give a olue, or trilling int after a gro p dis- 
oussion, for exampleg were oonspicuous by their absenoe. And the out- 
oomes, ý: t themselves prodace further deviantising, 
The few oases where stigma has not baton universally applied (I Nro 
N. M., Mrs. N. F., Miss G. F-) attests to the raot that so--o&]. led lob. 
staoles' are by no means insuperable. As noted, even in the faoe or 
evidence to the oontraryp the very faot that they contime to be per- 
ceived as suoh by the vast majority of hearing oolleagtxef3 and employ- 
ers - not to mentiont at times, respondents 
themselves - lends substanoe 
to my argument. 
(a) Being br-passed: Gossip as a spoial ritual at work 
Sxclusion from participation in gossip affected respondents from 
all Communication Groups. 
Few, even though profeBBing to enjoy gossip 
at work, found it totally without strain 
(Mrs. I. Y. possibly emoepted). 
- 189 - 
Reactions represented a whole range of strategies. Quite often 
rationalisations were employed - that gossip was intrinsically boring, 
not worthy of attention, or that, regardleE3s of hearing impairment, re- 
spondents would not have participated anyway. Face aving techniques 
were thuse confined to somewhat futile atteMptB to normalise (ie. 'Par- 
ticipatel even though little was heard and understood, in return, per- 
haps, for the illusion of tgetting on with one's workmateal); denial 
and rationalisation, and withdrawal. 
Group I respondents had recourse to the face-saving device of 
find it irrelevant. I don't enjoy chit-chat anyway" (Mr. B. U. ); or 
"Itm a loner. I'd be concentrating on 1"t I9m doing" (Nr. B. T. ), thus 
enabling them to repudiate any imputations of undesirable differentness. 
Strategic withdrawalfrom this particular situation charaoterised the 
response of Miss P. L.: "I can participate. It's only a strain in noisy 
surroundings ... But if I met a couple of people at the photo- 
copying machine, I wouldn't make an effort to join in". 
Several respondents illustrated the practical constraints on 
gossiping whilst working, bat it was Niss C. G. who was most aware of 4b 
the social penalties this incurredw As she remarked: "I work in a 
big room. I either work or talk. I can't do both. I may appear 
to be standoffish to people. Bat I cannot afford to have an ear 
cooked to general gossip ... Thereto a slight lack of oameraderie 
as a result. I'm seen as too cold o*-too precise. But it's the 
only way I can get anything done. It's a case of concentrating 
on one thing or the other". 
Pbr other respondents, the question of participating in gossip 
hardly arose. Discredited respondents were rarely included. Choice 
in the matter had been pre-empted. Any sustained, or even sporadic 
efforts to ensure their participation in one of the small social rit- 
uals which give piquance to a work routine were rare. Xxclusion was 
Bimply an 'automatic' conBequence of being adjudged communicatively 
deviant. yet participation in gossip is, as BECKER (G., op. cit) notes, 
a form of "social glue". It is one of the chief means of cementing and 
keeping alive such work relationships as exist, and maintaining a sense 
- 190 - 
of belonging to one's environment. However much one may dread being 
gossiped about., this does nothing to prevent the normally hearing en. 
gaging in the activity. To be thus exolude(L giV6S BOMe indication of 
the power of informal means of social control exeroised by hearing ooll- 
eagues. 
Generallyq there was little diBoredited respondents 0ould do to 
neutralise the damaging impact of Emoh exclusion, Neverthelesag as 
GOFTMN (1961) noted of situations whioh are not totallyolosed, ".. when 
an individual must accept oircumtanoes .. that affront his con- 
oeptiomof self, he is allowed a margin of faoe-saving reactive 
expression - sullenness, failure to offer the usual signs of def- 
erence, sotto vooe profaning, or fagitive expressions of oontempt, 
irony and derision"* 
Thus Miss R. C. and Mr. D. S. managed to disoredit the disoreditorst at 
least to their own satisfaotiong by oomenting reprovingly on the way 
gossip was allowed to interfere with hearing peoples' oonoentration on 
their work. In an attempt to neutralise his sense of isolation on the 
assembly line, IL signed to me: "Others gossip, I think hearing lazy, 
stupid. Always gossipingj" 
19nacted stigma - the feeling of employers 11cashing in't on such a 
deviant outoome and exploiting it was oommented on by only one respond- 
ent, Mrse. PA. saw the exclusion of the hearing impaired from partioi- 
pation in the gossip network as a decided advantage whioh was capital. 
iBed on by employers: "If there Is a job and boas wants it cleared and 
done, give it deaf toos they know they ain't gossiping. That's 
why employers like deaf at low jobs"* 
(b) Exolusion from lunohes, ooffee and tea-breaks 
Q"si. aooommodationg or outright exolusion from sharing in lunch- 
breaks, ooffee and tea breaksp and the odd excursion to the Pubt under- 
lined the non-aoceptance of most hearing respondents. As a deviant 
outoome, it signified deterioration in sooial relationships. Again, 
this took plaoe along a oontirumm of rejeotion, aooording to oommuni- 
cative oompetence.. 
- 191 - 
Similarly, rationalisations, or "accounts" were commonly used to 
explain a" perceived social solecism of not J04"In ino Mr* P*Z* 
and Mr, B., U. 9 for example., resorted respectively to explanations of 
"being a loner" and "it's a personality thing" to excuse any absences* 
Otherwise,, as with gossipm the pattern was either one of avoidanc* 
of the ritual of shared lunch br*Ww altogether (or of being avoided)* 
For isome discreditable reopcmdents, simply being ther*9 regardifto of 
whether anythl is hoard or understoodl cozotituted the toler- 
anee level shown and provided the illusion of sociability* Mro W*C, 
coment9d, for instance: "I do go to the pub at lunch time but I wouldn't 
say I understood such th*ro". * 
The difference between the ability to choose to avoid - an option 
available to discreditable respondents - and imposed choiceg whwe op- 
tions are decided for one (the lot of mW discredited "apandents)l in 
nicely illustrated by Mr* SG. (II) and Mine R, Co (V)q both mods the 
mLm* covering device,, but in response to different degrees of pressur** 
Mr. S. G. wauB still able to exercise choict in avoiding the ritual with- 
out incurring overt manctions: *I don't re&Uy talk inch in the canteen 
b*caun* I can't hear vhat's goixg on, I got a paper and read that". 
Miss R. *C. 's recourse to a book ims dictated an such by nooessity an 
choicee She signe4/wrote: "Nat alenee Read a book. When the(y/coll. 
eagues/ talk don't ask as to join in"* 
However, the hazardous nature of eith*r voluntary or isposod 
avoidance of this particular opportunity for the exercise of expected 
sociability is evident. Exposure to being an one's own in a vorke can. 
teen places respondents in a particularly vulnerable position* Their 
Idifferentuess' is accentuated - even for discreditable respondents. 
This my, in itselft not off a further train of stigma reactions. 
"Accounts'19 excuses or explanations available to respondents in cammi 
social encounters will not pass miuster at work where a respondent is 
knowno 
- 192 - 
The variability of the impact of stigma has been commented on in 
other connections. Whilst communicative competence is the overriding 
factor in determining its managementq the salience of Personality and 
other rej3ourOeB emphasises the interdependence of psychologioal and soo- 
iological responses. ThuB the effects of deprivation of the little rit- 
uals which often enliven mundane, routine jobs, or oement relations in 
others, sometimes varied from respondent to respondent, even where 
oomannioation skills were fairly oomparable. Thus Mr. B. T. (I) remarked 
of his job: "Yougve got a grouP Playing cardso But theytd never bother 
with me. I dontt understand why. It never used to worry me* 
Ilve got a thick skin"o 
Howevert for Mr. S. L. (II) daring his papillagel when his hear' 
loss became increasingly manifest, the inability to share in 'taking 
teat whilst the jurY is oull was very painful to him. Relationships 
with his fellow-barristers had deteriorated to the point where he comý- 
ented-,, "I aouldn'It make friends with the other barristers at tea- 
time , e. I had to sit in silence. It makes you look such a fool". 
Dialogue, the exchange of ideas, the thrashing out of argument and 
count er-argument 9 had been his life. Going over the dayto oases at 
tea was standard practioe at the Bar. The sense of both felt and enao- 
ted stigma cwoasioned by this deprivation was strongo 
Suffering the lack of invitations to join in at lumoh or team 
breaks, and exclusion from the leavening effects of gossip were gener- 
ally the lot of most discredited respondents. A dull acquiescence or 
a 'shrug' response were characteristic. Mr. G. C. (V) signed' "In staff 
canteen, used to it /being alone/", 
He oontrasted this with "outside .. where Group together and sign away% 
It represented the extreme end of rejection by his work colleagues. 
Although the verdict was nominally aocepted in that bargaining for 
more favourable definitions of self in this situation yielded negative 
results, and the frameworks within which negotiation could take place 
had solidified for this particular work fhaPPening'q role engulfment 
- 193 - 
howeverl was not total. As noted previously, Mr. G, C. j after a period 
Of apparent quiescencop was 'on the move" in other directions. 
(c) Missing out on JokeB 
Finallyp being excluded from sharing in jokesp banter and fang (of 
ROY9 1976)9 although not speoifically asked aboutq was mentioned spon- 
taneously by a few respondents as a keenly felt deprivationo Jtq too, 
oontributed muoh to the sense of isolation and loneliness whioh is a 
feature of relationships between hearing and hearing impaired at work. 
Similarly, it deviantises in itself. 
It was often a question of jokes badly misfiring, in oontrast to 
the deliberate use of humour as a neutralising dovioe discussed earlierv 
reinforcing already existing stigma reactions of unease and impatience. 
Mcolusion affected respondents from all Comaninication Groups, Niss B. G. 
(I) was partioularly seimitive to the way exolusion - whether doliber- 
erate or inadvertent - oould leqA to interpersonal friction. "I miss 
confidenoes. Funny gags. It makes me tactless sometimes"q she 
noted, 
Mr. R. B. was similarly oonscious of what is the sequential nature 
of deviance defining, where the deviant ou-toome of exalusion from jokes 
oan preoipitate further interpersonal abrasion. At first interview he 
oommented: "I miss out on jokes. I'm oompletely out off"', 
In a later letter, he expanded on this, He described an incident at work 
involving a practical joke, which had misfired, leading to all-wound re- 
sentment. He wrote: "It seems after Itd been daly censured that the 
others, though having more interesting work or maohinesý are some- 
times bored and, so my boss told me, would go round -the twist if 
there werentt any practical jokes to play. It Is worse for me, 
since I oantt hear the radio or gossip to the same amount, but I 
dDn't spend my time playing or thinking up practical jokes. "One 
law for the hearing, another for the deaf here perhaps'. Not that 
I've ever been told not to play practical jokes (perhaps Itm not 
that type) but since I get the boring work I'm tired and ill-dis- 
posed to hear about the boredom of hearing people". 
In looking at these three examples of stigma Outcomes , the per-- 
vasivenesB of the cultural stereotypes which, I su9pst, gives rise 
- 194 - 
to such outcomes in the first placet is a feature of the lives of most 
hearing impaired respondents. The insidious power of informal labellers, 
ostensibly the status equals of their hearing inrpaired colleaguess to 
define and defile is clearly evident. 'Stickin it out' under such cir- 
cumstances is rendered very problematic. Both felt and enacted stigma 
were apparent, across all Comimmication Groups. 
(d) A Self-Confirming Image? Loss of Self-Confidences AnxietYt 
Isblation and Depression 
An outcome of a somewhat different nature, but fundamental to dis- 
rupted primary interaction between Inormals' and a stigmatised group, 
is that of incorporation of the deviant attributes with which the stig- 
matised person is ascribed, and their manifestation in terms of nore in- 
tangible feelings of strain, loss of self-confidence, anxiety and isolatione 
The role of informal labellers in solidifying imputations of dev- 
iance is particularly difficult to assess in this respect. The inability 
of labelling theorists to measure the level of intensity of reaction 
which may lead to internalisation of deviant status - or to assess what 
makes deviant labels 'stick' - has been a constant source of irritation 
to critics of this perspective. Yet this totally ignores the relativity 
of the deviance defining process which, I contend, is one of its great- 
eat strengths. Rather than being a hindrancel it accurately reflects 
the whole process of deviance defining as one of constantly shifting 
evaluations. The difficulties inherent in trying to quantify the content 
of such a process are hardly surprising. 
Above all, labelling is a recij2rocal process, arising out of the 
interaction of the moment. It is of critical importance to understand 
who is defining whom and where. The hearing impaired in the sustained 
situation of work seem to be particularly vulnerable to the general 
ascriptions of incompetence which diffusely characterise the hear' 
population's common-sense stock of knowledge about 'the deaf'. In con- 
trast to casual social encounters, a much greater 
degree of consistency, 
intensity and duration 
- 195 - 
of stigma reactions characterise life at work for the hearing impaired* 
(This again confirms the need, identified by GARRISON and TESCH (1978) A 
to look carefully at the setting in which evaluative judgements are made). 
The fundamental human need for affirmative validation of our basic stat- 
Uses and identities means that it is far from easy to withstand wholesale 
redefining by those who matter. 
at work often mattered most* 
Outside the family network, colleagues 
One of the outcomes - in terms of varying degrees of internalisation 
of feelings of timidity, anxietyq loneliness and even depression - formed 
a backdrop against which other, more tangibles outcomes were negotiated. 
I have termed these 'secondary deviant outcomes' in that, although diff- 
ering in degree, they were generally held by most respondents. Although 
some degree of role primacy is implicit, I dog however, reject the notion 
of fixity of response indicated in I. RT's (1951) usage of the term. The 
ability of respondents to cope with such feelings varied according to the 
situation, across time., and with their individual social and personal re. 
sources. Such responses did not tend to cry8t&ll18e into a deviant role 
"as a means of defense, attack or adjustment to overt or covert pro- 
blems created by the consequent societal reaction" (LEMERT, op. cit). 
It is an area where personal resources carry as much significance as 
the theme of communicative competence with which I am chiefly concerned. 
Yet the fact that such feelings were endemic amongst the respondents I 
talked with suggests they are one of the more insidious, invisible outcomes 
of the informal defining process. Above all, they arise from those small 
happenings, the interaction between Inormls' and 'deviants, which GOFFMAN 
(1968) has referred to as one of the "primal scenes of sociology". 
For Mrs. A. H. self-doubt and self-devaluation had resulted in a 
form of role engulfment. She remarked: "I didn't have a lot of friends 
at work because I felt different. People avoided me. They felt I 
was a strain to talk to. I felt alienated. Quite strong.. I asked 
Srhat's wrong with me? Why do they do this to me? ' .. I felt my 
image wasn't 100% .. Colleagues were negative towards me. I felt - 
like - different, Just backward. All the time inferiority complex". 
The erosion of self-confidence is not an abrupt process. It is more 
- 196 - 
likely to be characteris*d by a gmdual awareness in response to the 
tranaition from acceptable to login acceptable statung with the effect 
of sustained exposure at vork to rebuffs and rejection* 
For other discreditable respandentalo ammultim oz self-confidenc* 
often had ramifications far beyond the imediate incorporation of a do- 
baS*d self-images Mr. B. U. said: "My most diffimdt problem in lack of 
self-confidence. I lose the initiative in groups". 
An a member of a profession where a high premium in placed an qualities 
Of 1"dOrShip, initiative and the cummlativo ispact of 
his Wecarious status in the eyes of his hoaring colleagues might woll 
an oninaus future in term of further deviant outcsiýj ginch an 
the dwdal of responsibility* This was, kmm*verg a prospect Kre B*U- 
strenuolmily refuted* 
For Mrse BeCv f*e1ings of inadequacy and ansitty imperilled her 
some of job security, "People whove got norml ke&Ang cannot under- 
stand the feelings of inadequacy *. * I do go througk phases when 
I feel so insecure .. that I won't be able to ho3d an to it /the 
job/* There was a phase when my confidence was badly shakeng when 
an older supervisor case, She undermined a*"* 
This was not somethings I und*rntoods which luLd troubled her prior to 
her hearing loss* 
Similar feelings of inadequacy and lose of self-confidence have 
affoctod both discroditablo and discr*dited respondentso Contrary to 
my earlier impressions of the protective function of the deaf comonmity 
having an ineulating offeet cm other life dowlnm two siowin r«pond- 
*nts commented on this internalisation of devalued aspects of themselves* 
Possibly the harsher effects of a life-time's exposure to stigm reactionn 
are modified by virtu* of membership vith this close-knit culture,, but 
the protection, as noted, does not seem to extend to the work environment. 
I 
Solace can only be provided by '13vaPPilmg talon of wool of the day's ov- 
onto with colleagues in the evening. Thus Miss M. A. confided: "Lack of 
confidence* Secret problem. Feel everyone better than so". 
Miss R. C. was open about bar diffidence as far as social relationshilm 
at work -1pe It will be recalled that she never Ms any 
- 197 - 
BOCial life outside with hearing people). She signed: "Feel nervous 
and/4in/ self-confident , Draw baok"o 
A closely related response - and a mLItually reinforoing one - is 
2 that of intense feelings Of iBOlation As many studies have shown, 
sooial iBOlation is a oommon outoome for the hearing impairedo More- 
over, it is an outcome affecting respondents across all Comminioation 
Groupst bearing out the specrulations of HW=T and THOMAS (1980) that 
tto*an. v peroeived breakdown of oomaninioation is suffioient to engender 
a feeling of loneliness and beyond that it does not matter how bad 
the breakdown i&. Thus the moderately deaf are as likely_to feel 
lonely as the severely deafV 
Translating this into my tYPOlogyj and reoalling the resistanoe I ex. 
perienced to an investigation of the oommonality of peroeptions amorgst 
the hearing impairedip this is a presoient - and reassuring - statement. 
However, feelings of sooial isolation at work have rarely been 
oommented om (paow BIRD and TRIVAINS, 1978; TREVAINS, 1982) in their 
studies of those with aoquired loss. Certainly the old adage IYoutre 
never so lonely as in a orowd' does not sees to have been applied to 
a situation where -the performanoe of taxIcs, rather than the opportuni- 
ty for socialisation is ostensibly the prine objective. Tbt feelings 
of social isolation at work were endemio. The pressure to derive ful- 
fillment from work for those whose work tasks are largely routine and 
repetitive tends to be 'resolved by reoourse to preoisely the sooial 
relationships from whioh the hearing impaired are segregated and ex- 
o lu de d., 
Mrs. E. I. confessed: "When the girls are all chatting, I stand 
there and wait for the conversation to finish. It does make you 
feel a bit miserable at times". 
And Mr. S. L. had been advised against becoming self-employed for this 
vez7 reason. 
A similar response came from discredited respondents. Mr. E. B. 
commented "I feel very isolated .. But I try to mix,, If I didnit, 
I'd be isolated oompletelylle 
And D. S. Is mother remarked: "In circles where deafness is appreciated, 
- 198 - 
D. is CK. Bat when he steps outside, at work, there are diffi- 
OUltieB. He tries to speak but oonversation inevitably turns to 
hearing people. Dfs left out. It used to hurt him. It's not so 
bad now". 
As a form of role engulfment, sruch secondary deviant outcomes did 
have the appearance of being more solidified than those reFrulting from 
exclusion from more tangible goals - such as access to economic status. 
The sense of movement, however minimal, which tends to oharacterise the 
latter, often seemed absent in response to the secondary OUtCOMeB I have 
discussed here. Although integrated in varying dogmas, they appeared 
to form a fairly permanent and stable backeloth against which other 
forms of strategy management were developed to deal with other aspects 
of oonfronting the hearing at work. 
Nevertheless, it cannot be emphasised too often that there are de- 
grees of deviantness, and role primacy of the kind suggested by IRMM 
was rejeoted by a small minority of respondents. Efforts at compens- 
ation, for example, were used by Mr. B. T. and Miss C. G. Both managed 
to ward off feelings Of isolation by absorption in the job, Mr. B. T. 
rather more successfully than Miss C. G. At interview Mr. B. T. brought 
down an old leather Army bag he had designed daring the War and lovingly 
went over the intricacies of design and technique which had gone in- 
to its making. 
For Miss C. G., this strategy was somewhat more precarious, al- 
though the tacit realisation. of the possibilities of role engulfment 
were very apparent to her: "Always being busy is very important so 
you don't feel out off. Sometimes it hits me if I'm not busy". 
Other respondentB had learnt how to circumvent what would other- 
wise be seen as devastating feelings of isolation. Mrs. N. F. was able 
to deflect the impact. She commented: "I have felt this. But I know 
how to surmount it now". 
only Miss H. Q. denied any feelings of isolation. Her rioh and 
active social life possibly compensated for any feelings of loneliness 
- 199 - 
at worko together with the incorporation of a much more positive image 
of self with which living in the States had equipped her. "Alonet not 
lonely" she commented, nicely illustrating the distinction. 
Feelings of depression were meirtioned by only a few respondents, 
1 from Group I11 from 1-1., 2 from Group IV and 1 from Group V. The fact 
that they were mentioned at all is significant, given that it was not 
a question spe0ifi0ally askedl and the thesis was not deBigmd to ex. 
plore such an area. 
The oorrelation between hearing impairment and some forms of do- 
pression has now been established (THONASI 1980), but, to my knowledge, 
its impact on Erubjects' working lives has not been investigated. I 
will, therefore, make a very brief reference to it. It seemed to aff- 
eot disoredited respondents partioularly hard. Mr. R. B., at first in- 
terview, for example oommented "No, I donft feel exactly rejected at 
work. I just feel dopressed, low". 
Mrs. N. F. was able to use her capacity as a social worker to coment 
with insight: "Deafne"s makes you fbel psychologically un table at times". 
Its relationship with work was, perhaps, most poignantly illus- 
trated by Mrs. P. K. Feelings of isolation and depression were intimi- 
ately interwoven - and will be discussed 'shortly in teram of her daugh- 
ter's total exclusion from social interaction at work. As Mrs. P. K. 
commented: "P. gets very depressed. Sometimes people just walk away 
and ignore her. When a new person comes, a deaf person's a nov- 
elty, something new. Then ignore her when itts too difficult". 
Thusp to the extent that stigina reactions were widespread and pow- 
erful, they often vitally affected the self-esteem - and subsequent be- 
haviour patterns - of those respondents who incorporated them into a 
deviant role. The seoondary deviant outoomes I have just (iiscussed 
very much reflect the feelings of debased self-worth which, I suggest, 
are an important response to exclusion from satisfying work relationships. 
- 200 - 
Any clear-cut distinction between strategy management of discred- 
itable and discredited respondents in relation to these very personal- 
ised outcomes was hardly discernible. A few exceptions apart, such 
feelings affected respondents from all Communication Groups. The only 
significant difference was an ability lexternallyt to attempt to mini- 
mise their impact. Skills in communication were less relevant than a 
more individualised 'tough hide'. Both individual psycho-social and 
more generalised Isooial problemt levels are involved here, As sugges- 
ted earlierv the two are not readily separable. The meanings an out- 
come has for an individaal tdeviatort are inextricably interwoven with 
the broa&r &vianoe situation in whioh the individual rinds himseir 
imme rse d. 
Indeed, one of the criticisms of the labelling perspeotive has been 
ooncerned with an apparent over-emphasis on indivi&ml sooio-psycho- 
logical reactiorm to stigma. However, as SCHUR (1979) EmgPstst bv 
the adoption of a broad conception of deviance as a process,, and the 
identification of certain general reaction processes as ".. the distin- 
guishing feature of deviance situations, then we are almost inev- 
itably drawn to interpreting such responses and the forces gener- 
ating them at various levels of the social order". 
have considered it important"to include a discussion of secon- 
dary deviant outcomes as these are essentially the anings that an 
accumulation of negative experiences at work appear -to have for the 
hearing impaired. Meanings and peroeptions are' for the larger part of 
this thesis, treated as embodied in the experiences respondents describe. 
Here, they have been speoifically identified and isolated as dis- 
t inct phe nome na. 
The relativity of deviance defining has been viewed as providing 
essential flexibility and coherence to the whole concept of labelling. 
As indicated, -whilst some conditions might elicit only relatively mild 
stigma reactions, such as the unease and impatience I have already dis- 
- 201 - 
cussed, increased departure from the norms of interaction tend to pro- 
voke harsher responses. I have argue d that oommunicat ive I inoompetence tI 
because it interferes so fundamentally with the taken-for-granted pro- 
cess Of sociability, is particularly prone to more extreme informal san- 
ctioning. As oommunication skills increasingly doviated from tnormalf 
expeotational relationBhips with oolleagues oorreBpondingly deterior- 
ated. 'Trouble' often erupted for discredited respondents who were 
without the oomaninioative tools with which to negotiate their way out 
of a Ertioky situation, 
HARSHIR REACTIONS AND FURTHER (XJTCOMECS 
(a) Teasing, 'Taking the MickeZ' and Ridicule 
became common stigma reactionB. As much oan be achieved to shame and 
degrade by a snicker and a sneer, unkind jokes, mimicryof Ideafisms'l 
mockery of sign langUage or minimal speech, as by any formal degradation 
ceremony. 
Milder forms of teasing and mookery had been experienced. by res- 
pondents from all Communioation Chroups. As with other situations, 
oonnunioative skills and salienoe of resouroes were usually able to 
-save the day for disoreditable respondents* 
The use of humour as a tactic has already been mentioned in other 
contexts. One fiLrther examPle will serve to illustrate how it can eff- 
eotively do-fuse a situation which might otherwise degenerate into un- 
pleasant ridioule. Mrs. 3, Iw demonstrated her ability "to got the 
girls laughing with me". This has not been something easily learnt in 
the face of devaluative judgements. She commented: "People used to 
take the miakey. Theytve asked for a ooffee and bun and got tea 
and cakes. But they were a good crowd of girls .. When we got 
to know each other we had a laugh". 
For those unable to wield suoh oommunicative tools, strategy op- 
tions had so narrowed that only devianoe avowal - retaliation or oapit- 
ulation - or denial - were open to respondents. 
am 20 2- 
One particularly pernicious form of 'taking the mickey' is the 
habit hearing people have of giggling or whispering behind a deaf per- 
son's back, seoure in the knowledge that little can be done by way of 
retaliation (other than "BOlUtions' liable to da ge the viatim), One 
of the most oommon misoonceptions of the hearing impaired is that they 
are thought to be paranoid in this respect. It is, however, a suspio- 
ion often well founded, and has affooted respondents, at one time or 
another, from all Communioation groups. 
Discreditable respondents generally had been able to neutralise 
its impaot by tshrugging it offt. Mr. C. P., for izu3tanoeq oommented 
"Itve grown out of -that. They used to. I know a lot of deaf 
people experienoe it", 
As an on-going experience for discredited respondents, however, they 
either capitulated in the verdict, or retaliated in a way which tended 
to reinforoe their already tainted status. As Mrs* PA. oommented of 
her daughter "Always talking behind her back. Whispering about her. 
'That silly cow, we don't want her working with us'. Or 'I'm 
not having old dopey working with met". 
Miss PA. had, latterly, at any rate, learnt to -live with it, although 
retaining a keen sense of felt stigma. On the other handq Mrs. N. R. 
remarked of her son "If he stops and turns round and sees people 
laughing and joking in a corner, he thinks its about him ... He 
gets macV1. 
Fights were an on-going response to this. 
The inculoation of a sense of differentness, of an inherently un- 
desirable kind, whioh total departures from expeoted oommnioation skills 
elicit, gives some indication of the socially controlling powers of 
informal labellers, something whioh has been grossly underestimated in 
the many studies using the labelling perspective. Either way, discred- 
ited victims are caught in a Catch 22 position: compliance in the 
shaming process - or ineffectual rebuttal - both of which tend to re- 
inforce their already deviant status. 
(b) #No Signing Here Please. '?, 
- 203 - 
Sign Language provided another focus for mockery. It attracted as 
much opprobrium at work as bizarre or minimal speech. Used with Eruoh 
pride and enjoyment socially, it had to be put into 'cold storage f as 
far as work was ooneerned. Only Mr. G. C. worked with other deaf cwll- 
eagues and was thus able to oommunicate sooially in sign. Both Mr. G. C. 
and- Miss H. Q. maintained they interested their hearing work oolleagues 
in sign, attempting to teaoh theml and even gaining an appreoiative re- 
sponse. Miss H. Q. signed/wrote: "They are even eager to learn signs, 
as they thought it was rantastio and useful in noisy places or 
faraway places". 
Nevertheless, she was obliged to ooncede that the usua3L reaction was 
very different: "Other times if signing in a group, they stare. We 
are animals or something"* 
Other respondents' experienoes were seen to provoke outright ridi- 
cule and ostracism. This is highlighted by an incident which happened 
to Mr. L. M., amompanying a deaf friend to a pab after work. A very 
graphio desoription of the feelings of being attributed with sti 
fall-out ensued'.: "They seemed to think we shouldn't be there. I 
got the impression they felt it was almost indecent - something 
to be oovered upý, I felt it ooming through quite strongly: 'If 
you want to do this sort of thing go and do it in your own hoffiet. 
like homosemiality 11. 
An expressed awareness of -the devaluation of sign langmage was re- 
sponsible for one of the many 'walk-OUtB' whioh had oharaoterified the 
employment oareer of Mr. H. H. The sight of him and his wife sooialising 
at work in sign had elicited such ridicule that 'sticking it out" had 
beoome impossible. 
Finally, the ambivalenoe of Mrs. N. F., brought up and edhoated 
orally, but now required to learn sign for the purpOBeS of her job, is 
perceptively illustrated. "When I was younger I eschewed it. It was 
associated with inferior intelligence. We used to see the deafies 
All the kids used to laugh. I didn't want to be one of them. 
was terrified at school that they'd put me in an institution 
for the deaf where they signed. I like being oral. I like what 
Vve read and learnt". 
ý 204 - 
(She is currently also doing an Open University course on "The Handicapped 
in the Community")* ".. But now Ilm pleased Vve learnt to Sig[Lo I think 
people like myself can be helped by it"* 
Thus siga was generally not only greeted with inoomprehension and 
Buspioionj if not outright ridiculeg if displayed at worko It-was also 
profoundly irrelevant as a means of sustaining interpersonal relationships 
at workl or aooording its users improved status* None of the respondents 
I talked with had hearing oolleagues who knew even the rudivients or siga. 
Therefore respondents were obliged to rely on writing if they wanted to 
'say' anything, It will be shown in Cbapter 6 wbat a oumbersome devioe 
this isp tending to kill any spontaneity of dialogmeo As far an hearing 
work oolleagues were ooncernedl the knowledge that respondents used an 
arcane visual language in their sooial liveog often further distanced theme 
What is intereuting about sisming respondents is that the deaf 
community does not appear to extend its protective function which it exer. 
cises socially into the work environmento This was explained to so (mjLIS, 
1982), as oonstituting a quite impractiCal PrOPOsiticm 
30 I-to ramificat- 
ionel howeverl are important for the signing community, The challenge , 
which sign language is seen to pose socially -to the assumptions that speeoh 
and hearing are the only valid and proper ways of experienciag Ure in ob- 
soured in the hearing--dominated world of work* The oommon response of re- 
spondents to the experience of stigma sooially - "it doesn't bother me" - 
was conspicuous by its absence at work* 
Generally ladking intelligible speeohl what made any differenoe at 
all in handling stigma reac'Sions at -work were the salience of respondents' 
personal resourceal and literacy. Fluency in sign on its own, un coomp- 
anied by any ability to read or write Englishl relegated signing respcmd- 
ents to the debabed status of their functionally illiterate orally deaf 
oolleaesues. Repan: Ltion of a braised and battered self-image at the Deaf 
Club in the eveningB wai3 of little oonsequence to mn-vival 
- 205 - 
at work the following day. InBteadq therefore, of a Btrategy of a vigw- 
orOUB repudiation Of stigma, charaoteristic of their response sooially, 
superfiaial capitulation at work was more oommon (MiBB H. Q., possibly, 
excepted)o 
(c) Trouble 
As a response to 'taking the mi0key' and the more extreme forms of 
stigma reaction, ridiouleg trouble often occurred, sometimes with qaite 
drastic repercussions. Again,, the situated nature of deviantising is im- 
portant here. With the naked and sustained exposure of dofeotive oommu- 
nication skillst sooial mismanagement had ramifioations. Disolosure 
in oasual sooial enoounters rarely oarried suoh overt penalties. This 
is not to suggest that penalties inourred generally outside the work 
situation were not equally perniaious and detrimental to self-eBteem. 
But one oould esoape them. Trouble at workq partioularly mishandled 
trouble, not only reinforoed stereotypio images. It also ledp in some 
oases, to overt sanctions and oatoomes in the form of job loss. Outoomes 
were oharacteristioally (in SCWR's terms) both definitions of the sit- 
uation and a "COnCrete state of affairs" (1979)* 
As stressed earlier, it is the very speoial nature of the work sit- 
uation whioh faoilitates the durationt oonsistenoy and intensity of 
stigma reaotions. Both Mr. H. H. and Mr. S. B., at oorroboration inter- 
views, desoribed how trouble tended to ooour in response to the stigma 
reactions described above. Disrupted relationships with oolleagues 
were seen as instrumental in leading to suoh an outoome, 
Mr. H. H. commented: "If there are problems at work, hearing people 
talk them out. If you don't get on with colleagues then they make 
life miserable for you. I've put up with it for years. Mostly 
they try to belittle you. Deaf people resent it. Where they 
cantt stick up for themselves, they get frustrated, If there was 
a groupp they'd get up and say 'Watoh it'. Bat so few deaf people 
work together ... It's because the belittling's Oonstant you get 
so many job ohanges"o 
The impl icat ions for I st icking it out 1 are . readily 
'apparent, 
- 2o6 - 
The amplifying nature of the deviance defining process is alBO iM- 
portant here. Mr. E. B. gave some insight as to how an accumalation of 
often small incidents could escalate out of control. Talking of some 
of his (orally) deaf colleagues, he remarked: "It"s often an accumla- 
tion of small things ... they can feel slighted by their colleagues, 
or they may misunderstand. They may imagine something's happened. 
Things, relationships, become distorted. The pressure builds up. 
If it's not always easily resolvable, itts like a pressure cooker. 
At work, you can't always go away on your own with a book to cool 
down". 
(This is indeed a vivid example of the constraints which the work sit- 
uation imposes, particularly in relation to the lack of control hearing 
impaired employees tend to have over large areas of their work lives. 
In casual social interaction, the situation would not have been allowed 
to deteriorate in such a mann r. The offending actor would have withdrawn). 
The relativity of deviance defining and the differential impact 
of stigma reactions can best be shown by reference to the tactics of 
five subjects in response to not dissimilar Provocation, resulting in 
potential or actual trouble. Both commonality of oategorisation and 
differential response are illustrated. As SCHUR (1979) has noted: 
"Focussing .. on the common reaction process and emphasizing 
variability in kinds and intensities of attributed meanings 
better enables one to consider both the similarities and the 
differences in these situations". 
The very different outoomes in theBG CaBOB demonstrate both the 
effeots of oommunioative competenoe, and within this umbrella framework, 
salience of resources. Although 'taking the miokey' tended to be a 
more characteristic stigma response to increased deviation from Istan- 
dard" communication skills, some hearing impaired respondents from all 
Groups had been on the receiving end of a contimum of teasing and 
mockery. It waB the harBhnesB of reBponse and the reBtrioted mans of 
deflecting it which charaoterised those most oommunicatively handicapped. 
Communicative competence, as well as the salience of resources in 
handling trouble are well illustrated by Mr. B. T. (I). Recalling his 
previous employment as a leather worker, he said "Because I was cleaf, 
- 207 - 
the foreman tried to take the mickoy. It didnot work* I jWt 
went for his. Then he left me alone"* 
Precisely why recours* to, physical violence in this instance did not re- 
sult in instant diminnal for Mr. B. T. in speculativO* But it would mW- 
goat that an ability subsoquently to megotiat* his way out of troublo by 
recourse to accounts, apologies, explanations which were consid9red cred. 
ible - simply because speech performance did not irritate shared mder- 
standiW - permitted resumption of discreditable status. His credibility 
rents firmly an the retention of accoptabl* commimicative tools* 
CayLtulatioa,, hoveverg charecterinod the r"pauses of th* folloving 
two respondents., A particaarly unploaumt imident h&d to Mro 
X. R. (II) which caused his to break down in tears at the interview ro- 
collecting it. It in, bAmover, Judi ive of the carel*mmemw - if not 
deliberate cruelty - which in characteristic of the devia=e defining 
process* 
A work coneWe had shouted a greeting at him from behind which# 
of course, had not been hearde The colleague had said: "Oat' a the mat- 
ter with Zou Got th* Imp? love laid 'Go" mernift, to you J? 
twice and you've not answered"* 
Mr. J. R. onlain9d to me: "I I ve told thin. to come in frout of me. When 
you say you didn't bear,, theylv* got disbelief an tkeir faces* 
Things can get mwty at tivieso R* said 9ft don't yea wear a bo 
placku4 on your back to may you're dwiLf? #% 
Kro JR. 
-,, 
far from resilient to mmakk mul-angkta an MA mklf-*st*ent 
had g(me off nick, and has since been solpleyed in Bold--Bhslt*rOd SUP107- 
sent where he is lose vulnerable to the impact of stigm, working with 
others similarly afflicted* 
With the progromwive narrowing of optiom which increasing coinu- 
nicative inecapetence entailedg deviance avowal, in one form or the other, 
was th* more common strategy. Given similar lack of coummicativo gkills,, 
salience of personal resources did assume importance in determining 
whether confrontation or capitulation techniques were chosen, 
Some respondents' lives had rarely been free from incidents and 
- 208 - 
and trouble. A similar laok of resilience Was shown by Miss L. S. 
(III) 
in tears at interwiew as she rsoolleated the day's eventso Reliant on 
speeoh and gesture, she lipreads with diffioultvp and her speeah, parti- 
cularly when nervous, is indistinct, and laced with grammatical errors, 
A oleaner in a home for the mentally handioapped, she is herself as vul- 
nerable to imputations of stigma as her oharges would be on the outside, 
With a fine sense of the peoking order of the stigmatised, she was of- 
ten the batt of practical jokes with -which her oommmioative skills 
were totally unable to cope. "One of the instraotors today called me 
'stupid'. The boys won't stay out of the toilet., I said 'no'. 
I'd just cleaned it. So the boy went to the instructor. I said 
tI go by the ralest. Boys should stay out of the toilets while 
I'm doing them. I'm embarrassed if a boy's urinating in the 
toilet while I'm doing them. Partioularly as they're handicapped. 
They often miss". 
She found it partioularly diffioult to "pi(dc up again" after Emoh an 
inoident, suoh was the onslaught on her self-esteem: "I don't know 
whether I shall go on. I suppose I must". 
At corroboration interview, she was desparately worried about the 
possibility of dismissal over a hLrther incident. "A man exposed him-- 
self. They all said I imagined it. It's not true. And they 
oalled me mental", 
Her entire employment oareer had been peppered with suoh incid- 
ents. She admitted to some 10 dismissals, a situation whioh her sooial 
worker seemed unable to alleviate. Role engalfiment in the image she 
peroeived others to have of her generalised inoompetenoe was spread 
over other life domains than employment, as I was to disoover. Both 
her deviant communication skills and lack of salience of resources pre- 
oluded her making effective use of neutralising tactios, suoh as humour, 
or the production of credible aooountsv explanations, apologies. It 
also extended to a refutation of the very oredibility of her as a per- 
son. However variable the provocation, it seemed, Miss L. S. responded 
to each stigma reaction with a similar internalisation Of a sense of 
4 
shamefulness and defilement . 
- 209 - 
H. H., also in Communication Group IIIt handled stigma rather 
differently. After a similar history of dismissals, redandancies and 
voluntary walk-outs, he wrote to me: 1"rhen four years of misery at xx 
as draughtsman. Wife worked there too- How we were teased con- 
stantly. It proved too much that I didn't care if I got the saok. 
I just threw the role (sio) of drawing at my successor foreman oo 
Now the firm I am working for seems quite friendly but I feel it 
still difficult to shake off the past of bitterness". 
Walking-outj however, although an expression of oonfrontation, does 
not effectively proclaim a counter-stigma ideology. It lacks credi- 
bility as anything other than a gesture of defeat* Moreover, it rein- 
forced already-entrenohed images of tainted status, and, in turn, pro- 
duced further deviant outoomes. Pejorative definitions preceded his - 
subsequent job applications. 
'Where 'taking the mickey' degenerated into outright provocation 
when the respondent had no commmicative, resources at all with which to 
repair the situation, or to defleot the impaot of oonstant rebuffs and 
ridicule, either capitulation and concurrence in the verdiot ooourred; 
or recourse to ineffective withdrawal or physical tBOlUtiOnSt were 
attempted. 
With no vehicle of acceptable commiinication other than home-made 
signs oomprehensible only to his mother, frequent eruptions of violenoe 
were characteristic accompaniments of Mr. M. R. 's fractured relationships 
with his colleagues at work. Mrs. M. R. referred to Mts job in a shoe- 
repair shop: "Another lad used to tease him. M. got mad and hit him". 
Ridicule cost him his only other job as a lampshade-maker. His mother 
commented again: "They kept teasing him. He got really mad. There 
was another fight and he was sacked .. They accept the other 
personts version. When he feels he's being baited, laughed at, 
it makes him explode". 
This is the most extreme example of so-called 'acting-out# be- 
haviour I was to encounter in this sample. How typical it is I was un- 
able to establish. It is, perhaps, illustrative of the way in which 
- 210 - 
a total inability to communicate conventionally can be smoothly and 
conveniently rationalised and medicalised by official labellers as an 
individual pathology problem. Rather than appreciating the aunulative 
impact of the negative evaluations evoked by 'deviant' communicative per. - 
formancev its victims may be more acceptably classified as suffering from 
"a behaviour disorder" - in much the same way as some 'problem' child- 
ren are now conveniently subsumed under the rubric of thyperkinesist 
(CONRAD2 1975)e At, best he was regarded by sooial workers as "someone 
you can't cope with", or "functionally mentally retarded"; at -worst 
"mentally diE; turbed",, Whilst ill-qualified to assess olinioally any 
symptoms of mental retardation, let alone 'mental disturbanoel, I oan 
only note that although his responses were some-times inoongruous, I 
had no impression of dallness. And of cruaial importance to the situ- 
ational nature of deviance defining is my observation that relationships 
at home seemed perfeatly harmonious. 
What iB olearly apparent iB that in the abBence of oomrminioation 
skills with which to soothe ruffled tempersq there was rarely any inter- 
vening outside authority to oontain potentially explosive situations. 
The outoome of any baiting was usually settled on the spot - to the do- 
triment of the hearing impaired employee., Mrs. M. R., for examplep had 
only been phoned when it was too late to do anything but piak up the 
shattered pieces. Mach earlier intervention is needed to prevent the 
escalation of such incidents into crises. It is a role neither the IRO 
nor social workers seemed generally prepared to handle., 
The role of informal definers in instigating trouble of this na- 
ture has, I sugrest, rarely been appreoiated. Being the peer equals 
of my respondents would lead one to expect a supportive, protective 
role against 'them' 
(the employers). Nothing was farther from the case* 
Moreover, it is their definitions which prevail over any contrary fre- 
alityl respondents may have of the situation. 
- 211 - 
(d) The EntEl of Employers: Reinforcing the Verdict 
Little has been mentioned to date about the nature of relationships 
with emplayersl and the extent to which stereotypes perceived to be held 
by prospective employers at the job application stage are manifested in 
the actual vork situation; and vhat, if anyl role they play in enabling 
or hindering the hearing impaired to 'stick it out' at work* 
Consistent with the findings of STUCKLESS et al. (1975). SOCial 
comminication with employers or immediate superyisore constituted only 
a fraction of total interaction time in a working day. Thus relation- 
ships with the boss were not mentioned in nearly so such detail or with 
such frequency an were relations with c*1l*W*s* They became Of CQR- 
corn largely when trouble arose and had to be dealt with at a super. 
ior level* 
For discreditable respondents,, relations seemed, OR the whole, re- 
latively unprobl*mtic in that they w*re bardly commmted an an b9ing 
anything other than IO. K. ' or 'moderately helpful' where the impairment 
was known about* So long as work performance was not jeolpardiised by 
disruptions involving abrasive incidents with colleagues, mum4puent 
seemed at best uninterested and at worst disbelieving or patronizingly 
patermligitic. Mim V. G. M. for oxample* found her headmwterg whilat 
cognisant of her difficulties-p "amiably indifferent". Whilst Mr. H. H. 
noted: "Employers think of you paternalistically* Like being a child. 
They expect you to be passive* The other person has the finai 
saye You haven't". 
However,, when trouble or incidents occurr*d,, then stereotyping and 
stigma reactions from employers played a significant part in the more 
formal labelling of the hearing impaired, and in solidifying a deviant 
verdict, The tendency to be automatically blamed for thin is going 
wrong,, for example, attests to the underlying power of culturally avail- 
able stereotypes. Scapegoating in an integral part of stereotyping* 
Again this waz particularly so for discredited reelmdents vith uirkj in- 
ý 212 - 
telligible speech and poor literazqq who were caught in a Izaro-suml 
situation, being unable to "tell their side of the story", 
Xiss XA, , for example. bau an empivyment ids-zoz7 puno-; uatecL by inoi- 
dents, %rouble and row. -i which irequentljy involved authority Agares, al- 
though by temperiament she was far from aggrel3give - Wi-W=t direct acceaft 
at work to the support available socially from the ueaf oommulnityll she 
found it difficult effectively U neutralise or oonhmnt impatations of 
stigma - something she acoomplished with relative ease sociallyo When 
trouble and rows occurred at workl her discredited s-katus was acoorded 
temporary role primacy in her meaning system* 
Commenting of one machining job she sigtted: "Bl"e me. Someone slit 
pockets of anoraks I machined* I was crying* Very upset* I left"* 
And of another jobt "Foremoman spiteful* Picked on everyonefo But most 
with me" * 
Finallyl a third: "Trouble with Indian worker* He called me liaro Com- 
plained to foremoman * She tell me I get given notice unless apolo- 
gised-o Reflasedo Walked out"* 
Niss HoQe was the only signing respondent -to be relative], T well. 
established, earning the grudging resPeCt even Of the 360nritY G"rd Of 
4b 
the oompany she worked forg as I disoovered when she took a party of 
deaf friends and myself round* He oommented. -to me, unnecessarily sotto 
vooe: "They dont just take anyone on herep ýrou know* It's highly skilled 
worke Where did she learn? " 
The more positive and enlightened policies towards the dear in America 
arej I suggest, responsible for much of Miss H*Qo's relative immunity 
from marq of the stigma reactions of her British work oolleagues-a 
Nevertheless, she related (partly in sign, partly in writing) an in. 
oident whioh had happened to a deaf friend of hers working in a bakery, 
which indicated a keen awareneE; s of the tactic of scapegating, perceived 
as routinely employed against the deaf. "Once the baker put breade on 
the trays to coole (sic) and wheel them to other place. Just to save 
time, he pushed it on and accidently (sic) hit the deaf person who 
didn't hear the warning. She was blamed* When hearing oareleEts, 
they blame deaf". 
- 213 - 
However, it is not simply that employers are called in when trouble 
arises from incidents involving disrupted *ncounterso On occasions, 
trouble did arise directly from misunderstood instructions* An Mrs* 
E*I. noted: "Itvo been in trouble* The supervisor would say'I've told 
you to do this and you've gone and done somethils else*' It does 
make you think you're slow". 
And Mro F. J. (III) report*d a similar experienc*. 
Generallyg howeverg trouble in response to misunderstood or mis- 
heard instructions in task-related activities waks law a feature of the 
scene than that arising from violations of inUractica gmerally betveen. 
hearing impaired vorkers and *mplayerse Stigma and stereotyping oemw at 
all levels of the employment hierarchy* Againg respondents from all 
Comnmication groups suffered stigma reactions,, although the impact and 
(mtoome varied vith preserved or acquired speech and liprea skills 
and, to a lesser extent, salience of resources. 
Mrs. Z*I* related an incident which illustrates thise "The Guy- 
nor at the present job said to his secretary *I may Good Morning 
to her and she never answers so, What's wrong with her? ' He 
thought I was being rud*. It was the socrttary who mmoothod 
things ont"o 
She was fortunate in having someone 'in the know' who wow sympathetic; 
otherwise,, as she aelmowl"god, things odght have escalated and wtvwaod 
wwty"* 
Mrs. S. T. (IV), with buvly intelligible g1poscho but liter&te and 
a fluent signers also indicated troubled r*lationships vith employers. 
Again this relates to the master status or Ispread' phenomenon Obarac- 
teristic of the stigmatised* Her deviant speech was genoralised outwards 
to embrace incompetence in every other sphere of activity* It in an 
imageq an she confirmed, only grudgingly relinquished, Referring to 
a factory job she once had as a machinist, sh* commentod/signed: *I 
got really rude reactions from the imediate supervisor until I 
showed what I could do"* 
Another time she referred to a row with the boas where she worked as a 
cant*en lady, "He called ice 'stupid'. So I asked for a job in the Per- 
gonnel office. She was quite pleasant but looked very star- 
- 214 - 
tled. I Baid 'It'B all right. I can read and writelf" 
Nevertheless, Mrs. S. T. sought to denY the trealityl of a life-tim8ls 
experience of rejections and rebuffs in the face of her deficient comml- 
nication skills. The simple, half-signed, half-spoken phrase "Tou 
have to fight for it" 
encompajissed a 20 year struggle for recognition of the non-tainted as- 
peots of her self. Her reoent appointments as part-time sign language 
tutor were still not seen by her as her work. 
The necessity of having to 12rove OM tB oompetenoe in the faoe of 
employerst stereotyped expectations of incompetence, was a feature of 
the lives of many respondonts- 4 disoreditable subjeots from Group I 
commented on the necessity of working overtimaq and doubly hard to make 
good their own internalised sense of shamefulness. Nrs- A. B. (I) for in- 
stance, pats in long extra hours to "prove' she is as capable as her 
hearing oolleagues, in the eyes of her employer. "I'm conscious of the 
need to be particularly good at the job in order to compensate 
perhaps for not hearing as well at interviews. Otherwise how 
would I ever get over the feeling of others thinking 'How can she 
do the job if she's deaf? ' Partioularly othets at /EQ/I! o 
In a sense, both discreditable and discredited respondonts felt them- 
selves tried, found guilty and sentenced before they even started. 
The cultural stereotypes, attributing traits of stupidity, gorm- 
lessness, inoompetenoe to the hearing impaired seemed to form as solid 
a part of the cominon-sense stock, of knowledge of employers as their 
hearing employees. Where violations of interaotional norms o0ourred 
and interpersonal relationships were disrupted, employers generally 
responded , 
by reinforcing the negative, informal definitions already 
in existence. 
However, not all discredited responden-Ls perceived their work ex- 
perience in terms of 'trouble' in the sense with whioh I have been oon- 
oerned. Fbr Mr. M. C,, q Mr. G. C., Mr. D. S., Miss R. C. and Miss G. F. t 
their oommunicative incompetence was perceived to cause persistent jEo. 
blems, - arising as much from peer exclusion from social and work-re- 
- 215 - 
lated activities as we shall see - rather than precipitating a series 
of orises. It was a demonstration of the salienoe of their resouroes 
in sustaining a working life, however uncongenial in some cases. Nre 
N. C. 's refusal to concur in the verdict of others led to a combined pol- 
icy of denial and a vigorous assertion of his deaf idezrtity* in an en- 
deavour to retain some remnants of his tattered self-image. - "Itts up to 
m to make a move. I can't sit back. I have to sense peoplest 
attitudes. If they seem indifferent I leave them alone. I've 
suffered many rebuffs but Itve learnt not to bother with them 
I select. I will go on until I do commanicate. Even with paper 
Zid pencil. Vve known some deaf who approach hearing colleagues 
and W tItm deaf'. 'WhatV And left, Not me. I have to hit back". 
In other areas of his working lifeq conversely, he pursued a policy 
of appeasement. 
All discredited respondents, however, -were obliged to have re- 
course-to a variety of stratagems in order to negotiate more acceptable 
definitions of themselves in the faoe of systematio and sustained humil- 
iation by colleagues and supervisors. An, effective policy of confron- 
tation, oannot generally be sustained within the work setting. 
As stressed earlier, it would be a mistakel however, to regard, 
either oomplianoo or assertiveness an more than superfioial mazlifestatiOUS 
of the real possibilities for negotiation. An I shall continme to dem- 
onstrate, the ingelmity of people in resisting inputations Of Stigma 
is endless. "Beneath the mask of "primary adjustment' to mortification 
- surface compliance or deference - the real self stakes out a 
defence of 'secondary adinstments' marking out private territory". 
(IGNATDWPI 1983) 
(e) BeiR& Sent to Coventry 
The experience of being avoided, segregated and ostracised repre- 
sents a point at the extreme end of the moral, s oo io-peyoho logical din 
ension of the stigma reaction continuum I have been discussing in this 
ohapter. It is a feature whioh charaoterises the treatment of most 
st-igmatised &Toupst and was a common characteristic of the pattern of 
* Such an assertion of his deaf identity is interesting considering his 
relatively late repudiation of the signing deaf community. Discredited 
orally deaf subjects are rarely so robust. His identification with 
the 
oral hearing world followed the adoption of a 
deaf ohildr and pressures 
from his profoundlY Prel '". -LILY orally deaf wife to brIj* the child 
up in a hearing environment. 
- 216 - 
social relationships experienced by many discredited respondents. It 
is in sharp painful oontrast to the robust rebuttal of suoh shaming do- 
finitions Of self shown by, for example, Mr. N. M. 9 still relatively 'in 
oozrtroll oommanicatively: "They daretn't, avoid me. I'd be after then 
if they didl Whatever my position they'd get wop if I heard any 
of that prize idiot stuff. I wouldn't take it sitting down what- 
ever"* 
Di3spite some evident departures from the norms of expected oommmioative 
competence, and the strain or sustaining those positive &rinitions or 
self over a time period, with improved skills the salienoe of his emo- 
tional and social resources is also craoial here. It in just such re- 
sources whioh the disoredited hearing impaired are generally unable to 
command. Only in exceptional cases are salient resources sufficient to 
comPensate for a tainted status. 
Deliberate rudeness was a response with which discredited respond- 
eirts were only too familiar. Signing rewPondents Mre awy and resent. 
flul of such treatment (as were the orally born deaf)t but were gener- 
ally silently obliged to concur in the verdict at work if they wished 
to avoid trouble. Mine N. A. had learnt early on: "Hearing unkind to 
deaf. When job in factory, some of work colleagues rade 
Ignored by some girls". 
Her voioe, or rather its absenoep had been oommented on: "People make 
remarks. Not direot. But I pick them up , erghl Dislike/Dis- 
taste". 
And Miss R. C. of the girls in her office noted: "Somtines they talk 
mook on deaf .. They ignore with deaf person because they can't 
explain too long story. They like to speak short .. At work, 
the girls talk close and leave me behind". 
Ostracism and total segregation from all but the most perfunctory 
oontact with hearing work peers were thus an integral part of the per- 
ceptions which discredited respondents brought to their relationships 
with hearing oolleagues at work. Respondents were often left severely 
alone to get on with their work, silently contemplating their beleagured 
state. As Mrs. p. 1K. Is mother commented: "P. gets left out. Of every, -. 
thing. In a depressed sort of way". 
- 217 - 
The fact that many discredited respondents did continue to 'stick 
it out t working under such conditions is a remarkable testament to the 
resilience of stigmatised victims who are subjected to daily assaults 
on their sense of self-worth. The crucial importance of such minor ad- 
justments, rationalisatiorm, Belf-denial meohanisms ar. oan be made, and 
which constitute the only feasible defence in such oircumstances, can- 
not be over-estimated, 
There is no more telling oomment on the penalising impaot of ex- 
olusion than the experience of Miss P. K. whot ostracised on her machine, 
and lacking totally the BOeial Btimalation which might have made her 
uncongenial job bearable, was lulled to sleep by the fieroe strip light- 
ing overhead. The result was predictable: she Was diSMiSBed. 
It would thus appear that in the eyes of oolleagues and employers, 
a oertain level of oommanicative incompetenoe does not exoeed informal 
toleration limits, However, almost all hearing impaired respondents 
were either subject to stigma reaotioru3l or anticipated them, in the 
form of unease, awkwardness, irritation and impatienoe, and some teas- 
ing. On a minor level, any dislocation in interpersonal relationships 
can I generallyl be contained within suoh a framework, 
despite oommon 
seoondary deviant outoomes of strain, isolationj feelings of inadecluaoy, 
as well as lautomatiot exolusion from partioipation in the small sooial 
rituals of work. Nevertheless, employment represents a situation where 
even the potentially stigmatised are acutely vulnerable to possible re- 
jection from their peers. It is a situation where, if oommunicative 
oompetence is suffioiently in cpiestion, the duration, oonsistency and 
intensity of stigma reaOtions may take a real toll. 
Beyond a quite arbitrary pointg it seems, ldeviantloommunication 
performance appears to attract partioularly destructive sanctions from 
informal definers. The hearing impaired, on their part, it would seem, 
are expected to be docile and unOeBiBtant to constant exposure to stigma 
- 218 - 
reac ions, and to conform to the stereotypes hearing people have of 
those with 'shameful' conditions. Respondents feel themselves to b* 
trapped in equally distasteful rolve: complianceg or rather futile attempts 
at assertiveness. Incidents and trouble are 'resolved' by silent ae. 
quiescence in a blameworthy status, or by valk-outs or dissiAnalse Em- 
ployers or supervisors are called in to confirm the verdict. Both res- 
ponses my further deviantise the hearing impaired victim in his quest 
for alternative employment. 
The applicability of a labelling perspective to illustrato'the power 
of informl dofineris to control thoa* who" condition in laut of lines 
Mag I hope, been amply demonstrated in the forelping discussion. Alý 
though such power in less amenable to identification than tke more visibly 
accessiblo sanctioning by offigial agmte of social control, it is & fe 
of penalizing which is crucial to an understanding of the devalued at&, - 
tax of many hearing impaired people at work* 
No rationalinationg such as reliaac* on the umawl is& of 
the intrinsic limitatimas imposed by the . can otherwise ex. 
Wain the deteriorated social relaticushipas or exclusion from psrtisi.. 
pation in social activities at works which are the lot of may of the 
hearing impaired respondents in this sample, They are both the -victim 
of their hearing loss; and, cruoially, of the larg*ly PeJorative evaluaw 
tiozw of others. Tetq as noteds the influeace of the work ethic is such 
that mny respondents did 'stick it out'. 
In the final empirical chapter,, the ramifications of both informl 
and more formal promising will be explored in torso of the end point 
of the continuum of stigma reactictis I have been using: WaWj,, denial 
of access to legitimate economic opportunitiese The extent to which as. 
criptions of deviance are perceived to threaten or block such access will 
be weighed against the routine accounting procedures developed by the 
hearing imP&ir*d in an attempt to control their relations with 
- 218 
representatives of the hearing world of work; and the innovative power 
of peopla to negotiate definitions of themsOlV64 vhich Oba"*W-'th*s* 
imputatiosm. 
- 219 - 
NOTES 
1. For those suffering from conductive deafness, aids are generally 
effective. However, for the numerically greater population suffering 
from sensori-neural (or combined conductive and sensori-neural loss) 
increased amplification merely increases already distorted sound, and 
is largely incorrectable. An aid cannot compensate for what the sensori- 
neurally deafened lack above all: the ability to discriminate speech 
sounds. 
2.1 am using the term both in the way HMST and THOMAS (1980)define 
it, ie. as "an ability to initiate and maintain relationships outside 
the home"; and in the form of emotional isolation, ie. the ability to 
sustain close emotional relationships with significant others. Close- 
neBB is a matter of degree and 'significant others' are as much a part 
of the work situation as the home environment. 
3. The idea of appointing interoessors from the deaf oomal y was 
evidently not perceived as a practicable suggestion. No. MILES oommen- 
ted: "The deaf community can't intervene. The deaf are at work during 
work hours. Social workers are not members of the doaf 00mon3nity". 
The idea of a person with a broader-based understanding of the problems 
of all hearing impairedl not necessarily appointed from the deaf 
community, was not considered. However, the lack of such professional 
people from the deaf world to taokle E; uoh a role is significant. 
BRIRN (1981) addresses this point admirably. He notes: ".. it is the 
case that a lack of opportunity to oontribate has the cumulative effect 
of ensuring that you are less able to contribute, should the dhance ever 
arise. It is all too easy to attribute inability to a person with a 
disability when, in fact, it may more appropriately be explained by 
laok of experience". 
4- Whilst the problems of family dynamics between hearing parents and 
deaf children have been addressed,, the question of family dynamics with 
tadailt ohildrent has received less attention. At oorroboration inter- 
view with Miss L. S. I discovered why she suffered so from the perpetual 
onslaughts on her self-esteem. Aged 32, parental domination of her life 
C, - 
in which she partially acquiesced - was almost total. Although pay6- 
ing lip--service to her quest for lindependenoet, it was resented. 
Strangers were closely vetted, including rqself. She had just bought 
herself a diamond ring which she hoped her first boy friend "would 
approve of". Her parents were ignorant of this liaison. She told me 
that her GP had advised her "I've been accepted to have a baby" and was 
despe. rate for information on the facts of life. Any books on the sub- 
jeot were banned in the house as "'filth". I abandoned much attempt at 
corroboration to try and help. After lT1 hours, daring which time we 
had mutually decided to finish in about 20 minutes, her father burst 
into the room and ordered me out of the house, leaving her in helpless 
tears. 
5- Yet in the US, SMITH (1979) notes several companies have intro- 
duoed interpreting services (Kodak, Tektronix)v principally for short- 
term assignments such as interviewsv occupational testing, on-the-job 
orientation. Howeverv the success of such a scheme in clarifying mis- 
understandings, and the prevention of 'trouble' and future problems has 
evidently more than proved its worth. SMITH comments: "The need is to 
convince industry that facilitating communication with deaf employees 
is advantageous to personnel relations and to company efficiency". 
- 220 - 
. 
CHLPTER 6: MMNG THE MOST OF A RLD JOB 
I shall, in this final empirical chapters look at how the hearing im- 
paired, once in the job and assuming an ability to 'stick it out', per- 
ceive their overall employment prospects in the longer term; wbat fur- 
ther 'obstacles' there are to contend with, and how the sanctioning pro- 
ceBS within the work Betting differentially precludes access to legiti- 
mate economic goals, I sball be more concerned with the more formal 
sanctioning process - principally at the intermediate level of imediate 
supervisor and employer - although labellixg at the primary level of in- 
teraction with hearing work peers is still instrumental in leading to 
deviant, outoomes. Thusg although I shall initially be looking at the 
application of those stigma reactions dealt with in the previous chap- 
ter, as far as an analysis of information deprivationg and the results 
of Beeking helpl advice and instructions are concerned,, my main interest 
lies in the area of eoonomio oon+, ai=ent at the other and of the stigw- 
ma reaction continuum* As stressed thmughout, howeverg the one is in- 
tegral to the othere 
Firstly$ I propose to examine how the stigma reactions discussed in 
Chapter 5 affect so-called 'task-related activities', and the way respon- 
dents perceive themselves to be excluded from these* (I oonsider 
ARGYLE'S (196gg 1972) distinction between sooial/emo-tional and task-re- 
lated interaction not only laborious but misconceived)* Lack of inter. - 
action necessary for the performance of one's job - access to information 
and helpl and the veoeipt of instructioneg for example, - are different 
only in degree from exclusion from so-called 'social' activities at 
work, such as gossip. it is -the complex interweaving of the two which 
is at issue here* 
This leads on -co a consideration of broader uxclusion from partici- 
pa-cion in achievement goals generally considered essential to 'getting 
on' in our culture: in terms of denial of access 
to promotion prospects, 
- 221 - 
underemployment, and a reduced quality of working life. The sequential 
nature of deviantising is particularly important at this level of anal- 
ysis, Non participation at the level of primary interaction has signifi- 
cant implications for other, more tangible outcomes. As demonstratedl 
the power of informal labellers to exercise stigma as a form of social 
control has a tendency to 'snowball' leading to deviant outcomes at the 
broader economic level. To the extent that differential outcomes do 
emerge generally reflects, as arguedq differences in communicative compe. 
tence (and sometimes, within that rubric, salience of resources). 
I will look at how hearing impaired respondents in this sample in- 
corporated this process into their own meaning structures, and exandne 
the negotiations and bargains struck in an attempt to neutralise the im- 
pact of deviance defining. The extent to which exclusion is perceived 
to affect all hearing impaired respondents - in varying degrees - as a 
result of the practice of uniformly categorising them at the lowest couN. 
mon denominator of competence, wiU be discussed. 
11 SINS OF COMMISSION OR OMISSION? 
(a) Missing Out on Things: 'Ut's what you're h6t told that 
matters" 
What most hearing impaired respondents suffered from at work was 
8elective, if not total deprivation of information - about social happen- 
ings, work-related eventst if not actual work itself. Nothing serves to 
accentuate more keenly the sense Of isolation associated with hearing 
loss, and the way in which non-involvement illustrates the careless, 
perfunctory manner in which the shameful, or potentially shameful, are 
treated. It signifies precisely that crucial lack of acceptance which 
GOFFMAN argues is such an important index of -stigma. 
This sense of 'missing out on things' was often keenly internalised 
as both felt and enacted stigma by respondents from all Communication 
Groups. It is analagous, in many waysq to the exclusion from gossip 
- 222 - 
discussed in the previous chapter, but may carry more important ramifio- 
ations. Often information about the availabilitY of a job in another do- 
partment, someone's resignation, the possibility of movement elsewhere, 
ocxnes in over this grapevine. 
This has important implications. Whilst signing respondents are tot- 
ally reliant on the deaf oulture for this vital information exohangeg no 
such supportive network exists for either discreditable or discredited orally 
deaf respondents. In the worksitua; tion, howeverl all groups suffered in- 
formation deprivationg the signing deaf included* 
Few disoreditable respondents seemed to employ 'someone in the know' 
to help them out. It was intensely galling for this grcmp to find-that 
other people simply assumed they know what was going on. They had to make 
a oonstant and sustained effort to maintain a grip on hearing information 
to enEmre they were not simply b3N-passed and exoluded. 
Miso B. G. and Mr. N. M. illustrated theme two aspects: Miss BoG. 
oommented "There are great gaps of information. An interesting thing that 
has happenedl for example, I'll miss three-quarters of it. Or I 
might hear the beginning and the end. Later people will say in sur- 
prise 10h, but didn't you know? ' .. I just feel that hearing people 
know more about whatever it is. If I want information I've got to 
make an effort to get it. Or someone has to make a real effort to 
tell me. " 
Suoh effort, she maintained, was oonspiouams by its absenoe. 
Even Mr. N. M., robustly defleoting any possible imputa-tions of stigma 
whioh might well have attached to him in the early stages of his hearing 
loss, when he was unable to monitor the pitoh and intensity of his voioe, 
oonfessed to a sense of wearineBB. At oorroboration interviews the struggle 
to maintain his definition of the situation was beginning to tell. To 
use the phone effectively in his oapaoity as sales executive means also 
being kept in touch with 
difficult to hold. 
that hearing people 
They' re not keeping 
out background info: 
of time being here. 
the office grapevine. He noted: "I've found it 
Yes, it's still good. But I've found with time 
I've previously edaoated tend to Iforget' me. 
me informed. So I find myself on the phone with. 
mation. If they can't tell me then it's a waste 
These are the times when I feel like giving up". 
- 223 - 
The lack of self--oontrol over what one elects to knowl from the ple- 
thora of input available to a normally hearing person, and the absenoe of 
effort by others to fill ins the gaps, denote, I auggestq a form of in. 
sidiaus social control over availabldcnowledget characteristic of m&ay stig- 
ma-tised minority groups. The seleotive filtering of information whioh it 
is deemed 'appropriate' for the hearing impaired to have is seourely in the 
hands of the dominant hearing majority who define what shall and what shall 
not be tolde The same process will be apparent again in discussing 'being 
told what to do'. It in a particularly restrictive and oppressive aspect 
of both formal and informal labelling, ancl indioative of the power isp- 
balance between definer and defined., It was commented on again by Nine 
B. G.: "It's hearing people who deoide whatt's important ror me to know". 
The sense of frustration, if not outright alienation, whioh acoomp- 
anied such exclusion charaoterised respondents from all Communication 
groups. It refleoted on their sense of self-worth. For those whose oamo- 
unioation deviatod inoreaeingly from the norm p oartlenn »aumptionn that 
respondents would automatioally pick things up gave way to more deliberate 
exclusion. Discredited respondents were simply 'not worth the bother'. 
Resentment and impotent anger characterised the peroeptions of two 
respondents. Mr. 1,, B. illustrates both his'*own and Kro H, R. Is feelings on 
the subject: "I miss so many thingge I'm alwa7e the liLst to be told 
wathing - It makes me feel so useless"s 
For discredited respondentag tool the onu in on then to struggleg 
with even less skills at their disposal, for that elusive information, or 
suffer total deprivation of input. It is only sooial that signing res- 
pondents are able to repair, to some extent, the information gap., ZrAmp- 
peration, or, at bestq a very truncated 'explanation' was usually the re- 
suit. Any I filling-in, beoame a brief, hurried inimmary, with all the 
nuances and 'affect' which give such renditions their flavour, omitted. 
And truncating informa-tiong of course, by no means ensures a faithful 
- 224 - 
and accurate description of what happened. Miss N. A. signed: "Hearing 
cut what -they say. Make it short"* 
Thestigmatising nature of what was perceived as barely suppressed 
irritability and impa-tienoe on the part of hearing co-workers at having 
demands made on them was very evident. Often respondents sacrificed infor- 
mation in order to avoid provoking the 'too much bother/trouble' response 
-a pattern which will be observed in the following section. 
It is in sharp contrast to my own experience where Miss N. A* patiently 
abbreviated her signs in order to aocomodate to my limited signing voo- 
abulary (an ironic reversal of roles). The difference lies in her perse- 
veranoe - the re-straoturing of a phrase . the use of alternative signs, 
until I was able to grasp her meaning, My 'stupidity' was not negatively 
evaluated in her eyes. She persevered until I oculd share her story. 
Whilet this trunoation prooess might appear to be lund rutand- lel 
unier pressurep and I have already referred to the mount of energy re- 
quired to oommunioate with the hearing impaired, it does not ezouse the 
laok of written materialog or the almost total reluctanceto devise ways 
around the difficulty. As I have argaed in other conterkel -the very lack 
of effort simply oonfirms the pervasiveness of the underlying stereatypes 
of incompetenoe with which the hearing impaired tend to be attributed. 
Disoredited respondents, particularly, are so negatively evaluated as 
globally incompetentl as not to I)e worth the bothero The fall extent of 
what the hearing impaired are missing is, of eoursel appreoiated least by 
the hearing impaired themselvesp henoe the insidiou, 3 na*ure of the prooess. 
This disinclination to bother, the response of 'it's too much trouble's 
is contrary to the contention of CRAKMATTE (op. cit) who found for the pro- 
fessional workers he studied, a relatively free and easy interohange of 
communication between deaf and hearing oo-workers. His respondents, how- 
ever, were relativelY oommunicatively competent, and their professional 
status - as with Mr. N. 
M. - gave them additional bargaining tools. 
- 225 - 
It iE3 not simPly chance work-related information which is not made 
available to the hearing impaired. There can be no more devastating dep- 
rivation of information and implioit evaluation of the lack of worth of 
-the BtigmatiBed than that revealed by the following inoident., (The ex- 
pressive bitterness with whioh it was signed to me is obsoured in the 
translation). Miss RX., born in Enniskilleng County Fermanambp worked 
for 8 years in Belfast* She signed/wrote: "The troubles made me nervous. 
Often phone to my work to say bomb nearly every day. /on(A/ I looked 
around the girls. Empty and never told me -to go with them for bomb 
soare, I was angry, Not nioe to leave me". 
(b) Asking for Help: "It' a too suoh tronble" 
The fear of provoking the 'it's too muoh trouble' response also aff- 
ected the general area of asking for help, advioe &ad assistanoe. 
In &n wer to the question "Would you go to your (wlleagues for help 
if there was something you hadn't heard and understood properly? ", the in- 
itial answer from most respondents was in the affirmwtive. This seemed 
tO suggest initi&11Y 8006 UlOr&tiOn level existed in response to deviationg 
from expeoted oommunicative oompetenee when it oame to the work task in 
hand. However, further exploration suggested that although help could 
be requested, the anticipation of engendering irritation and annoyance 
was suoh that requests for help were maAe sparinglyq and with great re- 
luctance. 
In many cases, the anticipation was not ill-founded. Response to re- 
quests, although dependent on disoreditable or dis(wedited status, was 
generally minimal, paired to the bare bones and, for the discredited deaf, 
quickly terminated. Even for the discreditable hearing impaired, there 
appeared to be a familiar unwillingness to bother to help out if the going 
seemed to be difficult. The stigmatised are not perceived as recipro- 
cating in the interaction process. Always being on the receiving end of 
help not only reinforoes an already tainted image of incompetenoe; it 
indicates the relative lack of exchange tools with which to negotiate 
- 226 - 
bargains, - reflecting the power imbalance between definer and defined. 
The importance of the power dimension is something that labelling 
critics have tended to ignore. Power has usually been analysed macro. 
sociologically. But hierarchical relationships are not simply abstract 
forces operating on people. The acquisition of power is a human un- 
dertaking. A micro-sociological analysis is also importanto Even at the 
primary level of interactiong differential access to power has been an 
integral - if sometimes implicit - part of stigma contests. 
The initiative to 'fill in' thus rarely came from colleagues, The 
onus was always on respondents to ask if they dare, and to have to ask 
repeatedly if comprehension was to be secured. As Mr, M*C. (IV) noted: 
"If we're talked to-3m a group no one has the idea of telling me 
afterwards what was said. I have to ask". 
The anticipation of being thought inept, incompetents helplesal was evi- 
dently so powerful that respondents sometimes sacrificed much-needed assis- 
tance to preserve themselves from assaults on their self-esteem* In the 
words of Mrs. E, I. (II): "No. I'd rather take a chance". The alternatives 
are hazardous. Asking invites disclosure and concomitant incredulity and 
disparagement; refusal to ask in an attempt to minimise stigma reactions 
of irritation risks additional sanctions for inadvertent mistakes. 
Reluctance to ask meant that respondents were additionally excluded 
from the mutual support network which generally operates in a work sit- 
uation to 'cover' mistakes and 'explain' any deficiencies in task perfor- 
mance to one's superiors. The hearing impaired were generally left to 
fend for themselvesq doubly penalised by the fear of eliciting stigma 
reactions, and by varying degrees of communicative deficiency* 
Both discreditable and discredited respondents employed what little 
room for manoeuvre there was, generally by recourse to face-saving neutra- 
l18ing devices such as rationalisationg the selective choice of targets, 
and the strategic confinement of requests to very specific situations. 
They were differentially effective, as expectedl according to adherence 
to comn 
- 227 - 
Some discreditable respondents were more fortunately placed than 
others. Mrs, A. B. 9 herself in a supervisory capacityl remarked: "If some- 
one is particularly difficult to understand, I'd have to ask some- 
one to do the interview for me. There are many ethnic minorities 
here. Sometimes peoples' voices are difficult". 
It was not a strategy, however, she used unless ýn extremis. Her own 
position, nevertheless, allowed her to use face-saving devices such as 
the pressure of administrative work to 'cover'. Both her communicative 
competence and salience of resources are at isime here. In nice juxta- 
position to this Mr. N. M., also in a supervisory postj stipulated "Abovel 
Not belowl" 
if he needed help. 
Similarly Mr., B, U. was just able to have recourse to explanatims 
to deflect imputations of ineptitude. However this was not a strategy on 
which he could rely continuously. Exposure of his incompetence regarding 
phone management was a constant source of shamefulness to him, and tended 
to override any positive definitions he was able to impose of hijaself in 
other spheres Of his working life. As has been frequently noted the 
power of stereotyping literally to obliterate any positive qualities on 
the part of the stigmatised accounts for both the denial of heterogen- 
eity amongst its victims, and its power to depersonalise, As far as 
phone management was concerned, Mr. B. U. often became an example of 
'nothing but' his impairment. Thus his excuse: "If I can't cope I'll 
ask someone to take over the phone. Say somethin like 'It's a 
bad line"' 
does not carry credibility if used repeatedly, 
These were not strategies available even to all discreditable res- 
pondents. For Miss B. G. the pressures of her job were so insistent that 
asking, and thus constantly drawing attention to her 'imperfection'. was 
imperative if she was to perform her job properly, As she noted: "In this 
job I can't afford not to/ask/. You've got to get food out at a 
certain time .. If someone yells and I 
haven't heard in all the hubbub... ". 
Demonstrating competence at her job took priority over a possibly tar. 
nished image. But the hope that one would cancel out the other simply 
does not take cognisance of the master status phenomenon 
- 228 - 
arising rom her ifopairinent,, 
For discredited respondents, any strategy man ement took the form of 
careful timing of requests, such as that of Miss M. A.: "Choose my timee 
If busy, no. If free, I'll ask"; 
a polioy borne of many rebuffs when requests had been made at ill-ohosen 
moments. And Miss R. C., attempted to confine repeated assaults on her self- 
esteem by limiting her requests to "meetings only", The inoorporation of 
the image of "not being worth the trouble" which requests for help had of- 
ten elicited was simply too much at variance with the retention of any def- 
initions favourable to self, Strategio avoidange was thus oommon. 
Constantly having to take the role of helpee denigrates. In the work 
situationg AnythinE which might reinforce images of ineptnegst or incompe_ 
tenoe isp if possiblev avoided. Attemptij* simultaneously to maintain an 
aoceptable role in the hearing worldq yet asking ror help, seems to be per- 
ceived as a taoit admission of failure on the part of respondents, and re- 
duoes the effectiveness of other attempts at strategy managemente Sensi- 
Used to the probability of being evaluated as inoompetent which requests 
for help have been shown to Oli0it 8OOiAllYv this would appear to be a 
long introjeoted response oarried over into the field of work, 
The problem of exactly how -to solioit help with no acooptable vehiole 
of oommunioationg from a workforoe whioh has studiously and mystematioally 
segregated her from any kind of partioipation is poignantly illustrated 
by Miss P. K. Mrs. P,. K,, oommenting of her daughterv said "S(xRetimen deaf 
doing a job and want something. How does she explain what she wants? " 
P's status, as far as the work dcxnain was ooncernedg appeared fairly well 
sealed. Defined as virtually 'beyond the pale' , role engulfment for 
Miss PA-appeared to be near oomplete at work. Yet this did not by any 
means signify apathy or total capitulation in the verdict of others, in 
all areas of work, or in other life domains, as I have indicated before. 
Asked by her audiologistj for example, whether she had "noises in her 
- 229 - 
head"* - P. reacted, to the effect "What do you think I am? Effing daft? " 
- as related by her mother. 
2. INSTRUCTIONS: A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL 
(a) Being Told What to Do* 
A familiar pattern of stigma, reactions - from irritation and ispatienoe 
to minimal oommunication and segregation - were in eviclen(m in relation to, 
the business of being told what -to do. Being im le to follow instruotions 
very quickly brought into play stereotypes of inoompetenoe and ineapa- 
bilityq although these variedq as expeotedl with skills in oommudoative 
performanoe. Againg efforts at oommunioation on the part of hearing ooll- 
eagues were peroeived as mininall if virtually no&-existemt, in some oases. 
Variously deprived of the meauts of orientating themselves suffisiontly in 
the work situation merely reinfor(nd images of genoralined incompetenoe. 
Discredited respondents, particularly, found themselven oontimously on 
-the losing end of stigma contents in this respect, It in fruitful to look 
particularly at the receipt of instructions as a speoialined form of 
I talk' 9 and thus of nooial oontrole 
Coping with Verbal InartrtL; Aions 
For most rempondentol as far as being on the reosiving end of in- 
structions was ooncernedg it seemed the emphasis was ooncentrated rather 
on the praipatio task of achieving clarity and accuracy of instructions 
than any apparent appreciation of the more denigrating aspects of trun. 
oated notes and pantomime, which tended to be the lot of discredited res- 
pondents. (This is an area whioh merits further attention)* 
For those in Groups I and II, it was usually a mwtter of oheoking 
and olarifying whether mistakes and miEninderstandings might, have ooourred., 
The fact that most respondents did check indioates well the situational 
* Tinnitus: "Ringing, buzzing, or roaring noises in the head" (FTLMAN, ' 
CARBIN and BOICSE (1981) - Particularly affecting 'the sensori-neurally 
deafened. 
- 230 - 
nature of deviance defining and strategy mamigement. It is in interesting 
contrast; to the previously discussed disinolination to ask for help* 
Possibly the latter is too bound up with connotations of helplessness. 
Being told what to do is an aooeprtable way of learning a job* 
The question "Do you ever pretend you've hearcl and understo(d some. 
thing when in faot yoahaven't? " oooasioned rueful laughter amongst many 
respondents. However 14 respondents from theme Groups mainUined a dis, - 
tinotion between situations where they would allow remarks to pass unheard 
(generally socially), and those where a delibers; te, and painstaking effort 
was made to ensure understandingp generally where aootLracy of work per- 
formance was at ertake - +, hereby revealing their limperfeotionlo 
Thus passing was not a strategy that oould be (wasistently maintained 
under such oiroumetances. As with asking for repeats sooiallylp disclosure 
of not understandingý risked imputations of stupidity - and more. As 
Mrs. C, O. said in response to the question: "Kamy times. But at work 
you oantt take that ohance. I ahedc and re-oheak" 
thus situa-tionally revealing her impediment she was a; t guoh pains'to oonce&l, 
Communicatively cleviant respondents were also aware of the rami- 
fioations and furtker deviant outoomes whiob oauld &rise from not ohooking. 
Although disolosure was no longer an issue for Xiss A. L. j(V) for instanoe, 
the provooation of irritation and impatience at possible mistakes most 
oertainly was. As she remarked: "It's essential to got the answers right 
at work. If I just guessed and it was wrong, it would be very bad 
for you". 
Neverthelessp BOMe limited room for manoeuvre was sometimes available, 
arising from the interplay of oommunioative skills and the very nature 
of some kinds of jobs. Nothing can be further from labelling critics' 
assertion of passive apathy under the weight of applied labels than these 
often small, but highly significant and often ingenious attempts made by 
respondents to negotiate favourable outoomes for themselves in a situation 
not oharaoterised by its flexibility or oontrollability. 
Thusq two discreditable respondents employed a mitigating device 
- 231 - 
relying on the re-emergence of a subject in conversation if it were 
suffiOi8ntly important. (Although not strictly related -to 'being told what 
to do', it is oonoerned with the issue of being given oues to enable one 
to perform the job effectively)* Mrs* A. B. commented: "In social situa- 
tions I'd certainly lot it pass, At work I think you can probably 
pick it up later. It will surface again if it's important enough" 
-a device similarly employed by Mr. S. W. Both respondents were employed 
in the sooial servioes professions, where relianoe on this kind of strat- 
agem stood a fair chance of succeeding, 
As noted earlierg ironically, noise on the factory floor appears to 
give some protection to the hearing impaired worker from being singled 
out as socially incompetent - or, in this case, inapt in the understanding 
of instructions. If everyone has difficulty in hearingg then, as Mr. CA, 9 
Mr. W. C. 9 Mr. SeGa and Mr, B. T., foundq oomunioation in miniw&3 for all 
workers, Instructions given by gesture whichq in other situations would 
immediately mark one out as undesirably dirferent, are perreotly aooept- 
able under these conditions. As Xr. C. R. remarkedt Ofte Assistant In- 
speotor makes signs if the noise level's high, He tape me on the 
shoulder - once for a small packet and twice for a large packet. 
He does it with everyone"* 
Other work situations, howeverl did, 'not always lend -themselves to 
this kind of cover". Other respondents were a(mtely &ware of the irri- 
tation. likely to be engendered where instructions had to be repeated, and 
often had little with whioh to direotly oombst impatations of inoompetenoe, 
stupidity and ineptitude. It was a oonartantly recurring theme. As 
Mrs. B. L. oommented: "When you're new on a job and people don't know you, 
people lbabyu-, talking' at you"* 
The hearing impaired are not seen as oapable of managing 'adult' talk. 
As noted earlier, the antioipation of being thought slow or stupid, 
if internalised, increases the likelihood of the process becoming self- 
confirming, possibly eliciting the very behaviour in qaestione Mr. E, B. 
(at first interview) had been deterred from even trying to negotiate more 
favourable definitions of himself in his present work situation. Nven 
- 232 - 
his literary sophistication omld not neutralise the impact of imputations 
of stupidity to which his speech deviancy gave rise. He remarked: 
"Because you're deaf, they say you're not so bright or quick,,, I'm 
obviousl not so quick. But I can solve things if given a bit long- 
er. I don't want to be seen as slow. It's embarrassing* The re- 
sult is that I don't do anything ... If -they liked me and valued 
what I can do they wouldn't be so inconsiderate as 'to say I'm slow"* 
- thereby neatly enoapsulating the snowballing nature of the devianoe de- 
fining process. 
However, as noted in the case of Mine P. K., the danger of regarding 
this internalination as fixed and imamtable over all times and &11 situ- 
ations, oannot be -too strongly stressed. The temptation of doing so me 
heightened by my practice of interviewing respondents perhaps over a week- 
end, or twioe in olose suooessione However well internalised surfaos 
aoceptanee of devian't a-tatus might appear to be, it was only when I embarked 
on oorroboration interviews nearly a year la: ter that the essentially dr- 
namio nature of strategy management became clear to me: Witness the qtxite 
altered peroeptions Mro E, B. held of his situation after his appointment 
as voluntary organiser of his local Breaktbrovigh Club. 
Thus, oapitulation in the oommon stook of stersotypeal equating do- 
viant speeoh perfomanoe with slowness and stupidity, oan re&lly only be 
denoribed as a rorm or partial role *ngulrmeatt hmtever Itot&l" i-t seemed 
to the respondent in question at the time of interview* And nany respond- 
ents did indeed feel this way. Both self-conoepts and behaviour were 
seen to be focussed inoreasingly on the deviant role* 
Stereotypes were sometimes appaxently so effeotively internalised 
that two respondentol Mrs. A. H. and Miss N. Po. actively felt their tardi- 
ness in picking up instructions as a handicap to their firm' s productivity, 
As Miss N. P. oommented: "Employers think they don't get the same autput 
from a deaf person. They have to spend twioe as muoh time explaininget, 
Stigma reactions of irritability and impatience affected both discred- 
itable and discredited respondents. Howevert the nature of stigmatising 
became harsher as oommunication skills deviated increasingly from expeo. - 
- 233 - 
tatiOns. Vulnerability to exposure from mistakeE; is greater. Reper- 
cussions on discovery may have direct further deviant outcomes in the 
form of jeopardising job security. 
Although recourse to accounts and explanations, or talking one's way 
out of a 'botched' job became increasingly unfeasiblel as miggested in 
Chapter 5, it seems that marginally more toleranoe is shown in response 
to mistakes arising from misoonstraed or unheard instraotions than to 
those arising out of specifioally mishandled social exdba, es at work. It 
will be reoalled that only Mr. F. J. (III) and Mrse Z*I. (II) oomented on 
the potential for trouble whioh instruotions have oxased. As the former 
noted: "Instractions are a problem. I've said 1yes' to an answer (sio) 
which demanded 'no'. Therelve been repercussions. It can blow up 
into a big issue. Instructions justhaven't registered". 
As I have argued, trouble was largely seen as a result of sooially rel- 
ated intemation going, awry. 
(ii) Witing and Gesture - an invisible deprivation 
With respondents in Groups IV and V instructions inareasingly had to 
be either written down or gesturede It is bore, I oontend, that the appli- 
oation of stereotyping in conveying instructions is most apWout, although 
it was less peroeived to be so by respondents. Againg this is an issue 
whioh merits muoh more attention than I gave ite rts signiricanoe only be- 
oame apparent at a later date, Thus the rolloving is oonjeature only. The 
deviant outoomeg howeverp is in no doubt: that of exclusion. 
I suggest that writing and gesture oarry their own in-4milt penalties, 
and effectively reinforce any atereotypes of the hearing impaired as men- 
tally incapable. To be seen having recourse to such measures, partioul- 
arly gesture, is possibly a shaming experience. When 'gesturel can be 
used so fluently in the creation of a languagag crude pantomime is poss- 
ibly doubly offensive to signing respondents, 
Later I ascertained this was probably a correct supposition. 
- 234 - 
Dorothy Miles (1982) -told me: "I h&ve felt imnoyed in the past* When I 
oan lipread and the work is verbal in nature"o 
She went on to say "I've known many deaf people laugh at hearing employ- 
ers when they try to make gestures"* 
This is indioative of one of the many small manipulationag analagous to re- 
garding hearing people as lazy and stupid, as expressed by Xr. D. S. and 
Miss R. C.. previously, which in effect displace the stigma on to the defin- 
ers.. As SCHUR (1979) has noted: "o. branding the opposition as oongtituting 
the problem is always an implicit feature of stigma contests". 
Similarlyg demonstration implioitly takes for granted the simple and 
speoifio task level at whioh the hearing impaired are expeoted to funotion. 
It is olearly limited in the opportunities it gives for olarifioation or 
feedback; and it effectively exoludes the tranmmission of (Aber kinds of 
verbal informationg regarcIless of whether the hearing imp&irecl reoipient 
iS able tO re0eive suoh informatioup thereby again stigza-kilging . by 
omission. 
Writing is traditionally the mods of conveying instruotions to those 
hearing impaired with defioient reoeptive, and expressive skills. It is no-t, 
however, actually likedl particularly by the signing deaft according to 
NASH and NASH (1978)o Miss Hoq* (V) was possibly somewh&t atypioal in 
that she was in oharge of two hearing trainees. Herself in a superordinate 
position of having to conve instruotions, she peroeived writing simply as 
a praginatio issue: "For oomplioated instractions b(Ah wayal write. Make 
sure understand"* 
It is mere speoulation, but had she been solely on the reoeiving end, as 
were the other signing deaf colleagaes in the samplep it may well have 
proved more onerous and distasteful to her. 
Whilst writing is an acourate means of exohanging information, it 
is also time-oonsuming and cumbersome. A full explanation is usually om- 
itted. For signing respondents, where BSL syntax is at varianoe with 
written Englishl misunderstanding and, as SMITH 
(1979) suggests, the under- 
rating of a deaf person's intelligenoe usually ensue. 
- 235 - 
Moreoverg as a socially controlling devieel it is sinilar to the selective 
filtering of information orallyp whioh I noted earlier. 
Not that the more familiar stigma reactions of irritation and impat- 
ience were absent at this level. As Mr. N. C. noted: "Although colleagues 
feel more at ease with me if they write ... Pencil. and paper pro- 
vokes irritation". 
His boss, howeverg is seen as playing a "prortective role" in this respecte 
"He sees I'm not involved in any jobs involving oommunioation"o It is oon- 
oeivable that, given appropriate equipmentq Xr. X. C. is oapable of hand- 
ling an infinitely more oomplex r of tasks -than his present job demands. 
The role of his boss as an intermediate definer of his oapabilities 
(or 
I 
linoapabilities') is very errootively mankedt so that emoted stigm& was 
not apparent to the respondent. 
Conceivably more awareness of felt and enacted stigma was shown by 
those disoredited respondentst profoundly prelingmally orally deaf and fun- 
otionally illiterate. Mrs. P. K. oommentecl on how the onus of instructing 
her daughter had been shifted by the fizu on to her other hearing daughter. 
Logioalq perhapop but indioative of the little regard in whiah she was 
hold@ "Daughter, shows her what to do* Then she juxt 96-ts OJEL vith i+, "* 
A one-off demonstration and then being "left to got on with it" me 
oharaoteriertio of how instructions were oommudoated to Kra. FeS., Xr. 
C. S. (when in work) and Mr, D93., although a little extra trouble seemed 
to be taken with the latter respondent. His mother oommentbed: W11is boas 
will write or do a little draving* Tape his shoulder. Shown his. 
Points things out. Then D. goes off and does We 
Although his literaoy skills were badly retardedq his ability -to follow 
quite complex circuit diagrams has been virtually ignored by his employers, 
although "good to him" in other ways* 
Again the pervasiveness of the master status phenomenon is evident. 
Discredited respondents were not expected to possess any positive attri- 
butes. The very function of the labelling process ensuresl as ZAKAREWSKY 
-236- 
(1982) notes, that people lose their values as "whole/particulars" and be- 
come i3tigmatised as "Part /universals". In the work situation, the deper- 
sonalising functions of stereotyping and -the denial of the heterogeneity 
of individaals are very vividly illuminated. Any attributes the atigmam- 
tiBed victim might poBBeBB are routinely and 'legitimately' byw-passedv and 
the individual oharaoterised as an example of 'nothing butt hig hearing loss. 
Finallyq it must be stressed, parenthaticialy, that respondents were 
not unaware of the intrinsio limitations of -their disability. For Mine 
A*L. (V)q returning to her old job an a oopv typist after being totally 
deafenedl she oommented: "If someone had had 'to inxtract me on something 
newl it would have been a straggle .. It' s just harder work oommni- 
oating instraotions to someone who' se deaf"* 
Harder work, perhaps, but not 'unamenable to solutions and remedial actiong 
which a positive evaluation of capabilities would prom(Ae. quite probably 
Miss A. Liols own negative attitude in at least partially attributable to 
the incorporation of cultural stereotypes AM 'the deaf I with whioh she 
had been familiar all her life until adventitiously deafened herself rel- 
atively late in life, The danger of oonfusing intrinsio with extrinsio 
limitations - and thus legitimating tho latter an 'insuperable" has be& 
dealt with at length elsewhere* 
Suffioe to note, the tendency 'not to. ýotherlf the use of baby-atalk 
and crude pantomime in the rednotion of oomunioation to an &bsolute mijai- 
mim neoessary only for task PerfOrm&n06v were suffioi*n'tly comOnPlaos 
happenings in the lives of respondents to suggest -that muoh more is at 
issue than an 'understandable' response to primary hearing loss* Asoript- 
ions of incompetenoe and inoapability are part of the muoh wider disabling 
proceSE3o 
Thus, both diBoreditable and diEwredited reBpondents were, in varying 
degreesl denied aooess to the on-going pool of taken-for-granted infor. - 
mation available to the hearing. Whilst the former were, to a limited ex- 
tent, able to manipulate the situation to deflect grosser imputations of 
- 237 - 
inoompetence, the latter'B abilitieB were rated BO low as to legitimate 
widespread avoidance and exclusion from access to knowledge and informi- 
ation. It represents a most powerful form of social control exercised by 
both informal and intermediate definers, Its effect on exclusion from 
participation in wider economic goals will be demonstrated. As shownt the 
possession of 'standard' comammioative oompetenoe is very such bound up 
with the issue of power at these levels. 
(b) Telling others what to do: "Tout re ncyt NM2at*d to supervise" 
Relatively few oomments were made about the business of oonveying in- 
structionog largely because so few respondents had actually had direct sup- 
ervisory experienoe (3 in Group 1,2 in Group II and 1 in Group V)e The 
hearing impaired respondents in this sample neither perceived themselves, 
nor were peroeivedas 'suitable' for such responsibility, Ramwks which 
were madet therefore,, tended to be speculativeg but nonetheless signifi- 
cantly illustrative of the negative my in whioh their oapabilities were 
seen to be evaluated by others* A muoh greater awareness of the devian- 
tiBing prooess was apparent, than in the muoh. more oommon situation or being 
told what to do by others, particularly by discreditable respondents* 
Of those 6 respondents who did supervise otheral or who had done so 
in the pastj only Mrs. L. L. (I) and Kies H, Qa (V) found it upproblematic. 
For Mrs. L. L. I as a lipreading tutorp supervising 
traineesp this mw per- 
haps not surprising. She noted: "There are no difficulties beoname they 
are uniquely equipped to understand". 
The salienoe of Miss H. Q. Is resouroes have already been oomented on in 
other contexts. She had managed to earn 'courtesy respect' sufficient to 
allow her to have responsibility for hearing trainees, but she was well 
aware that this Was as far as toleranoe limits would allow. 
The other 4 respondents varied in their assessment of the difficulties 
involved, which ranged from the perceived necessity of making speoial off. 
orts (Mr. S, W, )v to the feeling that giving instruotions demanded partio- 
- 238 - 
ular social as well as comw=ication skills (Mr. L. M. ), to the timing 
of the onset of hearing loss (Mr. N. M. ) The latter, for example, was em- 
phatic about the importanoe of the relatively late onset of his deafness: 
He commented: "Ibrperience pulled me through. If I'd lost my hearing shor- 
tly after taking a position in a supervisory capacity I wouldn't 
have been able to do it ... if Itd been youngert without experience 
The significance of internalisation of secondary deviant mutoomes 
suoh as 'the lack of self--oonfidence, and perceived "lack of leadership 
qu&lities" (Mr. LA. )p whioh exposure to the po+, enti&l or actu&l stigma 
reactions of others often inours is confirmed by the speaulation-s of those 
respondents who had not had 'the experienoe of telling others what -to do* 
It was apparent that even discreditable respondents had introjected many 
of the stereotypes applied to their oolleagues whose oommwAcative skills 
were defined as deviant. 
The antioipation of being negatively evaluated as a prospeotive can- 
didate for a supervisory post was often in the nature of a self-fulfilling 
prophecy. Respondents were not only deterred rr(xa applying ror posts 
whioh oarried supervisory duties. The master status phenomenon of hearing 
impairment had sensitised them to the stereotypes regarding global inoom.. 
petence which they felt they would be likely to encounter. Thus 2 Group 
respondents (Mr. PeE. and Mr. A, E. ) oommented on the eqtLa'tion of he&ring 
loss with lowered status: Mr. A. B. noted: "I could viimaliso in giving 
instructions a deaf person becoming a sooond class oitizen"o 
As deviations from acceptable Gommunioation patterns became more 
markedq the perceived evaluations of others beoame, increasingly detrimen- 
tal to the retention of a positive self-image in this respect. Thus Mr. 
HoHo remarked: "Hearing people don't like 'less able' people telling them 
what to do". 
As discredited status becmne obtrusive, the question of being in charge 
and giving instructions to others was hardly commented on and, in some 
cases (Mr. C. S. , Miss P. K. , and 
Mr. N. R. ). it seemed almost offensive to 
&& 406 
- 239 - 
Yet Miss H. Q, has demonstrated that this is by no means inimperable. 
Once again one is faced with the il3sue of confusion of intrinisio and ex- 
trinsio limitations of hearing lossq the latter acquiring the status of 
I insurmountable obstacles' , justifying exclusion, As arguedg a little in- 
germity and flexibilityl plus the neoessary positive evaluation of a hear- 
ing impaired person's oapabilities might well reve&l such lobstaoles' to 
be no such thing. As noted earlier, this in not for one moment an excuse 
to fall into the trapt noted , 
by some labelling critics such as AM (1968), 
GIBBS (1966 and 1972), of denying the lre&lityl of the behaviouror oozo- 
dition. The such greater dAnger lies in ignoring the social context in 
whioh such judgements operate. I have arguedl for example,, in the oase of 
exclusion from gossipq that far from being a nah=al and inevitable state 
of affairs, it preoisely illustrates the oper&tion ofthe procmeses I have 
been discussing all along. Were -the hearing impaired not -the objeate of 
stereotyping and ooncomitant stigmatising, I contend that many such t ob- 
staoles' woald vanish. 
Equally negative evaluations of the oapabilities of the hearing im. - 
paired an a group permeate other work-oriented activities, sotably the 
telephone. 
3o "TWIS FOR HEARING PEOPLE" 
(a) The Phone &a 'Insursouirtable Obstacle' 
Is BENDERLY (op. oit) comments: "The telephone has more effectively 
barred the hearing impaired from the life of the general community 
than any other factor". 
She was commenting generally. In the work situation it lum been critical 
in accounting for the depressed economic position as perceived by many 
hearing impaired workers. 
The phone is one of the key areas where all hearing impaired tend to 
be tainted with similar imputations of ineompetence. It was quoted repeat- 
edly as the critioal obstacle in the attainment of otherwise quite modest 
- 240 - 
ambitions. It is significant that together with a closely related area, 
that of promotion, they proved to be the two aspeats of the emplovuent 
situation where communicative competence and salience of resouroes made 
the leaErt difference to outcome. 
As far as phone management is ooncerned, a more formalg stylised 
mods of speeoh performanoe -a 'good telephone manner' - is at a premium. 
That this is evidently automatioally v-jewed as being inoonsistent with 
hearing lose, almost regardless of the oommunioative oompetenoe of the re- 
spondent in question (receptive and expressive), attests to the oomonality 
with which hearing impaired respondents tend to be uniformly classified 
and oategorised. Its use was only permitted for discreditable respondents 
who managed to normalise their working lives fairly sucoessfully, (liven 
hereq there were many exoeptions)e And for disoreditod respondents, the 
question of phones was evidently dismissed out of band an a tot&lly un. - 
feasible proposition. 
Yet in the States, not only are TTYs (and inoreasingly, Vistel) in 
widespread use; their installation, or the provision of alternatives sudh 
as interpretersl has legislative baokingo The question of denial of oppor- 
tunity beoause of I deviant I oommuni oation skills is at any rate legally 
proscribed. 
Perhaps a rather ironio paradox is at work here - and one with whioh 
I shall be particularly conaerned to examine in my concluding chapter. 
BENDERLY (op. oit) has noted that the development of TTYs in the States 
had a quite unforeseen effect: "It showed hearing impaired people of all 
ideological persuasions and social situations the basic and over- 
riding commonality of their political interests". 
As we shall see, this is not a commonality which has been eapitalised upon 
either by the profoundly prelingually deaf themselves, or by their less 
seriously impaired colleagues in the UK. 
Where the use of the phone played an integral part in the perform- 
anoe of a jobq difficulties in its management and the reactions these 
- 241 - 
elicited caused a range of deviant outcomes - from seoondary outcomes of 
strain, embarrassment and humiliation at mistakes, to abandonment of its 
use (whether by a respondeat's own 'volition', or employer intervention)e 
only Mr. N. M. was able -to normalise the situation when phoning became pro- 
blematio, with the use of a third party to help out. It was not a 
ffaggestion made available to other respondents. 
Further deviantising oocurred from an inability to handle the phone 
unaided: regarding the quality and nature of -the job itself; its effeots 
on upward mobility; and on the ability to handle a job at all, Its de- 
torrent effeots on the application for jobs have already been mentioned. 
These outcomes will be discussed following an exploration of the meanings 
difficulties with the phone held for various respondents in terms of seo- 
ondary deviant outoomes; and the response to requests for amplifiers. 
Strain, depleted iself-oonfidencm. and 'spread'. 
Secondary deviant outcomes - strain and feelings of inadequacy - were 
voioed by disoreditable respondents who were still just suffioiently oomm- 
nioatively ompetent to 'carry off' phone duties. Handling the phone occu- 
pied such of Mrs. C*Ools working day., However, the strain of ooping with 
phone work against a oonstant backdrop of office noise in an opwk-plan 
offioe was an additional headaohe., She remarked: "It. undermines your oon- 
fidenoe. There are times when you're tired and give the wrong answero 
People think you're stupid or queer in the head, There's always 
this feeling of inadequaoy* It takes me so suoh longer 'to do the 
oalls". 
Yet there were no attempts to alleviate the situationt by, for examplep 
looating the phone in a side room,, or the offer to instal an amplifier, 
A similar la, ok of aocommodation was characteristio of Mr, B. U. Is sit- 
uation until very recently. * However, this remained the one and only 
attempt to alleviate the situation. The provision of a TTY- or Vistel, or 
an intermediary, are evidentlynot seen as being 'cost effective'., To be 
* After over a year's employment, an amplifier had been installed, but 
evidently in total ignorance of his fairly severe 
(but aVmmetrical) sen- 
sori-neural deafness. The amplification of sound is thus likely to facili- 
tate only marginally what he lacks - speech discrimination. 
- 242 - 
thus defined and oategorised is stigmatising in itself. It also very 
neatly masks the fact that the label attaches to the perso , insidiously 
legitimising the status quo by appearing to have at stake concern with 
equipment. 
As noted earlierg despite his near normal expressive communioation 
skillsp his eduoational qualifioations, and a fair amount of person&l ass- 
ertiveness, Mr. B. U. was unable to impose more favourable definitions of his 
capabilities on his employers, Howeverl further deviaixt outcomest in termas 
of restriction on career prospects, were denied at interview. Neverthe- 
less, deviantised at this level, any movement becomes problematio. He 
could not penetrate the phone barrier with his other undoubted attributes. 
Yet, like Mrs* C. 0e, phoning took up a large part of his working day. He 
readily oonceded he made mistakeng and oommented: "It makes your intelli. 
genoe look smaller. Say I take a phone call and I say to my super. 
visor 'It's Inspector Spooner from Catford' when it's Inspector 
Sponner from Deptford,, The supervisor approaches the phone with the 
wrong expectations. It doesn't reflect very well on you, even 
though people are sympathetic". 
Feelings of inadequacy and anxiety were voioed by Xrs. A. H., (I)q simi- 
larly communicatively competent. Referring to her previous employment in 
a bankq she remarked: "Being a top-olass bookkeeperp I've got to use the 
phone. But because I can't hear perfectly well I feel handioapped. 
I couldn't pick up the spelling of names quiokly. Colleagues were 
sometimes grudging about having to do my work over the phone .. It 
affeoted my oonfidenoe in dealing with the job e. Finallyl things 
got to the stage where every time the phone rang I ran away so some- 
one else would piok it up", 
The sequential, or amplifying nature of the devianoe defining prooess is 
well illustrated, both in the incorporation of feelings of inadequacy and 
anxiety, as well as in the blocking of any further progress (Xr. B. U,, ) e 
For Mrs. A. H. 9 internalisation of the deprecatory definitions of others 
actually precipitated the behaviour with which she was attributed, thus 
reinforcing the stereotypic images society already has of the hearing im- 
paired as incompetent and inept. 
Amplifiers: "We can't mess about with these" 
I 
- 243 - 
Given E; uch feelings of anxiety and straing the provision of ampli- 
fiers would seem an obvious solution - oertainly to those respondents with 
condnctive 10SBV or suffioient residual hearing to benefit from amplifi- 
cation. Yet few employers (Mr. N. M., Is and Mr, B. U. 's apart) availed them- 
selveB of the opportunity to encourage their hearing impaired staff to 
apply for them* And signifioantlyt other respondents were too frightened 
to ask. When suoh a simply and relatively inexpensive devioe oould radi- 
oally transform the working life and performanoe of an employeeg the un- 
willingness of employers represents a significant attempt at social control 
of a stigmatised minority. Definitions of inoompetenoe were at their 
most salient in respect of this issue, 
It was Miss A. So (I) who commentecl reflectively on how attitudes to- 
wards the installation of phone equipment illustrated the Ispread' effeot 
of negative peroeptions of all hearing impaired empl(Weese (Having woriced 
with the deaf in a sooial work capaoitylp as well an being marginally im- 
paired herself I her comments are particularly instructive): "They think 
they've done you a big favour by taking you on. It's the attitude 
'How dare they expect moreV If they valued you enoughq they'd make 
it possible. It depends on a lot of thingog how long you've been 
there, aooeptanoe, occupational statual how much you are liked... " 
Generally, attempts to negotiate the installation of telephone equip- 
ment (or a subirkitute) in order to facilitate and enhance job performance 
and opportunities either met with rejectiong or, suoh were the wrpectations 
of a lbrush-off', no attempt was made (Mrs. N*F* ex0epted). 
Mrs. D. H. 's (I) experienoe is salutary and illustrative of the twMoitY 
with which stereotyping is adhered tog even in the face of strong evidence 
to the oontrary. I oontend that the oontinuous experienee of tension- 
laden interaction reinforces, rather than modifiesp stereotypes* Once 
established as a 'faulty interaotant'l even diBoreditable respondents may 
find themselves ignored or avoided in subsequent eneounter areas, thus 
lending further substanoe to the tentative findings from Kj=ts (1969) 
experiments. Retrospective interpretation appears to take place even for 
- 244 - 
a onoe-., valued employee. Her request for an amplifier had met with the 
following response from an otherwise "sympathetio" boss: "I was told 
'There's plenty of people able to answer the phone. We oan't stand 
all that fiddling about. It's not neoessary'. I felt a bit rebuffed* 
I didn't ask again'le 
The implications for the nature and quality of her working life have been 
depressing for her, reinforcing her tainted self-image, which she preserves 
fairly intact from imputations of stigma in other respects* "I feel em- 
barrassed now, I used to speak to buyers of big firms. They say 
'Why don't we speak -to Do now? ' and the boss has to tell them". 
Two other disoreditable respondents (from Groups I and II) had had 
similarly adverse experiences, reinforcing an already precarious sense of 
self-esteem (Mr. S. L. and Xr. P. E. ) As Xr. S. L. wcplained: WIIve had long 
disoussion whether I oould do a legal job with head phones, loops 
eto. No firm was ready to provide one" 
- this despite his very formidable qualifiogtiong and in+, Olleotu&l ability. 
The preservation of expressive comamni oative skills was insuffioient to 
dislodge employers' expectations of genomlised incompetencee Illustrating 
my own partioular oontention, he oommented later: "All it requires in a 
preparedness to re(wgnise that if they made even minor alterationsp 
they cmuld get as muoh out of (a) as (b)". 
Anticipation of rejection and internalised feelings of incompetence 
were such as to deter Mrs. A. H. from even asking. Describing its signifi. 
oanoe for herg she oommented: "I felt badkicardx asking for something like 
that"s 
An interesting example of what amounts -to a confrontation with onets 
own stereotypes is Mrs, A*B. (I) who is responsible for hiring (and aaking 
reoommendations for firing) in her own particular officee She comented: 
"If I had a good candidate /for the office/ but with a hearing loss 
whioh meant she couldn't cope with the phone without the installation 
of an amplifier, I wouldn't push for an amplifier. /HQ/ wouldn't give 
me the money"* 
Even when I pointed out the Department of Employment's Environmental Aide 
scheme, she remained adamant. Possibly two factors are operative here: 
the psychological toll involved in concealing her own impairment which she 
does with oonsummate skilli when phone duties have to be oonducted against 
a background of loud traffic noise. However, I suggest a much sounder 
- 245 - 
explanation lies in her facingg and complying with, the stereotypes of 
hearing impairment with which she had grown up and unconsciously absorbed 
into her common-sense stock of knowledge* It bears out the oontention of 
SCOTT (1969) ooncerning the vulnerability of her identity to atta& both 
from within and without* Her ability to ra-tionalise made 4er supremely 
unaware of her power to deviantisel and her dual status as both definer 
and potentially defined. 
There were two exoeptions 'to this general pictureq where strategy 
management for both discreditable and disoredited respondents 'paid off'. 
For Mr. N*M. j relatively oomaninicatively competent, his comparative immu- 
nity to imputations of stigma has already been mentioned. He oommented: 
"It was at the employer's instigation to got an amplifier for the 
phone ... In no way have I been made to feel inferior"* 
Stignal I reiterate, is not universally applioablee As noted earlierl 
Mr. N. M. 's maiddle management position in a smally sympathetic firm may 
well have oontributed to a positive evaluation of his oapabilities. In 
addition, the salienoe of his own resouroes is important, in -that he was 
determined not to inoorporate the stereotypes about Ideafies' whioh had izL-- 
itially undermined his oonfidenoe on being adventitiously deafened. His 
ebullient personality hall enabled his to faoilitate normalisation of sooial. 
relationships &t work. His two Directorej, -one of whom, significantly, is 
familiar with impairment, "have -taken it in their stride", He is the only 
respondent in the sample where job modifioations and re-structuring have 
been done virtually automatically. 
Disoredited Mrs. N. F. is the other exception, in that she has gone a 
stage further: she iB the only member of the sample to have suooessfully 
negotiated the use of a TTY for her job as assistant sooial worker. How. 
ever, as she said "I had to fight for it". Additionally, it does not re- 
solve all her problems: "It's time-consuming and colleagues would still 
prefer to take messages o. Its use will be restricted almost purely 
to work. So few clients have got them". 
HOweverv in the work situation, Mrs. N. F. has regained some of her un- 
tainted self, indicating again the situational nature of deviance de- 
- 246 - 
fining and the infinite possibilities for strategy management. 
Yet deprecatory definitions of her abilities are not entirely Ertilled. The 
reserve of her sooial worker oolleagues and their somewhat patronising 
treatment, of herl disoussed in the previous ohapterv indioates her aooep- 
tance is far from complete. It illustrates the extreme difficulty with 
which a stigmatised iden-tikit oan be discardedy a difficulty more often 
discussed in the context of discharged 'mentally ill' patients (ofe 
ROSFAM9 
, 
1973), but equally applicable here. Never-theless, at the time 
of interview (June 1981), she must be one of a very small number of oommu. 
nioatively 'deviant' hearing impaired people in the oountry to have ne- 
gotia-ted the use of a TTY for her job - and this despite not having aoh- 
ieved fall sooial worker status. 
That it can be aohievedl transforming the quality of a discredited 
respondent's working life, is in stark oontrast to those other respondents, 
whose diff ioulty or inability to use the phone in oonventional fashion is 
all too often translated into personal inadequacy and incompetence, and 
their potential minimised or obscured. Concomitant deviant outcomes in 
tems of a reduoed quality of life at work, and exolusion frcm acieesI3 to 
oooupational goals generally follows* 
(iii) A reduoed quality of working life 
The impact of exclusion from phone duties on the nature and quality 
of working life was often peroeived to be depressing, Restriations on the 
nature of the job have been implioit in oomments already made by Xr. B, U,, 
and Mrs. D. H, It is poignantly illustrated by Miss A. L. Returning to her 
old job to find phone duties tactfully' removedg she said: *I'm really 
lost without the use of the phone. I miss answering it. It used 
to make a little break from just typing. People don't write these 
days. It's all phoning"* 
Respondents were well aware of the further deviant ramifications ex. 
Clusion was to have on longer-term prospects. The restrictive impact on 
the closely related area of promotion was oommented on by 3 respondents, 
- 247 - 
Mr. L. M., MisB B. G. and Mr. M. C., and will be discuBsed in greater de- 
tail later in this chapter. 
It would appear that respondents from all Communication groups per- 
ceive themselves to be evaluated in a way as to suggest that they occupy 
insufficiently important positions in the work hieraroby to warrant special 
ooncessions . The sequential - almost oircular - nature of devianoe do- 
fining is important again hereq and a deviancy amplification or spiralling 
paradigm is usefal to illustrate the prooess* If phoning ompetence is 
deemed to play such an important role in effective job perforuanoet ex. 
clusion from it leads to a diminished quality of working life and status, 
which is then legitimated as an 'obvious' consequence of primary hearing 
loss. The aotual prooesses involved whioh make for exolunion are c)onven- 
iently obsoured. The hearing impaired are then ra-tionalised as being 'in- 
oapablet of holding down better jobs* 14m employment at a more elevated 
level which the installation of TDI)s might well promotet in not 'justified'. 
Stigma oreates stigma which creates stigma. Thus initial negative eval- 
uations set in motion a further sequenoe of pajudiaial definitions, so 
that the deviant outoome - jobs involving the phone are not for 'the deaf - 
beoomes part of the oommon-sense stook of knowledgeg and a judgemont which 
many hearing impaired respondents themselves subsoribe to. It was Niue 
M. A. who put her finger on some of the underlying insmeso She signed with 
some prescience: "True* At same time excuse"* 
Strategy management was generally severely ourtailed as far as phones 
were conoerned. Remediation whioh might have enabled some respondents to 
manage the situation was conspicuous by its absence. For discreditable 
respondents, seoondary deviant outoomes in the form of straing embarrass- 
ment and sometimes humiliation were routine. And for those whose ability 
to cope unaided was marginal. 9 the matter was often simply taken out of 
their hands, their 'incompetence' exposed for all to see. For discredited 
respondents (Mrs. N. F, aPart)v the question rarely arose, except in the 
- 248 - 
shape of a general deterrent* 
It was signifioant that oommnicative oompetence, as I have used the 
tem throughout this thesis, was of such little relevanoe herep even when 
oombined with salienoe of resonroese Negative definitions tended to be 
universally appliedl and their effects generalised outwards to encompass 
all other work oompetenoies., 
As the phone rated so significantly in respondents' oomments about 
workl I have devoted some oonsiderable spaoe to dismwging it ag an #in. 
surmountable obstacle'. What is so disheartening is that both definers 
and defined genemlly peroeived it as suoh. Stereotypes are well and 
truly internalised in this area of employments. 
(b) Meetings: A Case of I doing soli-tary' 0 
Finallyq in dealing with the additional hurdles which employment places 
on demands for oommunioation skills is the qmestion of partioipation in 
meetings. However, partial or total exclusion was the rule here too, in 
a similar way to the other aspects of work life I have been discussing. 
I saggest this can best be regarded as an extension of the exolusion ex- 
perienced by respondents in their group sooi&l lifeg both in and outside 
work. However, for effective participation in groups at workl additional 
Oommunication skills are required, As with the possession of a 'good tele- 
phone manner , speeoh performanoe tends to be more highly stylised and 
less reliant on the kind of taken-for-granted 'filling-in' oharacteristic 
of more informal group dialogue. Thus, although acceBS to participation 
in meetings tended to negatively affect most hearing impaired respondents, 
discredited respondents were additionally penalised for the absence of 
'standard', 'correct' speech (if speech were possible at all), 
I-CD- 
scussions tended to be viewed by re. Again, participation in group di 
spondents, as well as their hearing peersl as another of those 'insuperable 
obstacles, - as a further inherent 
limitation of hearing loss. Much of 
- 249 - 
the literature supports Emoh a viewpoint, and indeed it would be quite 
idle to deny -the existence of genuine problems. 
CRAMATTE (1968)9 BIRD and TREVAINS (1978), BENDERLY (op, cit) and 
TREVAINS (1982) deseribe them: namelyl strain and fatigue; diffioulties in 
following if the speaker's head is momentarily turned aside; oatohing the 
sotto voce exchanges which are generally characteristic of meetings; and 
the difficulty of following rapid 'cross-fire' talk. 
Few respondents attended meetings on a regalar basis. The neoessity 
of doing so was, of oourse, a funation of the job* For those employed in 
semi-skilled and unskilled posts at facAory floor level, meatingst if anyp 
were usually oonfined to Union meetings. 
And yetj onoe again, even with the problemý at its most 'insuperable', 
need this be so? The oombination of equipment and the use of an inter- 
cessor enables Jadk Ashley (ASHM9 1973) bo-th to follow and oontribtL-te to 
debates in the House of Commons., Whilst the posts of my respondents were 
considerably less elevated, is it incow6ivable that similar acoommodations 
oannot be made? The experienoes and peroeptions of respondents in my 
i3ample attest both to the general laok of aooommodative devioesp at both 
personal and teohnologioal levels, -the reluctanoe of colleagaes to, 'bother', 
and of the stigma reactions which are now becoming a familiar response to 
requests for inclusion: impatience, irritability - and ultimately, rejection. 
Although Miss C. G. agreed that at office meetings an agenda was 
"usually available" (a strategy used by Miss V. G, ) I and that she "would 
ask the person next to me to fill me in", 
little effectually was done to help, and requests for repetition - as 
noted in general social interaction at work - elicited negative reactions. 
She commented: "It' s like listening to a foreign language. Or if People 
speak too fast .. I can't ask too many times for people 
to Slow 
down or repeat - not at meetings. People get so exasperated* So 
you have to judge it'le 
There were some exceptions. For Miss V. G. and Mrs. GoLov their 
- 250 - 
communication skills and salience of resources (chiefly professional sta- 
tus) were such that they were able to manipulate the situation so that some 
participation was achieved - bnt at a price. Both respondentsq who nor- 
mally paBsed BOciallyl and very often managed to do so at work - were 
aware of the penalising effects of repeatedly drawing attention to their 
'imperfection' and of the general pejorative evaluation whioh disclosure 
incurred. Againg a delicate balance had to be maintained between the de. 
sire to understand and the risk of eliciting stigma: 'incomprehension# in 
this, as in other employment settings, being strongly equated with inoap- 
ability* 
Mrs. G. L. at corroboration interview explained the difficultiesl the 
preoarious nature of the strategies she pursuedv and the antioipated mrter- 
sotyping requests for repeats prodLioedo "If I've been sitting in a staff 
meeting, often conversation's coming at you from three different dir. 
ections. I can only concentrate on the immediate person. So I po-- 
sition myself beforehand so that this doesn't happen* It doesn't always 
work. So I have to say Isorryl I can't hear'. I prefer to avoid 
this. Possibl. T it would seem you're behaving like the village idiot - 
you got shoutea at or people use baby languagel you knowl words of 
one syllable e. I would ask if I was lost out but I wouldn't want -to 
keep asking". 
Miss P. L. was one of the few respondents speoifioally to identify 
the bearing others' attitudes had on whether or not a hearing impaired per. 
son was permitted access to such work aotivitiesp and, more importantlyg 
whether trouble was taken to enable him to benefit from theme She oommen- 
ted that were she to partioipate in meetings "It would need a lot of under- 
standing from other people .. So muoh depends on the attitudes of 
employers", 
It isq as has been argued, preoisely -the negative attitudes of others 
whioh are seen as preoluding a willingness to find ways out of both real 
and apparent difficulties. The master status of hearing loss, and its 
equation with stupidity and incompetencel effectively obscures any posi- 
tive attributes the stigmatised victim may possess. This affects dis- 
oreditable and disoredited respondents alike, as Mrs. L. L. (I) found to 
her cost. 
A 'No Go' Area 
- 251 - 
A. Soriptions of incompetence were particularlY galling to one of her 
capabilities. She had I'stormed out of meetings on more than one occasion", 
She commented on her experience attending a course for adult teacher train- 
ing. Although not strictly germane to employmenti I am including her 
comments as she only agreed to talk to me on the subject because, as she 
remarked, "This is what it must be like for people at work"* 
She described her experiences as "shattering"g "a terrible shook". "a 
real eye-opener". She found leoturers mumblecl, refused to repeat what had 
been saidg and even made disparaging remarksq suoh as "Mrs. Lo makes me 
so nervous sitting there staring'". 
She was unable to partioipate in group discussions even with 'the aid of 
an RNID loop: "It would only work if I oould pass -the miorophone round to 
whoever was speaking. Yesq I know it would slow -things up. But the 
whole situation made me so nervous I didn't cb! Lre asktf.... "I was 
asked if I expected the whole olass to revolve around me. There were 
no oonoessions. It would be the same for a deaf person at work I 
imagine. But the differenoe is I could get up and walk Out. I was 
a free agent. A deaf person at work can't"s 
Finallyq she oommented on the lack of sympathetio understanding fix= leo. 
turers with some surprise that "ednoa-ted people oan still think -the way 
they dolt* 
Not a lady to be deafeated lightlyp she was obliged to withdraw. 
This is illustrative of all the processes of stigma and stereotyping 
I have been describing to datee Definitions refused to yield either to 
her expressive oommuni oative oompetenceg or salienoe, of resouroese Dis- 
olosure of diffioulties simply solidified the typeoasting of her as inoom- 
petent. And the situational nature of deviance defining is again appar- 
ent. Contrary to her own work situationg where she retains a fair measure 
of self-oontrol, she was entirely at the meroy of others' evaluations here. 
No acoommodative moves were made to alleviate the intrinsio diffioulties 
of communicating in other than a one-to-one situationg so that she was de- 
terred from pursuing the few tactios at her disposal. Her awareness Of 
the frustrations of hearing impaired colleagues facing similar situations 
within the much more circumscribed framework of employment where withdrawal 
- 252 - 
carries more severe penalties is illuminating. And seeondary deviant out- 
comes were manifest: "My husband had always eneouraged me to be oonfident 
before. I've lost that now". 
For other discreditable respondents, concurrence in the 'inevitability' 
of exclusion was apparent. Moreoverv further deviant outcomes in terms of 
restrictions on upward mobility were perceived by Mr. L*M. and Mr. C. P. as 
equally 'inevitable'. The notion of self-fulfilling propheoies is useful 
in trying to explain this* As in some other oontextsq antioipating the 
labels of othersp respondents tended to adjust their own expectations down- 
wards and behave acoordingly. In other wordsp stereotyping wLs of-ten in-ter. 
nalised by respondents in suoh a way that. the impact wasgelr-oonfixuingo 
Miss V. G. and Mrs. G. L. &part, attempts to redefine the situation were 
largely conspicuous by -their absenoe. Rationalisation in the form of rel- 
ative oontentment at his modest suooess was Mr, C*P. 's only defenoe against 
swallowing wholesale other' s ascriptions of incompetence: "I would have 
had a higher position than I've got now oo. But management and ad- 
ministration means meetings though. But I've climbed right up to 
the togas far as the -technical side is concerned", he explained. 
Meetings, however, played a peripheml, if non-existemrtý part in the 
working lives of many respondentsp particularly those in unskilled jobs, 
suoh as Miss L., S. 9 Mrs* B. I. 9 Mr. S., G, And discredited respondents were 
totally excluded. Not even lip-servioe was paid to the notion of partioi- 
pation. Any efforts were usually met with a rebtLff. Only Miss R*C. 
voiced her disquiet at the exclusion.. "They don't want to 'tell me the 
story. At a meeting in work which lasts two hours, ask afterwards 
and get. five mimtes' report"* 
There wasl however, one exception* As with the phonesp Mrs* N, F. 
had patiently negotiated the use of Total Communication at case confer- 
ences in order to participate. The master status nature of her handicap 
was relegated to its rightful placet and she was enabled to utilise her 
capabilities to the full and partioipate in decision-qnaking. Her Depart- 
ment prided itself on being "progressive"l and it is rare to find an em- 
- 253 - 
ployer able to supplement speech with manual communication other than in 
the deaf world itself. Neverthelessp ooaummioation inoompetence notwith- 
standing, salienoe of personal resouroes has led Mrs* N. F. at least par- 
tially to reverse a previously tainted status andq in her work situationg 
aspire to discreditable status - for the first time in her life. 
Mrs. N. F. apartq strategies were restricted, and for discredited res- 
pondents totally blocked. Any room for manoeuvre by discreditable respond- 
ento was confined to the attempts at positioning described by Krop G. L., 
and occasional requests for 'filling in' by Miss C. G. Eilher the illusion 
of participation was maintained and respondents made what use they could 
of their lipreading skills and hearing aide; or the question of partioi- 
pation simply did not &rise, The atignatised were truly exoluded. 
As we explore further aspeots of life at work for the hearing impaired, 
the importanoe of the twin notions of the situational n&, ture of devi&ncg 
defining and strategy managementy and that of degreou of deviantness, are 
beooming inoreasingly olear. As anticipatecl, some areas of employment 
are more amenable to negotiation and oon-trol than others* Phones and 
meetings represented *no go' areas. Howeverv -this by no means implies a 
passive acoeptance of deviant statual or lack of manoeuvrability in other 
work areas. I have been at pains to emphasise the innovative and dynamio 
nature of bargaining tactics -to achieve even +, he most modest redefinitions 
of one's status. For those badly discreditedl the attempts may be barely 
perceptible, involving only very minor alterations. For a long tine, any 
attempts may be in abeyance, until an eruption indicates a fresh attaok 
on the prevailing stigma ideology. Mrs. N. F,,, for example, had worked 
for many years as a draughtBwoman, enjoying little Ertatus, before embar- 
king on her new mLreero 
There are degrees of role engulfment as noted in the two previouE; ohap- 
ters. It varies over time, and with circumstances. Even if apparent at 
- 254 - 
interview, and common enough generally to characterise respondents' per- 
ceptions, role engulfment is rarely total. It is more likely to be partial 
and episodic. Neither is it likely to prevail over every aspect of the 
employment situation. And in other life domainsl of oourset it is infin- 
itely variable. It is the oomplementary notion of degrees of deviantness 
which has illuminated the way in which respondents do differentially res- 
pond to negative stimuli. The interest lies in assessing how they perceive 
-their options in this vez7 particular 'semi-olosed' situation of work* 
As far as meetings were ooneerned, the general absence of-any aooomm- 
dative before or after 'filling-in' - not to mention the use of alternative 
means of communioation - ensured that stereotyping and stigma did, however, 
exclude the vast majority of respondents from all Communication Groups* 
It beam out the findings of CRAMUTTE (opecit) that it is only the aotive 
co-operation of fellow-morkers, and, implicitlyip what accompanies this - 
a positive evaluation or oompetence - that meetings for the hearing iw- 
paired can be regarded as anything more tImn a case of "doing solitary'. 
Whilst an inability to share in meetings was not instrumental in job 
dismissal, and it did not appear to deter applications for particular jobog 
it did, however, have an important additional impact on job mobility. 
And exclusion also oontributed to the internalimation of sooondary deviant 
outoomes in the form of rednoed self-oonfidence, isolation; and in vary-ing 
degrees of intermalisation of the equation of hearing lose with impaired 
intelligence. 
4-o EXCLUSION FROM ECONOMIC WALS 
Having examined how processingg- both by work peers and employers are 
perceived to affect work-related activities, I will conclude this empirical 
section by looking at the impact of stigma and stereotyping on the denial 
of access to broader economic goals within the work setting. Exclusion 
from such work goals represents the extreme end of the sanctioning pro- 
- 255 - 
ceBB I wish to consider. 
I propose to investigate how the hearing impaired view their employ- 
ment prospects in terms of the utilisation of their skills and oapabilities, 
promotion prospects, and job fulfillment generally. I have selected these 
factorB as being the most relevant and representative indioes of felt and 
enacted stigma. By an exploration of such economic containment I hope 
to have traoed the whole sequenoe of stigma reactionog Prom the moral, 
socio-payohologioal response to departures from interactional competenoeq 
to the ultimate denial of access to the economic goals which are purpor- 
tedly aoceBsible to all in our sooietyo It oannot be suffioiently empha. 
sised that it is interaction, whioh is the crux of the whole issue. 
(a) Expeotations and aspirations versus 'reality': Underemployment 
The complex definitional problems surrounding this area have been re- 
ferred to in the literature (of. Appendix 1). 1 have disaussed it with 
respondents under the general rabric of how they peroeived their abilities 
and OaPaoities to be fulfilled in their work. 
I suggest that the sooial processes with whioh I am cwnoerned - and 
whioh are just as pertinent to the extreme encl of the stignatising oon. 
tinuum - are very muoh more visible when it oomes -to a oonsideration of 
restricted access to eoonomic goals. Deviant outoomes arising froin the 
equation of1deviant' oommunioation skills with intelleotual inoapacity and 
general inability are inore readily amenable to investigation. 
Discreditable respondents in Groups I and II did not generally con- 
sider themselves to be underemployed. Even Mr. B., U,. l well qualified aoa- 
demically, considered his position as clerical officer part of the economic 
constraints operating on all graduatesi and his deafness irrelevant to 
the issue. 
(i) "Better JobB go to Hearing People" 
There weret howeverp some significant exceptions. These were largely 
ý 256 - 
confined to reBpondents who, coincidentally with the onset or deterio- 
ration of their hearing capacity, had experienced -the impact of negative 
evaluations of their competence and subsequent occupational drop (Mro B, S., 
Mr, L. A., and Kro S. L.; or respondents suoh as Kiss B, Go, who, despite 
her educational qualifications, perceived her impairment such as to role. - 
gate her permanently to an employment status well below her abilities 
and qualifications)o 
Pbr these respondentog the master status Of hearing impairment app- 
eared to domin te all other definitions of oapabili-tyg despite proven 
ability in the case of those with acquired deaftess (and proven academio 
ability in the case of Nies B*G*) Ryan the retention or acquisition of 
communioation skills seemed to make little impacto Little jobore-struo... 
turing or aocommoclative moves were made* Onoe tainted with undesirable 
differentnesel retrospective interpretation 'tended to take plaosil 
rising respondents as 'this is what you were like all a. U)ng' o Orricial 
processing by statutory placement. agenoiesq as oomented in Chapter 4. 
reinforoed definitions of diminished status* 
Xre BeS, had been tobliged' to take an ooompational drop from tele-- 
oomnmnioations engineer to WO sorter. He oommented: "I"m employed well 
below my capaoityo There's no oomparison"o 
Whilet appreoiating that oontinued work in teleommuicatioRs N&O possibly 
not feasibleg the official labelling prooess which then evaluated his 
toohnical skills as of no further acaount is oharacteristic of the routine 
categorisation at the lowest oo n denominator of oompatenoe often 
applied to the newly stigmatiseds 
Similarly, Miss B. Go's educational accomplishments and communication 
skills (her prelingual deafhess notwithstanding) were insuffioient to over. 
ride the overall definitions of her as a 'faulty person'. She discussed 
'the laok of utilisation of her abilitieB in a way whioh iB more reminiBoent 
Of discredited respondents* Boredom figured prominently. "I'm utterly 
- 257 - 
bored mentally. Even if I were at the top I couldn't see my brain 
being stretched. I enjoyed the novelty initially. But once I knew 
how to do things, it wore off ... I have gained some advantages from 
the job. Practically I've learnt about that type of catering and 
dealing with people. I find it frustrating more than actually dis- 
liking it. The tediumt'. 
Salience of financial resouroeB didg howeverp enable Mr. S, L* to de- 
flect some of the more practical ramifications of his downward occupational 
spiral, although the onslaught on his self-image was in no way alleviated., 
His occupational drop from papil barrister to self-employed oopy editor 
oauld, as he explained, have been modified, at least in terms of status, 
if not in terms of actual job fulfillment. As he commented: "Now I'm oer- 
tainly underemployed as far as pay is ooncerned. I earned less than 
E600 last year. If I wasn't cushioned against finanoial difficulties 
I would be more 'employed's I could go out and be a oonveyancing 
solicitor possiblyp but I would hate it. I'd be given the leamrt pro- 
blematio jobs if I was drafting oontracrtB, It happened whilat I was 
still at the Bar. You're less 'useful'"* 
Living with his family in fairly affluent oircumetances in no way 
cushioned the inroads into his self-esteem whioh the impact of stigma and 
stereotyping, to whioh he felt he had been subject whilst at the Bar, 
foroed upon him in his new role* Moreover, his disoreditable status was 
very much imperilled by the deviant outcome of his severely circumscribed 
aocess to hitherto expeoted eoonoinic goalige 
These were significant exceptions* Howevert 7 respondents in Groups 
I and II had acquired their occupational status prior to the onset of 
hearing loss, but their oommuni cation skills had enabled them to preserve 
their jobs despiteg in some casesp incorporating equally pernicious seoon- 
dary deviant outoomes in the form of strain, twwion, and feelings of 
inadequaoy and anxietyo 
For severely adventitiously deafened respondents, such as Mr, N. M. 9 
it has already been noted how a positive evaluation of his identity has 
enabled him to retain a grip on his position, although not without a good 
deal of strain and additional effort. Additionally, the salienoe of his 
resources contrasted sharplY with those of the other discreditable adven- 
- 258 - 
titiously deafened subject in the sample (Mr. S. G. )q although as noted 
earlierp the retention of a positive self-image was found to be increas- 
ingly difficult to sustain over time. Not only is stigma not universally 
applicable; the triggering of stereotypes is similarly not inevitable* 
Making reasonably effective use of one's oommunioa; tive capabilities 
whioh - notable exoeptions apart - has been broadly oharacteristio of dis- 
creditable respondents declined sharply as oommnAoation skills increasingly 
departed from the norm* All the faotors whioh I have discussed in the pre- 
vious two chapters seemed cumulatively operative in produoing -this deviant 
outcome: +, he prior labelling as inoompetentp and one outcome in -the form 
of restricted job opportunities; the insurmountability of 'obstacles' 
suoh as the phone and meetings; exoluAion from partioipation in on-going 
work activities; and, above all, I oontendg the constant disruption of 
oooial interaction with work peero, which tends to elicit various degrees 
of stigma reaotions. 
Apart from Mrs, N, F,, and Mrs. 3, T. who had oapitalised on their im- 
pairment and entered professions for the (Leaf, and Miss HPQ. and Miss G. F. 9 
a 
employment for discredited respondents was generally confined to routine, 
repetitive, semi--skilled and unskilled manual or olerioal tasks. 
The spiralling nature of the devianoe. 'defining prooess was illustrated 
by Mr. H. H.: I'Vve worked myself downwards instead of up* I'm only using 
part of the training I've done - technical, drawingg industrial ex- 
perience .. I'm trying to search for a imy up* This is just semi- 
skilled work". 
Prelingually partially deaf, his ambivalenoe, osoillating between intense 
resentment and distrust of 'hearies' and the imposition of hearing norms, 
and fasoination with the world of hearing people, reveals most vividly 
6 
the dynamic nature of strategy management which is characteristic of some- 
one of his marginal status and oommunicative oompetencee 
His letter to me gave some indication of the significance struggling 
with the "near monopoly" (HIGGINS and NASH, 1982) of the hearing world 
- 259 - 
held for him: "I think it's searching for something in me is very cap- 
able but not yet come out .., that I can show 
hearing people that I 
can do outstanding work if given the chance to discover it"* 
It is effort plus which is necessary for the stigmatised to gain even par- 
tial acceptanoe* He readily oonours that his present post as wireman 
assembler hardly does justice to his pursuit of an Open University degree 
and the acquisition of 1-j credits to date. 
(ii) Boredom, and frustration 
Although intimately connected with the rather more elusive question 
of job satisfaotion, the feeling of boredomy already expressed by Miss 
B., G. , together with a profound and dispirited sense of resignation with 
their deviant employment status was fairly charaoteristic of disoredited 
respondents. Varying degrees of (superfi0i&l) oonourrenoe in the verdiot 
- both the outcome and its implioations for self-esteem - were expressed 
at interview by Group IV and V respondents. Boredom wLs mentioned repeat- 
edly, suggesting that underutilisation of capability was widespreade 
Mr. E. B. at first interviewo illustrated this oomon refrain: "The 
job doesn't occupy my mind* As a skill I can use the typewriter* 
But I'm bored .. I would have been in publishing or iwiting eo There 
isn't the means to eradicate -the frustration in employment if you're 
deaf" - 
additionally bearing out my general contention of the peroeived limita-t- 
ionis for manoeuvre in a framework such as work. And Mine N*A. p echoing 
the refraing oommented revealingly "I miss having brain work. Want to 
learn -typing. TOPS oourse did not aooep+** Fou&t hard but failed* 
I had too many ambitions" (my itals. ) 
Only Mr. G. C., it will be reoalled from Chapter 4, after smany years 
of apparent acquiescence was now attempting a bold oonfrontation strategy, 
"Bored* Stuck at x. Routine* Want to be social worker for deaf", he 
signed. The result of his application to Goldsmith's was unfortunately 
not known. Howeverg his fresh attack on the prevailing stigma ideology 
about 'the deaf' after years Of aPParent capitulation doesq once againg 
illustrate the dangers of regarding deviant outcomes as static. 
The interest lies in viewing these movements - big and small - within 
- 260 - 
the cirCUMBcribed framework of employmentg where definitions favourable 
to self are much less readily sustainable on their own terms. However, 
even within this Bemi-olOBed Bituationg as we have seeng there are some 
areas which are more amenable to redefinitions than others., 
Collectively, discredited respondents' peroeptions of their prospects 
indicated a sense of impotence and fruErtrationo Varying degrees of role 
engulfment were seen as oonstituting tlýeir 'reality' - as illustrated by 
Mr. DeS. and his parents: "Do has the capacity to do amch better. He's 
very competent meohanioallyo Expert in many things, Does his own 
oar repairs", 
(Indeed my audiometric equipment had a temporary 'hiooup" at one of the in. 
terviews, The problem was resolved with speed and ease by D. ) His father 
oontinued: "He' s bored. He"s not using his fmll oapabilities ... AS soon 
as you step out of line and try to improve his chancesp there's 
nothing". 
Orl in a word, "When you' re deaf ycm take any job" (Kra* SoT. ) 
The absence of active politioization as a strategy with which -to oom. - 
bat underemployment possibly bears out not only the pervasiveness with 
whioh stereotypes surrounding hearing impairment tend: '-to be at least par. 
tially internalised. Definitiozw also perseate the maoro level. Despite 
labelling oritios who cavil at the apparent neglect of the perspective to 
address itself to the wider power dinkensiony I oontend that labelling at 
the more informal mioro level of interaotion is easily tranolated into 
power differentials at the wider level* And underemploymenty as Joan 
MONTGCMERY (1978) has argued, is politioally more laooeptablel than un- 
employment., 
Thus, differences in outcome generally correlated with respondents' 
status as disoreditable or disoreditedl andmy ranking aooor(ling to the 
"Ease of Communioation with .. " soale. Generally in Comnunication Groups 
I and II, communicative competence had either not deteriorated, or, for 
those prelingually impaired, had been adequately acquired, so that reten- 
tion of jobs held was not seriously jeopardisedl and underutilisation of 
- 261 - 
of skills tended not to be perceived as a problem. There have been some 
significant exceptionsl however, sufficient to indicate some limited common- 
ality of experience of underemployment as a deviant outoomeo Stereotyping 
has affected some respondents in terms of exclusion from access to legiti- 
mate economic goals across the whole hearing impaired spectrum. 
For the disoredited hearing impaired, it may be viewed as trebly penal- 
iZing. It is illustrative of the spiralling nature of the devianoe defining 
prooess. Categorised as incapable of doing anything better, their deviant 
communication skills tend to be self-confirming. Deficiencies in expected 
communicative oompetence preolude an effeotive stake in the bargaining pro. 
oess for more favourable definitions of self. And further deviantising is 
highly likely. Being underemployed once enhanoes the likelihood of being 
underemployed againg ensuring a disproportionately less positive evalua. 
tion of oapabilities in the future. 
(b) A Step up the Ladder* The Un&ssailable Peak? 
As a deviant outcome, partial or total denial of access to promotion 
is the other key area where the negative categorisation of the abilities 
and intelligenoe of the hearing impaired is most overtly manifest* Tog, - 
other with phone management, it is an area where the egaation of hearing 
loss with diminished mental functioning is more resistant -to attempts by 
the stigmatised at redefinition than almost any other* Only a very few re- 
spondents whose oommunication skills were suffioiently intaot to make 
passing at work feasible managed to soale this hurdle* 
Promotion* is held to involve executive, administrative and supervis- 
ory dutieB where a premium is placed on communication skills - particularly 
of a more formal, stylised kind, in conducting meetings, making outside 
business contacts, and facilitating interpersonal relationships both within 
*I am defining promotion to include both any upward occupational mobility, 
even though it does not necessarily involve promotion to managerial, ex- 
ecutive level, within the same organisation, and promotion to a higher le- 
vel involving a move to another organisation. Any horizontal mobility is 
difficult to assess in terms of its status ratingg but where it occurred, 
and was perceived as significant by respondents, mention is Made Of it. 
- 262 - 
and outside the organisation. For discredited respondents in Groups IV 
and Vj promotion was generally peroeived as being not even remotely feas- 
ible. It was sometimes almost offensive to ask at interview. 
Howeverp in respect of this deviant outoomet not even communicative 
oompetenoe oould neoessarily oounteraot the foroe of pre-existing stereo- 
types. The master-statUB trait of hearing impairment tended to be all- 
powerful. The barriers this erected are described by Mr, B. T., (I): "You 
haven'tgot a snowball's chance in hello Your only chance is with a 
skill you might make something. For administrative positionsp they 
say I You've got a communioation difficulty' , or I He' aa bit IuLrd of 
hearing* We'll have to think about that'* Then if they find some- 
one equal to you but hearing, held get proinotion in preference to you". 
The hearing impairedg as a broad group, are evidently not considered 
Eraffioiently oapable either of filling exeoutive posts or of ooping with 
the communication demands whioh such posts require* The lafter legiti- 
mates the former. As noted in other oontexts, the deoision is of-ten pre. 
empted, And little or nothing appeared to be offered to respondents by 
way of remediation. It was evidently oonsidered 'not worth i-bl. 
Yet the evidenoe from the Stateal as disoussed in the literaturel 
suggests that it is sound eoonosios to employ seoretaries to deal with the 
phone and interpret for deaf ezeautives (SMITHy 1979); and to employ in- 
terpreters, even on a short. -4erm basisp to facilitate on-4he-job oriente- 
ation and performanoe at a level oommenourate with abilities and qualifi- 
eations. Again we are oonfronted with the familiar pattern of legiti- 
mating denial of access to economic goals by reference to what are erron- 
eously termed tthe inherent limitations of the handimpt . 
There is nothing startlingly new about the evidenoe of aborted pro. 
motion prospects for the discredited deaf. My findings certainly support 
the conclusions of SCHEIN (1975) that for the profoundly prelingually 
deaf (I would addl who are defined as communicatively incompetent), ".. other 
problems may be demeaning, annoying and ultimately overcome; pro- 
motiong especially to managerial positionsv may be beyond 
/their/ 
immediate reach". 
Howeverg what has been less well documented is the extent to which 
- 263 - 
this applies to all hearing impaired people as a deviant outcome. MY find- 
ings - as indicated by Mr. B. T. 's perceptions of the situation - suggest 
that respondents from all Communication Groups in this set of Erab-samples 
certainly felt it to be so. 
As a perceived lobstaole' to any possibility of advanoementg it was a 
recurrent theme* 24 respondents (11 from Group It 3 from 11,1 from 111, 
from IV and 5 from Group V) commented on it. Their felt capaoity to our- 
mount the lobstaolell ao(wrding to communioative perforsanoe and salienos 
of resauroes varied so marginally that promotion, like phone management, 
appears to be an area where respondents' experienoes and peroeptions of 
denial of aooess were similar both in degree as well an kinde 
(i) Denial, avoiding the issue - and Paralysis 
Of the few disoreditable respondonts who made any headway at allg 
only Mrs* A*B, (I) had made any signifioan: t advanoe* 'With the other respon- 
dents in this small groupp she had reoourse to rationalination and denial 
to neutralise the aotual or potential onslaught on self-esteem whioh aoo- 
eptance of available definitions relating to 'the promotion prospeotgj of -the 
hearing impaired would otherwise have entailed, AA3 she oommen-ted: "There 
was one other candidate for -the Organiser's post. A hearing person. 
Hearing lose is irrelevant for promotion"* 
Salience of resouroeBI or as she put it "exWienoel personality and edu- 
oational qualifications" 
were seen to be of muoh greater signifteanoe., 
Mr. B. U., with not dissimilar educational qualifications, also op- 
timistically assessed his prospects, equally regarding an all-round perror- 
mance as more relevant than hearing loss. As with EDGERTON's (op. cit) re- 
tardates, it is too much to have to accept that one's basic identity has 
been redefined in much less acceptable terms, if any trace of self-esteem 
is to remain. He commented: ItI don't think I'd be denied the higher eche- 
lons of the ladder. Promotion is on merit. It's difficult to say 
whether phone errors would count against you. There are many other 
areas of assessment .. I've never wanted to do anything yet from 
which I've been barred because of hearing lossit. 
- 264 - 
As noted earlier, Mr. C. P. Is ceiling had been defined for himp mod- 
est success permitting some rationalisation of imputations; of stigmab 
For Mro P, Ee and Mrs. B. C. I their upward mobility was of a very peripheral 
nature and hardly constitutes promotion within the terms set. 
It is important to bear in mind that other factors extrinsic to hear- 
ing loss and its perceived evaluation werep nonethelessappreoiated by 
some respondents as constituting additional 'realistic' deterrents to pro- 
motion - thereby conceivably relieving EmbJects from the necessity of con. 
fronting the more painftl stereotyping and stigma of their impairmente 
Miss PoLo, for examplel oommented "There's -nowhere 
to be promoted to. 
It's difficult to got up from a secretarial job anywayp It's nothing 
to do with being deaf"* 
An equally frank assessment of the obstaoles imposed by age and lack 
of educational qualifications came from Mrs. G*Lo and Mr. P. E. The latter 
briefly oommented: "It's a question of age as muoh as hearing loseo And 
laok of qualifioationse They always seem -to promote the younger ones- 
oo, Even if I went to evening olasses now I wouldn't be promoted 
beoause of age"o 
These examples apart, the depressing effeot on ambition and cultur- 
ally approved drive for advanoement of imputations of mental inoompet. 
ence and incapability were readily apparento For some discreditable res- 
pondents, they manifested themselves in feelings of uneasep even dreadp 
and were handled generally by reoourse to expedient withdrawal and avoid- 
ance of the situation altogether. Mr., B. Se and Mrs* Me desoribed how 
they felt about the antioipation of rejeation and rebuffse 
Mr. B. S., for instance, had been highly ambitious prior to the deter- 
ioration in his hearing and ooncomitant oooupational drop. Now he commen- 
ted: "I've had promotion within the GPO to a higher grade. But I've held 
back to an extent. I want more responsibility, but as a supervisor 
I feel I'd become uneasytto 
Lack of self-oonfidence merged into what amounted to real terror at 
the contemplation of even horizontal mobility for Mrs. C. O. She said: 
"I've been with this section 2 years now. I know they 've got 
to 
- 265 - 
move you on .. Vve been putting it off* I dread it"* 
Yet prior to the quite Bevere deterioration in her hearing, Bhel too, had 
been ambitious. Now she appears to have ooncurred in the evaluations of 
others that she has reached her ceilingg although commenting somewhat wist, - 
fully: "I would have liked more responsibility* Itm disappointed. You 
can't compete with a person whotB got full hearing. You can do all 
sorts of things to get over it, but you can't compete, Any executive 
position is out"* 
Feelings of intense frustration aooompanied the ooments of several 
discreditable respondents. Stigma was perceived -to operate as strongly 
as in that other key area of exclusion mentioned: phone wwagement. The 
Utter isq of oourse, inextrimbly interwoven with the whole isEme of pro- 
motiont, negative evaluations in respect of one reinforcing similar evalu- 
ations in regard to the other* 
Miss B. G. 's comments are indicative of the feelingu to which exclusion 
give rise. And the sequential nature of the devianoe defining processq 
even for a respondent of her oommmini oattive, oompetenoe and eftoational quali. 
fioations, is apparent to her in her pessimistio evaluation of her Mure 
career prospects: "If I moved UP one stage I Wald have 'to Use the Rh-oneo 
It's all right at this stageo But -there"s always information Ooming 
in on the phone* I can't move on to the next stage. Yet I"m trained 
in Management *ee I had an appraisal and I was told I was not up for 
promotion, Though they were very pleased about my work, the restaur- 
ant man geress just said 'no" about promotion* No reasons were given"s 
And exclusion from meetings were perceived by Mr. LA. as an lobviouss 
deterrent to any cha"Oe Of PrOmOtiOnO The absence of "y rewdiation on 
the part of employers and oolleagues has already been mentioned. I have 
argued how this in itself is strongly suggestive of the very processes 
which form the basis of this theSiB* Yet Mr. L. M. aoquiesced in the sit- 
uationg treating it as "realistio" and "inevitable"l thereby providing 
very convenient legitimation of denial of access -ro the success ladcler. 
As he remarked- "Anything in an administrative capacity is realistically 
denied me: I was offered promotion to acoountB manager, but it en- 
tailed meetings again. I'd be expected to take minutes. It simply 
isn't realistic". 
- 266 - 
His concurrence with others' definitions have, in effect, virtuallY 
ensured that remediation, will not be forthcoming. 
Thus, discreditable respondentst for whom the option of promotion 
might at least have been considered feasible, generally suffered from 
the common classification of the hearing impaired as intellectually in- 
competent and occupationally inept in a manner reminiscent of their dis- 
credited colleagues. The pervasiveness of stereotyping and its rwdfi- 
cations in terms of exclusion, or anticipated exclusion,, from access to 
the 'success motif' will be seen to cut across all Communication Groups, 
Denial of access to the economic hierarchy was no respector of abilities 
(Mrs. A. B. excepted). And the extent to which such negative evaluations 
appeared to be internalised is highly salient. Negotiating and bargainim 
tactics were minimal and attempts to redefine status confined to a small 
minority of respondents. As far as this area of employment was concerned 
both self-concepts and the behaviour of respondents became increasingly 
committed to a deviant role. 
Feelings of enacted stigma, of actually being exploited, were voiced 
by two respondents from Communication Group III. I suggest this reflects 
the marginal position both these subjects occupiedq uncomfortably strad- 
dling both deaf and hearing worldsl secure in neither, and continually 
weaving in and out of discreditable/discredited status. It also vivid3, T 
illustrates the tension involved in striving for hearing norms and goals, 
whilst simultaneously being poorly equipped, communicatively, to realise 
theml given the assumption that speech and hearing are the only approp- 
riate means of participating in, and experiencing the world. Both Mr. 
H. H. and Mr. F. J. had tried for promotion and been rejected. Both now 
felt they were actively discriminated against in their quest for a grip 
on the elusive ladder to success. Mr. H. H., for example, commented: 
'Tou're limited. They don't give you responsible jobs. They give 
you arduous, menial, dirty, filthy jobs", 
(ii) "You never get promotion because you're deaf" 
- 267 - 
Hearing employers' emphasis on communication deficiencies 9 although 
seen as succeSBfUlly frustrating attempts at upward mobility by discredi. 
table respondents, was generally perceived as an absolute deterrent by 
discredited subjects. This applied both across jobsp and within the curr- 
ent occupational hierarchy. Cultural stereotypes concerning 'deviant' 
speech performance, minimal intelligencep leading to permanent location 
in low-grade jobs engulfed many respondents, 
Mr. EvB. q for instance commented: "I've been in this job 7 years and 
no way can I get any further. I don't expect to be promoted because 
I'm deaf, For those who don't speak plainly it's acLse of 10h nog 
he's no good'. It's also a vioious oirole. I stay at the bottom 
because I know the pressures of trying to move up., I can't bear 
failure. So I remain where I am"* 
There can be no more eloquent testimony to the internalisation of 
negative evaluations of his (undoubted literary) oompetence, and aoquies. 
anoe in deviant status which departures from expected oommounioation skills 
elicit. And yetj as noted earlier, his evaluation of his prospects under. 
went a quite dramatic change with his appointment as voluntary organiser 
at the local Breakthrough Club. 
return again to the question of ooping strategies in a situation 
whioh, on the faoe of it , allows little room for manoeuvre - somewhat rem- 
iniscent of the situation one might expeot to find in a total institdion. 
The only feasible , adaptation, 'to ex0lusion from this Partioular economio 
goal for most respondents was aoquieezueee However, as argaed# total 
commitment to a deviant role is rarely more than episodic, even though 
at the time of interview(s) I it reflected the way many discredited respon- 
dents felt about this particular aspect of their employment livese 
AS commented earlierv kcquiescence is far from indicative of apathye 
It is only with the advent of apathy that role engulfment beoomes a way of 
life. SCHUR (1979) comments: "People succumb to stigma when and to the 
extent that their active efforts to confront it fail. They succumb 
to the extent they are unable or unwilling to make such efforts" 
(my itals)e 
This was not the case with discredited respondents here, even after re- 
- 268 - 
Consider the attempt of Mr. D. S. 's father to improve his son's OMP10Y'6- 
ment position. Frustration and resignation by no means indicate a solidi- 
fied outcome for all time. However, at both interviewst his prospects were 
perceived to be totally restricted. D's father commented: "The question 
of promotion doesn't really arise. There's no chances It saddens 
him a little" (D. oonaurred)o 
The whole family then went on to express intense frustration: "I know he 
can do morep but he can't prove it until they give him the chanoe. 
A hearing person can lay -their own oase on the line". 
Miss X. PA., talked about her own experiences as. well as those of her 
wide cirole of signing deaf friendso Again, oapitulation in others' def. 
initions appeared oomplete. Promotiong or the possibility of even modest 
advancementp were not regarded as even remotely feasible* Artiomlated by 
signing respondental it represents a striking departure from their more ro- 
bust repudiation of asoriptions of inoompetenoe, in sooial situations, 
and the formation of a oounter stigma ideology with whioh -to proteot them. 
selves from the hearing world, 
As with other respondents, the nature of Miss N. A. 's present employ- 
ment preoluded any possibility of advanoement. Being trapped in low-status 
jobs is itself a deviant outoome oharacteristio, of stignatised groups* 
As she signed "Nowhere to go. Not possible in present job". 
Her previouB attempts at 'betterment' had 'been frustratedl as she perceived 
it, by oommunioation difficulties. Referring to her previous Job an a 
punoh-oard operator, she signed: "Wanted to be a verifier. Machines 
change., Keyl-board punching., No clear explanation as to what ex- 
pected to do. So passed overl's 
The social control inherent in abbreviated instructions - or instructions 
by omission - commented on aLrlierg and the implicit lack of trouble taken 
at this critical juncturej have resulted in a predictable deviant outcome. 
Her response cannot be charaoterised in terms of the smouldering re- 
sentment of some respondents. Neither can it be regarded as apathy. Her 
apparent acquiescence masked a genuine sense of frustration, which was 
tempered only by reoourse to fantasy -a dream world where "one dLav, 
things better for deaf". 
- 269 - 
Generally she commented of her deaf colleagues: "Promotion impossible 
for deaf because of oomminication. Perhaps 2 in 100 get promoted, 
Need very strong will. Depends on strength of character* Need good 
speech, Know one or two promoted deaf. But very unusual". 
This represented a quite unusual taoit awareness of the salienoe, of emo- 
tional and sooial power resourcesp oonnunication skills apartj bat the 
wider implications in terms of political strategy -a collective oonfron- 
tation with the hearing world of work equipped with a oounter atigma id- 
eology - were not formulated. 
That redefinition of the situation did in fact take place in a tiny 
minority of oases amongst disoredited respondents attests 'to the onp-going 
straggle to manipulate even modest ohanges in self-image* An importantlyl 
it demonstrates that even this lobstaolel - one whioh has been woepted 
as virtually 'inevitable' by so many employers and hearing impaired people 
themselves for so long$ oan be surmountedo It must at least raise ques- 
tions as to the apprent incapability' of the deaf successfuUy to- ach. 
ieve promotion* 
Mrs. N. F. and Mrs. S. T. had both suooessfUlly capitalised on their 
deviant status, Mrs. N. F. moving from draughtswoman to assistant sooial 
worker, and Mrs. S. T., from oanteen assistant/maohinist to par"ime sign 
language tutor. And Miss H. Q. Is upward mobility fron aoccuntant's assis- 
tant to senior oomputer tester and solderer indioates, I auggestj the eff- 
ects of the more favourable evaluation of deaf peoples' oapabilities in 
the States., And Miss G. F* had a0hieved co-direotorship of her companyo 
Howeverl these were exceptions. Movement was either minimall or in 
Mr. M. C. 's case so painfully slow as to be barely perceptible, and then 
only to a ceiling rigidly defined by others, Aj3 with discreditable res- 
pondents, recourse was had to rationalisation in an effort to prevent im- 
putations of stigma from ravaging his self-esteem. His oonstant refer- 
ences to his position as flaccountant" and "professional status" doubtless 
helped to leaven the impact of blocked progress to further promotion. 
- 270 - 
As he remarked: "I got promotion. I moved from clerk to accountant in 
19 years. But very slow. There's very little chance of anything 
more -o. I had a letter appreciating my good performance. That's 
as far as it goes"a 
Exclusion from advancement up the career ladder illustrates a point 
raised by Mr. D, S., which could otherwise be overlooked: the 'push' and 
'drive' necessary to sell oneself in modern industry is critioally depen- 
dent on the 'right' kind of expertise in oommunioationo Those adjudged 
to be defioientg or worseq deviant in this respectq are thus heavily pen. 
alised at this level. Smoothness of interpersonal skills additionally in. 
volves an appreciation of the kind of visual, non-verbal cues which the 
hearing impaired have diffioulty in piaking up - and whioh can themselves 
jeopardise an encounter. The right touch ,a word in someone'S ear at, 
the right time, and an ear alert to what is going on are all prime re. 
qUiBiteS for asoending the suooess ladder. The extent to whioh the hear- 
ing impaired are exoluded from this vital input has already been discussed. 
The sequential nature of devianoe, defining can thas readily be app- 
reoiated by a discussion of deviant outcomes, Eruoýh as blocked promotion 
prospeotw-, (without in any way implying any inexorabili+, y -to +, he prooess)* 
The whole sequenoe from initial disrupted interaotion, to sterootypingg 
stigma reaotionsq denial of access to work-related activities, and ulti. - 
mately denial of access to economic goals is readily discernible* 
It is salutary that at the level of promotion outoomes, where it was 
antioipated differences in comanini cative oompetenoe would lead to differ- 
ential strategy management and subsequent differences in outoomel 
did not, on the whole, materialise. Respondents experiencing difficulties 
in Communication Groups I and II seemed to suffer many of the same prob. 
lems, albeit in slightly attenuated form, as those in Groups IV and V. 
Both discreditable and discredited respondents found any potential abil- 
ities negatively evaluated, the focus being firmly located on the master 
status phenomenon of their impairment* 
- 271 - 
This giVeB added support to my oontention that employers do loonflatel 
the hearing impaired and treat as similar those with vastly different oap. 
abilities and oapacitiesp at the level of exclusion from access to eoon- 
omic goals whioh are oulturally valued. 'Spillage' oecurs, What is sig-- 
nifioant iE; that neither ooamnmicative oompetenoe nor salienoe of resourees 
appeared to make the kind of differenoe, to promotion outoomes whioh they 
appeared to have in other aspeots of employment. 
The enormous power wielded by those in a position to define and cate- 
gorise to block the progress of those designated as shamefal oann(A be un- 
derestimated. Promotiong together with exolusion from the handling of 
phones, have emerged as the two key areas in employment where oontrol is 
firmly in the hands of the definers. Whilst it is reminisoent of the con- 
straints exeroised by offioial labellers discussed in Chapter 49 the frame. 
work within whieh this particular stigma contest occurs precludes even 
the limited bargaining available to the definers manipulating definitions 
on the outside . The definitions of hearing colleagaes and employers on 
the inside oannot be sidestepped here., Only the mos-t minor faoe-saving 
devices, generally of a private nature and not for public displayl could 
alleviate the impact of wholesale redefining as being I eoonomio&lly un- 
desirablele 
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WORK FOR THE HEARING IKPAIM: MAKING THE MOST 
OF A BAD JOB 
Finally, I will endeavour to oonsider the meanings that work has for 
the hearing impaired respondents I talked with under the very general ru- 
brio of job satisfaction 9 or job fulfillment, I am, however, more con- 
cerned to try and tap general perceptions about the whole work experience* 
Rather than trying to isolate, other than incidentally, which factors tend 
to aot as Isatisfiers' and Idis-satisfiersIv I have tried to tackle the 
question broadly in terms of the significance that contending with a dom- 
inant hearing work world holds for the hearing impaired. The continuum 
- 272 - 
from 'Like your job very much' to 'Dislike it' merely provides an entree 
to the subject. As WILENSKY (1967) has indicatedv direct questiorling re- 
garding job satisfaction tends to "oodiscourage admission of disoontent *. 
a man may feel he is admitting that he is spineless or a failure if he 
pictures himself as staying in a job that violates his most positive 
self"* 
To an extent WILEUM's oontention was borne out here. Even where 
other evidence from respondents indicated that the job situation was pro. 
blematiol of those who commented onl. T 4 respondentsp Miss BeG. (I), Kre 
He He (III), Kre Z*B. (IV9 and Xro D, S* (T. ) openly conceded they disliked 
their jobso Eleven respondents opted for the lose contentious position of 
'Quite liking -their job* (5 in Group It 3 in 11,1 in IV and 2 in Group V); 
and 7 said 'Just OKI (2 in Group 1,1 in 111 1 in III and 3 in Group V). 
Seventeen respondents, 14 from Group I, said they liked their job Ivory 
muohl * The 2 disoredited respondents who also applied affirma-tivoill Nre. 
P. and Kiss H*Qoq have already been disoussed elsewhere an being thox%- 
oughly atypical* 
The only other discredited responden-tv Kre. B. L. (IV) to r*spond aff- 
irmatively had effectively withdrawn from the unequal stranle, of -trying 
to maintain favourable definitions of self a8minst a fairly oonsistent 
work badkground, of onslaughts on her self-es-teeng as she recalled then at 
interview* Her oommunioation skills were defined so negativelyt and her 
work capabilities so undervalued, that she now worked as a partmetime masfp.. 
euse in private practice for her husbande Relief from active enamgment in 
on-going stigma contests -was illustrated by her simple comment: "It Is lovely". 
Of the 14 respondents liking their job very much from Grcmp Il some 
had achieved their occupational stattlB prior to the onset of hearing loss 
(Mr. S. W., Mro A. Eej Miss AS, j for example); others 
(Xr. C-P,,, Kiss P. L., 
and particularly Mrs* A. B. ) had achieved a level of fulfillment despite 
their hearing impairment, Communicative competence, and with it, the 
ability successfully to deflect potential ascriptions of deviance 
- 273 - 
were evidently highly salient in their attainment and retention of what 
they perceived as satisfactory occupational status., 
It is pertinent to-ask what this contentment actually meant to respon- 
dents. Miss V. G., for examplej described what she felt to be a genuine 
level of fulfillment as follows: "Helping young children to aohieve their 
potential, and the joy of working with young minds that arn't pre- 
judiced has given me a sense of purpose. I find it immensely en- 
riching. I wouldn't want, to become Head or join the Inspectorate"o 
However, as BIRD and TREVAINS (op. cit) and TRETAINS (opoit) have 
found, expressed levels of oonten-tment oould often mask other peroeptions 
which indicated an undercurrent of quite different maeaninip. For both diw- 
oreditable and disoredited respondentat these often took the form of 
lowered expectations of job fulfillment masquerading as satisfaction'; 
relief at obtaining employment at all, whatever the level; the sappression 
of one-time ambitions, hopes and aspirations (by no means unoommon -to -the 
normally hearing); feelings of job inseaurity, boredom, pointlessnessq 
andl signifioantlyl an underourrent of profoumd rewblessnesse. 
Thus the signifioanoe of either 'liking' or 'disliking' one's job 
tended to give way to a range of other understandings of the work sit. 
uation, in response to the now familiar oluster of devaluative labelso 
These refleot more faithfully, I suggestp the peroeptions both disoreditable 
and disoredited respondents held of their employment. 
(i) Pipe-dreams 
The equation of hearing loss with reduoed mental oapaoity and abili. 
ties and - insidiously - the hearing assumption that so long as the hear- 
ing impaired are employed amongst their 'own kind', hearing values are 
not threatened, served as a deterrent to even the most active and vocal 
of discreditable spokespersonse 
Mrs. L. L., with her hard-won position as lipreading tutor I achieved 
after the onset of severe clinical deafness commented: "The actual job 
- 274 - 
itself is an important source Of satisfaction. But I'd 
like to Bee 
things done* There are things I could dog to see that more things 
are known about the deaf. I'd like to promote a greater degree of 
knowledge about deafness. The ignorance is appalling 9. Whether I'll 
get the opportunity .. "o 
As a severely impaired respondent, her ability to campaign for the 
deaf 
demands credibility and, above all, aeoeptanoe from the hearing world* I-t 
is precisely that acceptance from which many po-ten-tially stigmatised vio. 
tims are excluded (witness her withdrawal from a teaching course which 
oould have given her suoh an entroef e) -, Mrs. LoLo I Fu:, communioative skills 
and salienoe of personality resouroes have enabled her to penetrate only 
to some extent that acceptanoe barrier. Her at-temptal at -the time of 
writingg to set up olasses to disseminate suoh knowledge have, to the best 
of my knowledge 9 not materialisede. 
(ii) "You're luoky to have a job at all" 
The very fact of being in employment at all was rattionalised by some 
disoreditable respondents as an aooomplishmentp even though the level of 
the job was in three oases probably well below oapaoity* The work ethio 
was still powerful, 'Significant living without work' was not perceived in 
any way as a viable alternative* If expectations are lowl perceived satis- 
6 
faction is likely to be oo spondingly higher - an insidious outoome of 
the labelling processe Yet the assault on self-esteem which such a negar- 
tive evaluation of capabilities elicited could not be totally neutralised, 
even by the OOMmunicatively oompetent Mr, C*R, As he remarked "The only 
satisfactiow. the present job gives me is that when I oome home at 
night I know I've done an honest day's work. Earned my oorn, so 
to speak". 
Being trapped - and a na *ng sense of unaertaint ggi 
The master status of hearing impairment and its 'spillage' effeets 
encompassing all hearing impaired people, regardless of proven ability, 
had affected Mr. B*U- in terms of frustration at the constraining nature 
of his job, as well as the lack of opportunity 
to exeroise initiative and 
responsibilityg for a person of his intellectual ability. And Mre N,, M. I 
o-o 275 - 
despiti, bLiB success in retaining a grip on his man gerial position has 
alreacly commented on a sense of frustration and the insidious dWindling 
of self-confidence at the difficulties entailed in sustaining his vigDrous 
staff education prog-Mmmeo The momentum appeared to flag over time, as 
he added at corroboration interview: "I dontt say I get ignored parposelye 
But because I can't hear what they say, II've lost confidence over the 
oertainty of my position* I used to know 
, 
-when I was right. Now I 
have to give hearing people the benefit of the doubt"o 
This haB qui-te seriOUB neoonclary deviant outcomes in terMB of feelingB af 
anxiety and inadequacyl although he makes ooncerted efforts -to oonoeml 
these and normalise, his working environment. 
Insecurity 
Feelings of inseGurity, either finanoial or job-relatedt were oonmon 
amongst all respondents* Pbr Mro SoLeg asoriptions of inoompetence in his 
previous job , and ooncomitawt pressures to quits . were keenly internalisede 
The acoompanying onslaught on his self-esteem has oritioally affected -the 
way he evaluated his presen: t position and prospe(rtso This may well in 
turn determine his future eoonomio role in terms of a progressive narrow- 
ing of options* Outoomesl thereforeg operate at both soci&-payohological 
and practical levels* 
Xre S*L. oommented: "Others esteem me less beoause of my work. 
Friends I used to have don't oone any more .* The question of the. 
long-term future of deaf employees concerns me* The first task is 
to oonvinoe -them you oan do the job; and the seoond is that youtve 
got a future. At the moment there"s no fatureo Even the medium- 
term future is doubtfale With the reoession in the pablishing in- 
dustry, I was effectively unemployed last year". 
A not dissimilar insecurity, coupled with a diffuse hankering after 
goals -which he was barely able to articulate, but from which he 'knew' 
his deviant commmication skills would debar him, affected Mro H*H* In 
the letter he later wrote to me, his comments have a particular poignancy* 
They indicate vividly the oppressive nature with which social control is 
perceived to be wielded by the dominant hearing majorityp stifling area- 
tivity and initiative, and producing a sense of continuous uncertainty 
and insecurity, 
- 276 - 
"This firm I'm working for .. the job BO 
far seems secure in so far 
as things go well, but any signs of difficulty seems to disrupt .* 
I have worked very hard trying my beat but I feel I am running myi- 
self down ... I have developed an inner distrust of hearing people 
probably because of job insecurity .. I am much more 
interested in 
naturel a satisfaction that it is helping the community in some way 
To give you an example, I have been a keen aquarist and did mirner- 
ous experiments designed to understand ecology and busbandry* I 
literally worked several times all the night* In other words, when 
my heart and soul is in suoh rewarding work, and write short art- 
ioles to a magazine read by thousands of hearing people it is a 
great feeling of satisfaction"* 
His oommentB also illustrate the extra effort Whi0h iB required to prove 
onself on an equal footing with hearing people, This is something whioh 
has been mentioned particularly in connection with discreditable victineg 
but to an extent spills over into the lives of -the evidently oommuni(mtively 
deviant. A double standard also operates here. The fact that very many 
hearing people are less able, andq paradoxioally, their language in many 
ways more impoverished than that of many of my hearing impaired respondents 
is very oonveniently obscured and mystified. 
Mr. H*H., for example. remarked to me with some astonishment at corr- 
oboration interview: "Hearing use If-' as an adjeotivet I never heard 
swear words before I oame into the hearýng world"o 
His own reverenoe and striving for mastery. of that elusive goal, language, 
are an ironic commentary on the many abasets to which smoh, languMe in of- 
ten subjeoted by the dominant hearing majoritye 
The importance of security to the hearing impairedl sometimes at the 
expense of other oocupational goals, is often tightly engrained into the 
lives of discredited respondents. The quest for pattern, order and pre- 
dictability have been brilliantly and poignantly desoribed in WEST's (1969) 
book for his deaf daughterv to explain ".. your deep sense of premrious- 
ness in a world of near silence"* 
Unfortunatelyp it is a pattern which is often reinforced to the detriment 
of much-needed training in flexibility in segregated, residential schools 
for the deafq where BOOialiBation is still often geared towards the 
avoidanoe of the unprediotables 
Terror of ohange nevertheless brushes off on to those who aoquire 
- 277 - 
their hearing loss later on in life. The implicationsl both in terms of 
deviant outoomesq Eruoh as oocupational dooility and immobilityq a reluo- 
tance to face the implications of technological changep and the internal- 
isation of expectations whioh preolude the possibility of personal growth 
and change through the constructive confrontation of the unpredictablev 
is an integral part of the labelling process. It masquerades as proteo- 
tiveneBS . Its effeQtB are to exoludeo 
Two oontrasting responses illustrate how the signifioanoe of seourity 
is differerAially peroeived by 2 Communioation Group IV responden-te, one 
educated at a special school for the deaf, and the other with normal 
sohooling. 
Mr. N. C.: "I oome home with a sense of satisfao-tion with my job* ItIs 
Secure* It's important for a deaf person to stay with the same firm 
to give time to establish oommunioation and oement relationships. 
If a deaf person oontinually ohanges jobs it never helps. I've 
known deaf people whove moved around from job to job and now 
nothing. Permanenoeis more important than anything else". 
Mr. E. B., on the other band, was one or the 4 respondents to be dir- 
eotly outspoken in his dislike of his job. At first interview, his fras. 
tration at his attempts to dhange jobs has, been mentioned earliero With 
a respeotable 7 Years' servioe in hiS present OOIRP"yt he r6marke'ls *In 
the deaf world when I suggest, change people got terrifiede People 
say you must be grateful for 'the job youtve got, The social worker 
iB oonoerned about my sooial life* I oan't oonvinoe how I want to 
do some-thing about my work 
,. 
Whenever I go and talk to her about 
work# as talk I mustp she shifts -the topio onto my sooial life"o 
The controlling definitions of official labellere have been discussed 
in Chapter 4, partioularly those of the so-. (N31led 'helping' professions. 
As has been noted, this partioular unequal Ertigma oontest has beenpwtly 
resolved by Mr. E. B. 's appointment as voluntary organiser to the Break- 
through Club. The oontrast between his dymamio and assertive struggle 
for re-definition of self-hood and the acquiescence of Mr. M. C. oould not 
be more marked. However, as disoussed the appearance of stoioal resig- 
nation is a deceptive one. A dynamic view of strategy management is ess- 
ential to a proper understanding of the reciprooal nature of devianoe 
- 278 - 
defining. 
It is interesting how Mr. N. C. regards his deaf colleagues who are 
'job-bo-pperBI as deviant , tarniBhing the image of the deaf generally. 
It is also a protective device to try and solidify an image of in-group- 
ness from which, as a signing rejector of the deaf oomaninity9 he has ex. 
cluded himself. Preserving even a preoarious peroh in the s-tigma peoking 
order by defining others as more deviant represents Mr. M. C. ts main att- 
empt at stigma neutralisation. It is similar to the contempt in which deaf 
peddlars are held (BIGGINS9 198O)o 
Mr, E, B, 9 although still discredited in casual social encounters, and 
within his pai work situationhas managed -to manipulate definitions with- 
in the particular ooirtext of the looal Club. Both the situational nature 
of deviance definingg and the reversibility of outcomes are important heree 
Imbued with a new self-confidencet it is oonoeivable that experienoo and 
mastery of a position in a voluntary oapaoity may lead to a redefinition 
of his paid work capabilites. Althoughp as many labelling theorists have 
shown, it is difficult to reverse labelop once stigmatisedy it is by no 
means impossible. 
(v) Indifference - except to a pay padket 
For those whose communioation skills were evaluated as totally dev. 
iantj responses tended to reflect an utter weariness with the whole busi- 
ness of work. The conoept of I job satisfaction' 9 as a culturally desir- 
able goal, elioited little response., Phrases suoh as that of Mrs. PA. s 
mother of her daugher: "Just don't care. It's a job"; or "I'm just wait- 
ing for my retirement" (Miss A. L. ) 
were fairly typioal. 
If any factor at all was stressedv it was that of payj something that 
has hardly been mentioned to date as of much significance, beyond the 
Oocasional grouse. It seemed to be the one readily identifiable variable 
for many Group V respondentsv especially for the profoundly orally deaf, 
- 279 - 
additionally functionally illiterate. Mr. M. R. 's mother, for instance, 
oommented : "All M's interested in is money"o 
Pay is rarely considered by writers on work satisfaction to rate very 
highly (mom, 1969; JAHODA, op. cit). But for those with little else at 
stakel and for whom the other functions of work have little relevanceg it 
is perhaps not surprising that it should be seen as the only factor hold- 
ing any meaning for them* 
(vi) Itohy Feet 
Beneath the apparent resignation, havever, an underlying sense of re- 
stleSBness was evident (oontraryl again, to -the arguments of COWEN and 
BOBROVY (op. oit) that severely impaired subjects tend to be better adapted 
to their lot -than -the more mildly impaired*) It was manifested both in an 
expressed desire for change - which oharacterised respondents' perceptions 
from all Communioation Groups, and in the constant referenoes to the bore- 
dom of some subjeotBl jObB (also mentioned in the seotion on underemploy- 
ment). The tedium felt by Miss BoG. (I) in her oapacity aim (wok/waitreso 
will be reoalledt and this tended to be a refrain eohoed by respondents 
from Groups IV and V. 6 respondents (1 from Group 111,1 from IV and 
from Group V) made very speoific and pointed mention of it* Miss R*C9j 
for example: "Bored. Routine. Same thing"* 
The evident boredom and tedium arising from doing a job well below 
one's peroeived oapaoity, oombined with a restless, but generally unsatis- 
fied urge for change, were simultaneously profoundly disquieting, and yet 
the most positive indioation to date that role engulfment is rarely total. 
Thesep I suggest, are just the ingredients for movement, and potential 
political and social change. It is frOM BUoh shifting definitions of par. 
ties to stigma contests that social change may eventnally occur at +, he 
micro level. Howeverl anything approaching the politioization strategies 
adopted by the signing deaf in the States are still a 
far ory from the 
- 280 - 
meaningB discredited respondents had of their employment situation at the 
time of writingg and the strategies they employed to oombat stigma. Miss 
M. A. commented: "Content. But not the great job. Need to keep present 
job* Must because it is so difficult to get a job today. But not 
for ever andever". 
Given her lack of salient resouroeso any movement is likely to be small. 
enough 
But I am sanguine/to expect some movementv however ostensibly linsigAifioant'. 
Only Miss G*F. in this Group had the personal and financial resources 
to be able to attach any significance to the notion of job fulfillmentg 
despite being defined as grossly commmicatively deviant in her social oon- 
taOtB with the hearing world* Her already elevated job status oompared to 
that of other respondents in this Group (dearly fought for) enabled her to 
have a oertain leverage denied her oolleagues. She oomented: My heart's 
not in advertising though it gives me the ohanoe to do other -things, 
like making films"* 
She plans to er: rtablish a Workshop for the Deaf. Her chanees of suooess 
wilij, I suggestv revolve around -the kind of oredibility and loourtesyl 
aoceptanoe she is able to negotiate with the hearing world., It may be that 
the master status of hearing impairment may ultimately give way to other 
definitions, suoh is the reoiprocal nature of stigma oontests and stra-t- 
egy managemeirto 
I have scarcely addressed myself to the more traditional question of 
whether the hearing impaired, as a group, tend to be more or less satioried 
with their jobs, ad what, factors tend to be rated as Isatisfiers' as opp. 
osed to Idissatisfiers'. Nevertheless, I oontend that the use of the very 
general notion of job fulfillment - or rather the laok of it - has enabled 
me to bring together much more productively many of the issues which have 
been raisedl explicitly and implicitly, throughout this and previous chap. 
terse I have, in this final section, most deliberately elected to coneen. 
trate on what respondents feel about their work life generallyl and what 
their common-sense understandings are of what must appear to be an orches. 
trated campaign to deny them access to the kind of economic goals which 
- 281 - 
are held to be socially desirable in our society* 
Feelings of stifling of ambition, initiative and creativity, a sense 
of inadequacy and lack of self-confidence, job inseaurityl frustration, and 
a feeling of pointlessness are oommon to many of the hearing impaired rea- 
pondents I talked with, both disoreditable and disoredited. They are not 
so dissimilar in nature to the perceptions described arising out of the 
less tangible stigma reactions which emerge in inforouLl interaction with 
work colleagues which I discussed in Chapter 
Thus, a discussion of my empirical findings has, almost unintentionally 
come full circle* I was at pains -to stress the fact that the process of 
stigma and stereotyping of those held to be 'undesirably differente has 
small beginnings. I hope I have shown -throughout -these three chapters how 
eruoh beginnings are also in -the habit of mshrooming and leading to out- 
oomes whioh have ramifioations for both those interpersonal relationships# 
and for survival in the situation in whioh they arose* 
The interweaving of informal and more formal sanctioning within the 
oonstrained situation of work (not exoluding the inevitable intrusion 0& 
offioial labelling from 'outside') Wm highlighted the interfaoe between 
hearing and hearing impairedg and the varying patterns of redefinition and 
re-negotiation of status which are perceived as possiblee The venture in- 
to this partioular fieldg where relationships must be sustained and where 
the opportunities for oontrol of self-definitions are generally severely 
reduced has, I contend, contributed to an understanding of the way in 
which the hearing impaireds as a group, feel themselves to be economically 
disadvantaged in our society. 
- 282 - 
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS 
The aim of this thesis has been to provide an exploratory study of 
a field in a way which, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been 
studied before. It represents above all an alternative way of looking, 
without in any way negating the validity of previous perspectives. It is 
an attempt to understand. sociologically some of the processes which lead 
many hearing impaired people, across a whole range of communicative de- 
ficiencyl to suffer under-involvement and exclusion in the work environ- 
ment. Any conclusions cannot, by the very nature of the sampleg be gener- 
alised to the whole hearing impaired population; but as indications I sug. 
gest they present a vital contribution to our understanding of the problem* 
I have not, therefore, emerged from this research armed with a batt. 
ery of facts and figures which would delight the pragmatist. Questions of 
'how many? ' or 'how much? ' have not been the focus of my interest. I 
have been more concerned with exploring the varieties of experience as 
perceived by a deviantised group. Any practical policy recomendations 
I have made are posited on the hypothetical #if .. then' consideration 
and stem from an appreciation of the inherent limitations of achievIng 
significant changes in attitude prior to mobilising resources to legis- 
late for changes in behaviour. 
What I hope above all to have achieved by taking a societal reaction 
perspective is to have opened up the possibilities of discourse - between 
deaf and deaf, and ultimately deaf and hearings by illuminating facets of 
a process common not only to many hearing impaired people, but to those 
with any kind of handicap. It is only the metaphor which is different. 
From an appreciation of the commonality of their devalued status I hope 
it is not too grandiose a claim to suggest that here, at least, are the 
foundations which could enable the hearing impaired to join forces - to- 
gether with other minority groups - in articulating their demand for 
a better quality of working lif e. 
The case for focussing on the signing deaf frame of reference is 
- 283 - 
now beginning to be well do, oumented. What had yet to be made was a case 
for penetrating the symbolic universe of the orally deaf 9 stigmatised as 
'hearies' by their signing oounterparts - and sometimes stigmatising, in 
their turnp the signers. I would argue that the quest for the development 
of I aoceptable' speeoh and lipreading skills hardly denies the validity 
of their 'deaf experience' 9 even though the aim is integration and location 
in the hearing world. 
Similarlyq little attempt has been made to penetrate the world of the 
profoundly prelingaally orally deaf 9 with no means of Oommunication other 
than hcne-made sign and gesture. I have identified -them as the most dis- 
advantaged, disparaged and negleoted group within the hearing impaired 
and wider communities: disparaged from within and from without for their 
laok of communioation skills appropriate to either hearing or deaf worlds. 
They are the true marginals o 
This thesis represents an attempt to out. aoross all these barriers: 
to show that while there are indeed v ieties of 'deaf experien(ml the 
signing deaf do not have a monopoly of this experienoe, the fasoinattion of 
their own distinctive culture notwithstanding. What most hearing impaired 
have in oommon with eaoh other, I have argued, in mudh more importa3st than 
the ways in which they differ: namely, the experience - in varying degrees 
- of denigration and humiliation in oonfronting the hearing world* 
am aware that both sides of the divide may well find what I have 
to say unpalatable, iin ooeptablej or even threatening* I submit my find- 
ingsp and the conceptual model on which they are baxedg in the hope that 
they will provide a focus for discussion and ultima-telyl even, point a 
way out of the 200 year old impasse* 
My conclusions are governed by one caveat: that I am making Btate- 
ments of a kind and in an area where no sociological statemen-tEi have been 
made at all. Of necessityl although presented polemicallyq a note of re- 
servation must be introduced. They represent the firstj not the last 
- 284 - 
words on the subject. This is not a definitive studya 
1. MAJOR FINDINGS 
will discuss my findings under the following fairly broad themes: 
(i) The most obvious conclusion is that the hearing impaired respondents 
I talked with, as a group, did perceive themselves to be economically dis- 
advantaged, suffering varying degrees of social and economic under-involve- 
ment and exclusion at work. Feelings of enacted stigma emerged as strongly 
as those of felt stigma. This confirms my initial speculation: that hear- 
ing impaired people do perceive themselves to be categorised. in a fairly 
unif orm manner by others - often at the lowest common denominator of com- 
petence - regardless of their obviOU8 differences; stereotyping is SUff- 
iciently common and widespread adversely to affect their employment pros- 
pects. Any difference is one of degree rather than of kind* And impu- 
tations of incompetence in the crucial area of speech performance were 
generalised to obscure and deny competence in many other work activities. 
(ii) In the hearing dominated work environment it is effective speech 
rather than written language performance whichl at the present time, is 
the more crucial factor in determining outcomes. The inability to master 
written English only becomes of real significance in determining the 
greater or lesser discredited status of already discredited respondents. 
(iii) The degree of one's communicative competence and to a lesser extent 
within that overall frameworks the salience of one's resources., determine 
differential strategy management. Passing as a tactic for discreditable 
respondents generally gave way to normali8ing strategies at work. Options 
decreased as communication skills were defined as increasingly deviant, 
Deviance avowal, most commonly capitulationg if not partial role engul- 
fment, were commonplace response8. However, I 8uggest it iS M18Conceived 
to regard role engulfment as anything more than a partial and episodic 
responseq Contrary to the social environment, sign language was found 
to be almost irrelevant 
- 285 - 
as a means of developing an effective counter stigma ideology at. work, The 
protection of the deaf oommunity did not Beem to penetrate into the work- 
ing world. Politicization as a Ertrategy with which to confront the hearing 
employment world was hardly formulated. In the absenoe of any support 
from the deaf culture, the profoundly prelingually orally deaf were obliged 
to rely on the entrepreneurial activities of their parents and siblings 
to help with job finding and management 
(iv) Employment oonstrains negotiation and bargaining options for all hear- 
ing impaired employeesp in contrast to the much greater fluidity availaýle 
in caEmal sooial enoounters outside . Respondents limperfeotions' were 
on public display in this sustained situationo The possibilities for coný- 
trol of definitions favourable to the self were of-ton not sustainable. 
Moreover, there were certain I no go' areas where only kLoquiescence was poss. 
ible. Bargaining in other areas often took place within highly oircum- 
scribed parameterso 
(v) The sequential nature of devianoe definin has been highlighted* Ex- 
clusion from primary social and sooial/work-related interaction with work 
peers often leads to other deviant OutoOmes, mistakes, missed opportuni. 
ties, troublel and further deviantising. The prooess is n(Al however, 
neoessarily irreversible or inexorablee 
The creation and legitimation of limitations extrinsio to a hearing 
impaired person's handicap as intrinsic, and their rationalisation as 'in- 
superable obstacles' I tended to justify exclusion, stigmatising and a re- 
fuBal to look for alternative ways of getting round difficulties. A dis- 
inclination to bother, or take the trouble to make even minor adjustments 
was found to be perceived as a common response of work colleagues and 
employers. 
(vii) The power of informal labellers to instigate deviant outcomes is 
as important as that of more formal and offioial labellers. The two levels 
are, however, inextricably interwoven. Work peers, neverthelessl were 
- 286 - 
often responsible for the escalation of incidents into crises. They acted 
as moral entrepreneursq alerting employers and offioial, labellers that 
I something needed to be done' * And the stigma reactions of hearing ooll- 
eagues added signifioantly to the internalisation of seoondary deviant 
outcomes . There waBj however, more scope for bargaining for favourable 
definitions of self at this informal level, -than in oonfrontation with 
either intermediate or official labellers. 
(viii) Some evidenoe emerged to support the findings in the literature 
that stereotyping is not necessarily modified in a situation of sustained 
interaotion. Initial diwmptive enoountere tend to ensure that attempts 
will not be repeated* An arbitrary ou+. -o" Ix)int seems to operMe: minor 
Ideviations' in oommunioative oompetenoe oould be oontained and even tol. 
erated to an extent; grosser 'deviations' oould not, 
(ix) The hearing impairedl in oommon with other impaired peopleg still 
adhere strongly to the work ethioo I Signifioant living without work' has 
little relevanoe for them, and was peroeived generally as a strong threwt 
to self-esteem. Signifioan-tlyl adherenoe to this hearing norm was also 
shared by signing respondeirts. 
2. FINDINGS -A DISCUSSION: TOWARDS A NEW UNDERSTANDING 
What my findings have shown fairly oonolusively is +, he &lSost 
universal tendenoy with whioh those who depart from the expeoted norms of 
interactional oompetence tend to be mystematioally eategorised ago funde. 
sirably different' I regardleoB of individual differenoes in eapability and 
competence, Negative evaluations of departures from woeptable speeoh 
performanoe tend to spill over to those whose oommunication skills are 
still relatively intact. Andp in line with WEST' s (op. oit) findingsl im. 
putations of unwholesome differentness tend to be loeated at the worst 
end of the Bpectrum* 
Thus discreditable respondents tended to perceive themselves as 
ý 287 - 
tarred with the same brush as their discredited colleagues as far as work 
capabilities were concerned - and often found themselves treated accord- 
Ingly. Although stigma and stereotyping are by no means universal res- 
ponses, most hearing impaired respondent8 I talked with felt they had ex- 
perienced some, if not most, of the stigma reactions and outcome8 I have 
described in Chapters 4.6; from the felt stigma of morall socio-psycho- 
logical shaming to enacted stigma in terms of exclusion from participation 
in the broader economic goals considered to be equally available in society. 
Often definitions had preceded respondents, in the form of labell' 
at prior stages in their careem. Negative evaluations of work capabilities 
were merely a continuation of previously held definitions established at 
school, forming an unwelcome autobiographical kit with which to negotiate 
sub8equent career options. Routinised classif ication by statutory place- 
ment officers, backed up by formalised institutional pressures, merely 
reinforced any deprecatory images. Importantlys even without such auto- 
biographical baggage respondents often found themselve8 aCqUiring it bY 
default, such is the nature of the common-sense stock of knowledge about 
'the deaf' held by the wider society. 
Similarly, once in work, both discreditable and discredited respond- 
ents perceived themselves to be excluded - if not actually segregated - 
from participation in both the social rituals of working relationships, 
as well as work-related information necessary to a meaningful and sat- 
isfying performance of tasks. 
And so it was at the other end of the stigma reaction continuum I 
have been considering. Outcomes, in terms of job prospectst were gener. 
ally perceived to be reduced* Underemployment, lack of promotion oppor. 
tunities, a restricted range of jobs available, and a general sense of 
frustration at the reduced quality of working life chaLracterised the per- 
ceptions of both discreditable and discredited respondentsq although the 
degree to which they were able to resist enacted stigma varied accord- 
. ng to the evaluations made of their nommunicative competence, 
- 288 - 
A closely related theme which emerged with some consistency is that of 
'spread'. A trait which is, in varying degrees, evident or obtrusive is 
treated as representing the whole person. The very heterogeneity and unique- 
ness of each individual is obscured and the victim depersonalised. Thus 
the individual becomes nothing but an instance of a discredited category. 
Ergo the tendency is to assume that all members of that particular category 
are basically alike. Respondents were assumed to be incapable of perfor- 
ming tasks which they perceived themselves as quite capable of doing* 
Little attempt was seen to be made to exploit and utilise the many 
undoubted abilities and capacities respondents possessed. In fact the per- 
ceptions of some respondents were such as to indicate other abilities were 
fairly systematically depressed. Communicative incompetence was seen to 
be equated with incompetence in every area of work requiring anythi 
but the most routine tasks. 
Thus it is in looking at how interaction with hearing colleagues and 
employers is perceived by the hearing impaired in and around the employ- 
ment experience that an investigation of similarities in meaning structures 
between respondents covering such a disparate range of coununicative skills 
has yielded such rich rewards, For only a small number of respondents 
could it legitimately be maintained that they f elt their employment hori. 
zons had remained totally unaf f ected. And even they were not imaune f rom 
fears of what a deterioration in communication skills might entail. 
(ii) I have found it essentially the effectiveness of speech perfor- 
mance (and its accompaniments, skill in lipreading and in the management of 
a pro8thesis) to be crucial in determining the differential strategy awan- 
agement patterns of discreditable and discredited respondents. Hence the 
fruitfulness of my particular model of assessing respondents according to 
an "Ease of Communication with .. " Scale, and the whole notion of adher- 
ence to expected communication norms in determining outcomes. As wa8 
noted in Chapter 3 the primacy of effective 'standard' 
- 289 - 
speech in a hearing person's frame of reference for understanding social 
competence cannot be over-emphaBii3ed. 
It is not that the ability to scribble memos or draft letters are of 
no importance. As stressed earlierl studies of modes of oommunioation at 
work have indioated that it is face-to-faoe verbal conounioation whioh takes 
up the largeErb proportion of interaction time in any working day. Add- 
itionallyl many of the respondents I talked with were not in the kind of 
jobs whioh would neoessitate a great deal of writing. Yet many of them 
still felt stigmatised. 
I have oonfirued my speculation that it is the breaching of nome re. 
lating to ease of interaotion with others whioh is largely responsible for 
the stereo-typing and stigmatising of hearing impaired employeegs. Writing 
'talk' is not just ambersome: it is guaranteed to kill any spontaneity of 
interaotion. And it is the maintenanoe of smooth social relationships 
whioh I have found to be so oruoial in retainin employment. I have shown 
how the breakdown of this often has critical ramifications for employment 
prospectsl both in terms of exolusion from vital on-going informa+, ion nd %b 
work activities themselvesl and at the primary level or the enoalattion or 
small inoidents into orises and trouble. 
Whilst literaoy and languW ability ire obviously prior skills, I 
have found that it is only when dealing with the disoredited hearing im- 
pairedl with minimal or no speeoh skills, that a oomprehension of written 
English makes a difference between disoredited status and total defilement. 
Thus, literate respondents in Group VI Miss G. F. 9 and Miss A, Lo. and 
signing respondents who could approximate 'standard' written English 
(Miss H. Q., Mr. GeC. and Miss R. C. ) were better equipped to manipulate 
favoured definitions of self than Miss P. K. 9 Mr. C. S. and Mr. M*R* 
(and 
signing, but illiterate Mr. D. S. ) A combination of minimal speech and 
functional illiteracy renders one totally defiled and virtually impotent 
in the particular situation of work. 
ý 290 - 
At the other end of the continuung it is possession or acquisition of 
reasonably competent and effective speech which determinews whether even par.. 
tial acceptance by work peers is obtained andg in turng deternines one's 
ability to weave a path through glose of the additional demandA which on!.. 
PlOYMOnt imposes on commmication skills. Discreditable respondents in the 
sample did generally perceive their employment prospects to be more open 
and varied than those of their discredited colleagmeag by virtao of their 
speech and livreading p*rforomce. There were some significant exceptional 
howeverl where commicative competence made little or no difference to 
the outcome. Themis, vill be dealt witk under UY) * 
The possession of a mor* forwlq stylized Idind of speech was iqpzt- 
ant when it came to what idn4m, &*caw r"pmdents had to x"tiW, haM. 
ling the phone andq perhaps more iMportantlyg in aegotiating jobs with 
outeide statiatM pUcommt offieern and istervi« »a» o Th«o ar«a 
apart, however, I fomd stylised coýnicmticn gddlin to bo lose critical 
to Ig*tting on' at work thax NUN aad RASH (1981) sugggsto What is imper- 
taut in the achiev««t of akared mders adi-p throce the connealy ao- 
knowledgedl accepted and ma-problematic use of spoken -- Vwg** 
Stigm 
reactions were the likely results of an inability to adhere to hearing 
0 
work colleagues' reliance an i9formal 'acceptable' spe"ho 
(iii) I found commmicati" oampetence - and in some insta" es with- 
in this umbrella framework the whole armoury of a personts power resources - 
to be crucial in affecting the ability of reapondsots to red*fize situa- 
tions and self-images along desired lines in the on-going sti m contests 
of confrontation with OL hearing doldnated work OnvircRumt- (There were 
equally oases where malienco of resources made little, if azq, difference)* 
Where stereotyping and concomitant stigmatising have highlighted the vaim 
Iform 
way in which the hearing impaired tend to be evaluated,, it ig, in 
the differential capacity to negotiate bargains favourablo to the self 
vhore differon *a are appwrent. 
- 291 - 
Success in retaining or acquiring this communicative competence det. 
ermined the kinds of strategies respondents usedl their success or failure, 
and flexibility in the use of particular strategiesq or oombinations of 
strategies, for ooping with different situations* 
Normalising teohniques were most oommonly used by disoreditable res. - 
pondents in the relatively enclosed work eettinge Passing was not a strat- 
egy that oould generally be sustained, and was usually oonfined to very 
specific aspects of work (reflecting the situational nature c)f devian+, ising 
even within one partioular life domain). Tbus passing might be'sustained 
in an engineering workshop where the noise levels were such that only ges- 
ture oould suffioe -to oommunioate with hearing impaired and hearing employ. 
ees; or the knowledge of one's 'blemish' might be oonfined to a few people 
'in the know' - Mr. W. C, ls foremang for examples Interestingly, this was 
not a practioe whioh was muoh used* I have suggested that the ne(masary 
'filling in' role whioh a 'wise one' might falfil isp for the hearing im- 
pairedl highly visible and a-t-tention-drawingo The nature or the impair- 
ment preoludes sotto vooe strategies* 
Most suooessful in terms of job retention and general barmonyg and 
most commonly practised by discreditable respondents were the use of maoo- 
ounts", wcplanationog humourv denial and rationalisationo Avoidanee of 
the avoiders or withdrawal was also usedg suoh as Mr, S-PG4, Is retirement. 
behind a newspaper in the works oanteen, or the avoidanoe of sooial ri+. -- 
uals such as pub lunches* 
It was found that as communication became increasingly I deviant' 9 op- 
tions for successful strategy management progressively decreased., Deviance 
avowal was usually unavoidable. However, it. tended to take the form not of 
a vigorous rebuttal of imputations of stigma which has been a fairly char. 
acteristic response on the part of the signing deaf sociallyl but of Oap- 
itulation, or concurrence in the verdict of others. 
It is interesting that in the employment situation, the signing 
- 292 - 
deaf found their language of little relevance either in negotiating improved 
statuses for themselves, or as an aid to interpersonal interaction, Its 
Use was generally suppressed at work, for the very good reason that no hear- 
ing work oolleagues or employers (Bave those of Mrs. S. T. and Mrs. N. F. ) 
were remotely conversant with even the rudiments of sign* In only a few 
cases was it Been aB eliciting interest and curiosity. More often it ser- 
ved as an additional abrasion and a source of ridicule where its use was 
known. Its users found themselves relegated to the status of their dia- 
oredited profoundly prelingually orally deaf oolleagtteog as if they had no 
vehiole of oommunioation at all* 
Additionallyv apart from aoting as interoessors in the introduotion to 
possible jobsp -the deaf culture did not. seem to provide the kind of pro- 
tective buffer to insulate its members from repeated assaults on their self- 
esteem, a role whioh it perfoxwo so ou(scessfullY sooiallye. The inoorpor. 
ation of a oounter stigma ideology with whioh to refute impatations of 
stupidity and incompetenoe was evidently too rrail 'to hold its own in the 
alien enviroment of work. Notioeable for their absenoe were the kind of 
remarks whioh were made by signing deaf respondents in response to stigma 
enoountered sooially: "It doesn't bother me"l "I'm used to it'le Evidently 
at work9 stigma did bother signing subjectso Ajart, from Mr. G. C* who wor- 
ked with another deaf oolleague, there was no suzoease until the evening 
when respondeirts might go to the Deaf Club and regale -their day' s trials 
and tribulations, 
Also it did not appear that any member of the deaf oommunity oame to 
the rescue when trouble brewed at work. VERNON and MA KOWSKY (1969) have 
commented on the lack of deaf leadership and authority generally, It may 
well be that in this context, a member of the deaf community is simply not 
regarded as having the appropriate authority as an interoessore This in 
itself is stigmatising. Rationalised 
(MILES, 1983) on practioal groundst 
the "non-availability" of signing intercessors is indicative of the still 
- 293 - 
precarious nature of deaf signing militancy in the UK., The general lack 
of politicization as a strategy with which to ameliorate the work situa- 
tion is in strong contrast to the American experience, 
For the profoundly prelingually orally deaf, capitulation in the ver- 
diet of others appeared to be a common response to the harsher end of the 
stigma reaction continuum which tended to be their lot. Even here, howeverg 
it was found to be misoonceived to equate role engulftent with apatby and 
total commitment -to the deviant role, This was despite the fact that at 
interviewl some respondents (Mr, M. Ro . for instanoe) seemed to give the ink. - 
pression of fixity of oommitment to the deviant role with whioh LEKERT 
oharaoterised his deviants. 
The 3 respondentB I 'interviewed' all had strong support figures in 
-their Mumsj whose role seemed to be to shelter them from the more damaging 
effects of what was perceived as a continuous assault on self-esteem - 
both Esooially and at work, Mrs. 0ý3.9 Mrs. X. Re and Mrs. P. Ke had all been 
vigorously aotive in engineering job possibilities, dealing with Sooial 
Security problems which aooompanied frequent bon-to of xjnemp1*yaen+, j and 
generally helping to sustain an acceptable self-image with which their 
offspring oould live* Denial and rationalisation still operated at this 
level. Mrs. P*K, v to my oonsternationg for example. had asked: "Ple 
speeoh. It's like normal isn't it? " 
happily answering the question herself with "No she doesn"t speak like a 
deaf". 
Yet suoh a rolef in isolation from peroeived support either from the 
deaf oommunity or statutory sooial servioes is hard to sustaine Frequently, 
for example 9 Mrs. M. R. loE; t half a 
day' s pay to woompany M. on hiB job 
searches, as only she could act as interoessorp it seemed. It is a role 
that social workers for the deaf seem ill-inclined to fill* I speoulate 
that the orallyl funotionally illiterate, profoundly prelingually 
deaf'do 
not present attractive clients to social workers. 
Perhaps, after centuries 
- 294 - 
of unrecognised and unrespected service as Missioners for the Deafq social 
workers now find themselvesl as often unique possessors of an arcane vis- 
ual language, in the vanguard of a new and exciting pressure group. The 
temptation to concentrate on the signing deaf is given some credence by 
their zealous surveillance of loutsidel intrusions into their terrain. 
Thusl although suffioient of my disoredited respondents at the time of 
interview(s) perceived their situation in terms of engulfment, the whole 
point of taking a broad view of labelling as a process, in which both de- 
finer and defined are oonstantly engaged in manoeuvresq however Wall, to 
redefine their respeotive situationsg means the situation is rarely statico 
The potential for sooial ohange is always there* 
A longitudinal analysis would have revealed this prooesel I believe, 
with greater olarity. However, I am Oonfident enough in its existenoe from 
the results of the corroboration interviews I undertook, where the per- 
spectives of some respondents had ohangede For Mro E. B* and Mrse N*F* 
this was very muoh for the better; for Nre N. M. and Mr. H*H* marginally 
worse. Miss R. C. was making moves to improve her stake in the hearing 
world by trying to learn speeoh, And Mr. G. C. was about to wnfront -the 
hearing world by attempting to obtain a qualifioation in youth servioe work. 
(iv) Howeverg strategy management was oonstrained by the very nat. 
ure of the situation in whioh stigma oontests took plaoe. The work setting 
appeared to expose the handioapping nature of hearing impaizuent more ruth- 
lessly than other life domainsv so that the manipulation of situations was 
limited for all respondents, and disproportionately so for those whose se- 
verity of communicative incompetence was evident or obtrusive* 
And for many hearing impaired respondents, across all Communication 
Groups (although less so in Groups I and II than in IV and V) oontrol of 
much of their working lives was seaurely in the hands of others - hearing 
others- The circular nature of the stigmatising process will readily be 
- 295 - 
relegates to 
apparent: being stigmatised one/a place at the bottom of the eoon- 
omic pile, further legitimating an inability to control one's own definit- 
ions of Irealitylg and ensuring a continued place there* 
'Fear of eliciting irritation, impatience or ridicule sometimes led re- 
spondents to say they had heard and understood information, instructions 
or comments when they had not, leading to mistakes (Mrs. E. I. and Mro F*J. ) 
and the very exasperation the 'nodding syndrome' had been designed to avoid. 
Caught in a Catch 22 situation, exposure of one's shamefulness in being 
obliged to ask for help for example, tends to precipitate similar reactions* 
The problems of sustaining broken sooial relationships have been shown 
to lead frequently to orises and irreversible troruble* At work, one is 
not free to withdraw from the Bituation. InoidentB had a habit of eBcal- 
ating for those whose laok of I aoceptablel means of reduoing tension - by 
laughterl banterv reocurse to V woorunts", explanations$ apologies - was 
additionally penalised* For discredited respondents, tdking one's way 
out of a situation is preoisely what is problematio. 
The tendency to be blamed for things going wrong was found to be oomý- 
mon. Hearing definitions of 'what happened' tended to be aooepted as 'the 
reality, 9 the discredited hearing impaired, in partioular, rarely getting 
a ohance to Itellt their version of the story, As digmatised employees, 
their Irealities' simply carried no credibility. 
Thusl despite my emphasis on the essentially innovative and dynwio 
nature of strategy management, the manoeuvrability, which tended to char- 
acterise negotiations in more casual, social situations outside, was sev- 
erely circumscribed in this setting. A certain fixity of outcome was 
apparent. 
It was not a case of adopting one strategy to deal with phonesp meet- 
Lngs, instructionsp one day and re-negotiating different strategies the 
rOllowing day. Any negotiation of one's status in the hierarohy generally 
)ccurred at the initiation of employment. and in the early stages of in. 
- 296 - 
teraction with hearing colleagues, where some consensus (or imposed oonsen- 
sus) was 'agreed' upon* Thereafterg bargaining over access to sooial and 
work-related activities tended to occur within fairly prescribed parameters. 
Exclusion from participation was the rulel being legitimated as part of 
the 'inherent limitations of the impairment'. Strategy management ooourred 
within -this frameworke 
Thus the value of extending an interactionist analysis into a situar- 
tion which must be sustained, and over which most respondents have relat. 
ively little oontrol, and oontrasting this with the kind of oaadal inter. 
act i on so eloquently described by GOMAN has proved salutaryl, (albeit the 
oontrast has remained implioit) 9 My findings bear out the contention of 
HKERSON and MMSINGER (1977): "While in fleeting public contacts with others, 
denial or withdrawal are readily available responses . this strat- 
agem is not as available or acceptable in 'troubles arising in endur- 
ing relations .. Where exit is precluded, troubles and remedial strat- 
egies greatly increase in complexity". 
I would suggest that the complexities tend to be small-scale, confined to 
the often ingenious manoeuvres which are often the only possible ways of 
alleviating constant assaults on one' s self-esteem in a relatively en- 
closed situ&tion. 
Thus the small manoeuvres whereby thestigma attribute is Idisplaoed' 
on to the definer was quite oommonpla(mo The tacAiO of (sontemPtuouslY 
branding 'hearies' as "lazy'll "always gossiping" and "stupid" for their in- 
ability to learn sign language was used by Kro D*S. and Kies ReCe And re- 
oourse to day-dreaming helped to alleviate the tedium of Miss M. A. 's 
cleaning chores* 
Otherwise options for all respondents to redefine the situation by 
the weaving in and out of discredit ab le/di sore dited ertatus characteristic 
of more I open' situations were largely absent. Reinforcement of one' s de- 
viant status greets the hearing impaired employee every day from his work 
colleagues. Escape routes, or a chance to radically re-negotiate one's 
status are minimal. This can generally only be effected by a change of 
- 297 - 
job. Even here I have shown how one's biographY is liable to acoompany, 
if not precedej any new definitions one might be able to impose* 
However7 in some job areas, not even a combination of communicative 
competence and salience of resources were suffioient to negotiate even mar- 
ginally favourable definitions* It was at the level of more tangible out- 
comes that strategy management was effectively blookedp no amount of oommu. 
nicative oompetence, allowingg for example, aooess to phone managementq pro- 
motion, partioipation in meetings* Heref variations in strategy manage. 
ment between discreditable and discredited respondenta-, were far less marked 
than might have been antioipated by the wide disparities in their oonwuni- 
oation skills. In these key areas for suooess in terms of 'making itt at 
workq stereotypes of inoompetence were saoh that woess was alaost rout- 
inely blocked for respondents right aoross the Cownunioation spectrum* 
Moreoverl they were peroeived by both disoreditable and disoredited respon- 
dents as 'no go' areasq -thereby reinforcing the verdict of others, (Only 
Mrs. N. F., and to a lesser ertent Mrs. S, T, managed to reverse their dev- 
iant statuses suooesed%lly - and Mrs. A. B. her potentially deviant status*)o 
Stigma reactions and outcomes in 'these specifio areas werel therefore, 
both similar in degree as well as in kind* 
On the other hand, it was at the primary level of interaotion, prim- 
arily with work peers, where options for manoeavre were most favourableo 
riven here, however, movement oocurred within fairly well defined parameters, 
and 'blockages' were not uncommon, suoh as exo1usion lautomatioally' from 
partioipation in gossip and sooial and work infoxuation - whether by de. 
fault or deliberate avoidaaoe* 
Employment thus represents a fascinating staging-post in which to study 
the interfaoe between hearing and hearing impaired, possessingg as it doesp 
both the characteristics of casual social encounters and total institutions. 
The differential capacity to impose favoured definitions in such a settin 
*It was financial resources and perseverance in the face of professional 
advice to the contrary which enabled Mrs. A. B. to afford her "life-saving" 
commercial hearing aids and secure a well-respected job. 
Even 80, these had 
tot insulat bar f rems rjph,, _fýý 
ior to this. 
A 
.- 298 - 
is compressed for all respondents, although communicative competence did 
make some difference to outcomes in some situations for discreditable subjects 
(Y) The sequential nature of the devianc* defilmin proc*ss was also 
apparent in my findings. For the hearing impaired, once identified as pos. 
8*88ing a sham*ful trait, a furthor not of potential2y doviant outcomos 
tended to follow. There wvLs,, it awt b* stressed,, nothi m inomrablo about 
this, contrary to the somewhat deterministic stance taken by some labeUing 
theorists* As the previous section an strategy managemmat dumnstratodl 
dofinitions although often difficult to reverse are not totally - impervious 
0 Chance 0 
Neith*r do the phamm appear to proceed iz the orderly xoqmmce im- 
plied by BEMER's (1963) stm* of strijumm userse And aVdmq deviant 
outemes were rarely arrived at JL& tho_sms* of being the result of a del- 
ImA and ib*rate poUcy or action an th* part of the Judividuale Th4W "or 
were constantly being re-shaped, although the process mts not alwayis 
readily discernible* 
Again employsent Ww b9en a particularly fruitful area in which the 
spiralling nature of deviance definin ean be ill»tratode 8»U begim- 
ings, at the ]primary level of disrupted interaction between hearing : Ub. 
paired subjects and hearing work colleagues tended to snowball and not in 
notion a whole series of further outcomes: denial of access to social and 
vork-related activities, and ultimately *xalusion from participation in 
economic goals. And definitiojw do not stop there. An identikit of a 
stigmatined victim is built up and may be carried over into each potentially 
fresh employment situation, restricting possibiliti*s from the start* What 
varied was the extent to which discredited as opposed to discreditable re- 
spondentfs wore more likely to have travell*d 'right down the line', 
If, for examples phone management is held to be crucial in obtainin 
the kind of work from which promotion is likelyl exclusion from e du. 
ties because of a reluctance to find ways round an 'apparently insuper- 
- 299 - 
able obstacle' leads to a diminished quality of working lifeg probable un- 
deremployment, and ensures further deviantising in the form of denied pro- 
motion prospects. 
Rationalisations are then employed by the definers to legitimate their 
reluctance, by pronouncing the hearing impairedt as a speoiesq incapable 
anywaye The prooess thus has something of a self-oonfirming aspeot to it* 
Behaviour tended to refleot the negative evaluations whioh were pereeived 
to be made of -those with defeetive cominunioation skills. Aspirations and 
expectations were found to be correspondingly reftoed -a process-- insid. 
jously affoo-ting respondents from all Communioation Groups* One deviaat 
outoome sets -the seene for further deviantisinge 
I need to stress again that this is far frcm inevitable. Reversal of 
roles was aooomplished by two disoredited respondents who capitalised on 
their deviant status by suooessfally entering professions for the deaf. 
Less striking sucoesses, but suocesses nonetheless, have been found in the 
cases of Mr. E. B. 9 Miss H. Q. , andq potentially, Miss RoC, and Miss G. P. 
And, against all the odds, early definitions resulting from prelingual 
loss and relegation to the role of I dumy' have been fairly sucoessrully 
oountermanded by Miss B. G., Kro BoU., and Miss CoGo 
0 
Nevertheless, I have found the tendency for one deviant outoome to be Wý- 
followed by Inhanoed possibilities for further deviantising a not unoommon 
pattern in looking at the employment prospects of the hearing impaired 
respondents I talked with* 
(vi) Perhaps one of the most dispiriting conclusions to emerge from 
this study is the creation and legitimation of limitations essentially 2x- 
trinsic to a hearing impaired person's handicap as intrinsicl and their 
subsequent rationalisation as 'insuperable obstaoles'. 
It would be quite foolish to deny that hearing loss does pose limit. 
ations on some activities. However, throughout the whole employment atory 
- 300 - 
from job applioation to 'making the best' of what is generally perceived 
to be less than the best, a consistent pattern has emerged. The intrinsic 
limitations imposed by primary hearing loss have been subtly oonfused 
with extrinsic constraints, which are by no means inevitable or necesaary 
oonsequenoes of the primary inability to hear. That, for example, dome 
discreditable respondents were deterred from even applying for a job with 
phone duties attests to the power of definers to rationalise and legitimise 
what is, in faot, an extrinsio limitation as a intrinsic barrier to being 
hired. (I have noted how in the U. S. the difficulties surrounding phone 
management are being overcome). But 'difficulties' do not oonstitute 'in- 
superable obstacles' * 
I have fo=d that the very faot suoh diffioulties are oonsidered I in- 
superable' attests to the underlying pervasiveness of -the very prooesses 
have been desoribing. What appears to happen is that I diffioulties, are 
subtly translated into generalised asoriptions of inoompetenoe and inepti- 
tude. Exclusion from partioipation is thus 'justified' and a Idiffioulty, 
is transformed into an 'obstacle'* Such is the internalisation of stereo. 
typing, many respondents themselves perceived it as linsuperablele 
A similar pat-tern has been found in many other aotivities at work, 
affecting, in varying degrees, most hearing impaired respondents I talked 
withp namely: missing out on things, the oareleSB or deliberate exolusion 
from gossip, the trunoation of information, instruotions and oommunication 
generally, - often with significant ramifications in terms of missed opp. 
ortunities, or mistakes; and the rationalisations seen to be made of a re- 
fusal to hire in the first place, 
A further, related factor was found to be operative again, I con- 
tend, indicative of the fundamental nature of stigmatising the communioat- 
ively incompetent: the near total reluctance of work colleagues or employ- 
ers to bother, to take the trouble of finding ways around difficulties. It 
in fact explains - and justifies - the many examples Of perceived lack of 
- 301 - 
attempts at remediation, job tailoring and aid provision; and a fairly uni- 
versal disinolination to take the trouble to ensure that the hearing im- 
paired are I filled in' on what is going on. 
This tendency not to bother, and to rectaoe all interaction to the bare 
minimum necessary for task performancel particularly for discredited respon- 
dents, was found to be sufficiently common to suggest that this is far from 
an 'understandable' reaction either to the 'inherent' limitations of hear- 
ing loss, or to extraneous factorsp such as the pressures of a busy offioeo 
That the disoredited impaired are often simply left on their own to 'get on 
with it' is indioative of the dislike/fear/disgust whioh dePartures from 
acceptable communication skills arouse in many hearing people* As WEST 
(1969) has noted, hearing people "e. don't like a universe that's absurd, 
a universe they can't understand; they can'+. bear the evidence of a 
quite impersonal, inexplicable organic mishap". 
The hearing impaired thus tend to be doubly, if not trebly handicapped: 
by what are the inherent limitations of their impairment; by the oonoomi. 
tant stereotyping and stigmatising which deviations from expected norns of 
oommunicative oompetenoe tend to elioit; and by a subtle oonfusion of in. 
trinsic with extrinsio limitationsp leading to deviant outoomes in tezus 
of exclusion from participation in social and economic lifee Both diw,. 
creditable and discredited respondents suffered fýrom this, although the 
former, by virtue of those very skills in questiong were able to temper 
the severity of the impact of this prooess-to a greater degree than the 
lattero 
(vii) One facet much neglected by societal reaction theorists is 
the power of informal labellers to create deviant outcomes. The social 
control exercised by official labellers such as the DRO was not unantici- 
Pated (althoiigh the almost negligible impact of communicative skills on 
outcomes arising from encounters with her was). The role of organisational 
imperatives in making similar evaluations of those hearing impaired with 
relatively intact comfnunication skillsl and those without, generally at the 
- 302 - 
loweErt common denominator of competencep waB an expected finding. And 
the outcomes, in terms of restricted job referral and rangel the lack of 
trouble taken to explore possibilities beyond the routine, were found to 
apply to both disoreditable and discredited respondents. 
What has been much less well documented, however, is the power of 
peers and colleagues -to stigmatise and create deviant outwmes. This has 
been an important result of investigating the informal interaotion prooesses 
whioh take plaoe in a setting Eruoh as workl where one might assume offJoial 
definerB had primacy. Irri-t&tiong impatienoel BOoial exolusiong- ridicalep 
mookery and segregation were, in varying degresog characteristic responses 
to those whose patterns of communioation did not aooord with expeotations. 
It is a moot point whether offioial or informal definitions are more 
detrimental to self-esteem* It is conjecture on my partq but it would seem 
that it is the inouleation of informal social controls and sanctions which 
tends to lead to internalisation of what I have termed seoondary deviant 
outomes - perhaps because informal labellers are harder to identifYq pin- 
point and oonfronte Suoh intangible outoomes as erosion of self--oonfidenoe, 
strain, anxiety, frustration, job inseourityp isolation and a profound 
sense of restlessness seemed to Parallel the more in-taagible saaotioni 
prooess. They are as likely to be manifeertations of this informal pro- 
oess as from any offioial. labelling - the one generally being ohronologi- 
cally prior to the other* It seemed that exolusion from partioipation in 
the sooial netwoxic at work had serious oonsequenoes in terms of the preser. 
vation of one's identity. It provided the badkdrop against which more 
tangible outoomei3 were negotiated. Whilst agreeing with MM 
(1934) that 
one's core identity is laid down in early years, the sustaining of a fav- 
ourable self-image is, to a large extent? fashioned by the kind of social 
relationships people make outside their immediate families - particularly 
at work. 
What I was quite unprepared for was the extent to which informal 
- 303 - 
labelling quite often led to serious tangible outcomes as welle It was 
largely in response to stigma reactions of 'taking the mickey' and constant 
exposure to goading and ridicule which led to 'trouble'. This was some- 
thing which particularly affected discredited respondents, Unable to re-tý- 
aliate in a language which could tap those common-sense shared understand- 
ings between hearing people, discredited hearing impaired respondents with 
minimal speeoh oompetence often had a lengthy history of rowev fights, 
walk-auto and dismissals. 
It seemed that where informal labellers' power was most indidious was 
at the level of instigators; as 'mini' moral entrepreneura it was evident 
that hearing work peews were in a position to alert employers and Emper- 
visors that I something needed to be donelo When trouble ooourredq employ. 
ers were brought in to solidify and make the verdiot I respeotable' 9 Ster. 
eotyped as inoompetent, it was rare for discredited respondents to be given 
the ohance to relate their version of the story* That of -the hearing eaý- 
ployeawas generally paramount* 
Whilst it has been argued options for redefining one's gt&, tus are 
most open to flexibility at this primary level of interaotion at work, 
such options nevex-theless- took plaoe within quite restrioted parameters, 
For discreditable respondents, stiokiness and unease, impatienoe, and irrit. 
ability were generally containable. Increasing deviation from expected 
communication standards rendered its victims intensely vulnerable to more 
punitive sanctioning by their hearing work peers. And one eannot walk out 
of a work situation without jeopardising a whole host of subsequent options. 
(viii) What was also interesting was some evidence to support the 
contentions of writers such as FARINA and RING (op-Oit) and KLECK (opecit) 
that the harshness of stigma reactions does not necessarily tend to be 
modified in a situation where interaction has to be sustained. A quite 
arbitrary cut-off point seemed to be in operation. It appeared that a 
degree of communicative 'deviance' could be contained and even partially 
- 304 - 
tolerated within the work situation, despite periodic eruptions of annoy- 
ance, unease and irritability on the part of hearing oo-workersq and con- 
stant strain and eroded self-confideno% particularly on -the part, of dis- 
creditable respondents. Although Mrs. A. H. 9 for exampleg had been Ire-in- 
tegrated' into her old firm once following the sudden deterioration in her 
hearing, her experience was one of cumulative avoidance by colleagues* 
For those with little or no acceptable communication Ekills, however, 
the pattern appeared to be one of a bruisedl horrified, initial enoounter, 
followed by a firm disinclination to pursue interaction further., Hence 
the total sooial ostraoism of respondents suoh as Miss P*K, whows simply 
left to her own devices each day. Moreover, -the demonstration of task oom- 
petence appeared to do little -to modify a respondent's sooial, aooeptance 
within the work Betting. With MrB. S. T. I it eventually earned her the 
g, rudging respect of her supervisor, but did little to ameliorate relation- . A- -- 
ships with her co-machinistse 
(ix) Finally, what has emerged quite strongly from this stuV is an 
adherence to the work ethicl despite the constant degradationg humiliationg 
and exclusion, from social and economic goals 'to work falfillment which 
were seen to be the lot of many respondents in this sample* I would sug- 
gest that in the absenoe of any move towards establishing a positive frame. 
work with which to fulfil the functions, particularly the social function, 
whioh work servesl the phrase 'Signifioant Living Without Work' has, as 
PETER LARGE (1982b) suggestedl an ominous ring to it. It may well be a 
technological and economic necessity. It is hardly surprising that it was 
not perceived as such by the vast majority of respondents I talked with, 
who regard themselves well to the forefront of the queue in the dumping 
process when the labour market tightens furthere 
The very possession of a job seems to provide for most respondents, 
the most significaxrt means of redressing an otherwise unpalatable image 
Of self - eyan though, paradoxically, 
it was often an image reinforped 
-IN 
-305- 
in the work process* Unemployment threatened their self-esteem. To have 
job-in the passport to even quasi-acceptance in the hearing worlde 
Without a Job,, mny discreditable respondentso whatever the level of 
their present occupation (and underemployment wow perceived to be fairly 
commonplace by a(me) 9 thought they would be doubly stigmatisede It wts 
only the utterly dincreditod respmdonts,, Minis P*K* and Mr. M. R. in partio- 
ular where the 'necessity' of the work ethos was even remotely questioned; 
and Mr, M. R. the only respondent apparently content to eput his feet ups, 
It in signific=t that adhoreace to tk* work *this was also'sha ed by 
simile respondents when specifically hearing goals in other sphereog 
such as sai vs treaming-9 are currently undergoijig fairly critical r*. a]ppraim- 
al by th* doaf commitye 
iým, ccnclusioia I cantmd, that a study of imUraction, in and around 
*NP10YMmt has provid*d a miqu* opportunity to mmad in tho ; bo'nstructjAIL -, 
, of , P*rcOPt: LGRB the hearing impaired have of their heariag colloWes azLd 
ouployers . and th* ways in which aegetiation for nor* favoumble d*fi lal tions 
of self are uLuipulat*d in a situation who" central is often socurely in 
tho hands of hearing others. The adoption, of a societal reactions per. 
spoctive hang above all, enabled so to demonstrate, my central argwwnt in 
a way iz which am, alternative perspective could zete ThrougWmt tbe ab- 
pirical analysis, the relative uniformity vith vhich ascriptiens of stupi.. 
dity and incompetence are seen to be applied qmite indiscriminately to 
hearing impaired respondents has been show&* At the same tin*, g the 
application of a broadly based deviance awdol, stressing the relativity 
of the deviance defining process, it8 situatimal and sequential nature, 
has enabled so to illustrate the variability of patterned adaptations to 
imputatiom of istigma - and the variability of outoomes, even if lisiteds 
Whilst research into such areas as fami Iy dynardes remaim relatively 
untouched (apart from studies of relationships between deaf children of 
hearing parents whore the offspring have now joinod 
- 306 - 
. 
jolmed the deaf culture - (ALTSHULER et al, 1963; MEADOW, 1968c; BENDERLY9 
op. cit; and BECKER, 1980)9 the extension of an interactionist model into 
the world of work has, I maintain, been richly rewarding. It is one of the 
key areas where oontending with majority hearing norms ooncerning the pri. 
ma0y of speeoh. is at its most salientl and where deviations from Is-tandard' 
oomunioative skills are at their most exposed and vulnerable* 
3o A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE: SCKE IMPLICATIONS FOR WRTHER RESEARCH 
This raises the question of -the implications of this thesis for future 
researoh. I would suggest that this is not a situation oonfined. only to 
the hearing impaired. It is oonjeoture on my part,, but a most useful area 
of enquiry would be to look at the appliodbility of my findings, to those 
Eruffering from other disorders of oommunioation - aphanicep stuttererst male 
lisperal the mentally retardedL, and the blind* And applicability does not 
rest +, here* It may well be found, as I oontend, that -this researoh has wi- 
der implioations for the entire impaired population an well as other mino- 
rity groups (of* MATMWS, 1979)o It is preoisely what happens at this 
micro level of interaction within a setting geared to I getting on' which 
determines the extent to which other stigmatised people are denied accept- 
anoe and aocess to -the sooial and e(sonomic goals of our sooietye The meta- 
phor may be different* The process is fandamentally -the same. It in par- 
tioularly because impairment breaohes-. our folk notions of how intera(Aion 
should proceed that I regard a societal reaction perspective as being rele- 
vant to those with both motor and sensory impairments, All, in varying do- 
greeal suffer shaming and ooncomitant disoriminatione The possibilities 
suoh a oomparative study would open up ory out for attention. 
From the many dilemmas and impasses which beset this project, several 
other possible areas for future researoh in this field suggest themselves* 
A more tightly integrated theoretical approach could provide further 
insights into what has been a preliminary exoursion, 
into unoharted waters. 
To counteract some of the purported weaknesses of the 
labelling perepectiveg 
- 307 - 
for exampleg it would be useful to have some empirioal validation of the 
findingog along the lines indioated by the works of SCHE (1964) p FdJSHING 
(1971) 7G WLEY 
(1972) and, partioularlyp ROSEHAN' (1973) - Possibly the 
closest approximation to 'shared meanings' whioh can be aohieved without 
actually being deaf', could be explored by reBearoh workerEi willing to sub- 
ject theMBelves to wearing ear plugs (with masking) for 6 monthol thus both 
simulating and aotually experienoing a degree of hearing loss, and presen- 
ting themselves as prospective candidates for employment. The experiences 
of BEYDERLY (op. oit) using suoh a devioe for one day have been salutary* 
For the hardy partioipa-torg suoh an exeroise would provide an exoellent 
opportunity for testing some of the basio tenets of labelling theory. 
Furtherl a longitudinal analysisq for exampleg would enable reseairoh. 
ers to investigate the applicability of -the notion of deviance as a moral 
oareer: something whioh reoeived attention from the earlier labelling theo- 
ristsp notably BECKER (1963)* It was oonsidered by WEST (1979) to be one 
of the most fruitfal oonoepts emerging from the applioation of this per- 
speative to his studv of epileptios* 
Whilst it has been my oonoern in t4s thesis to foous largely on the 
prooess of infomal labelling, it was nevertheless both impossible and 
highly misleading to ignore the role of more formal sanctioning authorities, 
Suggestions have been made throughout the text of the desirability of in- 
vestigating the role of audiologists and other paramedioal personn-ell soci&j 
workers and teaohers of the deaf as agents of sooial controlo All are in. 
strumental in the oompilation of a biography of a hearing impaired person, 
which may well have its most critical impact in the provision of testi- 
monials and references for prospective employers. As professional helperBj 
the possibility that they may also act as depressers of ambition and ocou- 
pational aspirations has not only been suggested in the literature (of* 
Appendix 1) , but has 
been described by one or two 3espondents. This is ob- 
Viously an area ripe for investigation* 
* For an explanation of this term, cf. p. 41.5 
- 308 - 
Alternativelyq other theoretical perspectives, such as a Marxist- 
orientated approaohg looking at the differential relationship of various 
groups of the hearing impaired to the mode of produotion and exohange oould 
well yield equally fruitful insights into the manner in whioh the hearing 
impaired peroeive themselves as eoonomioally disadvantaged and oppressed 
in our sooiety. 
An investigation into the relationship between sooio-eoonomio status 
and employment outoomes might also produce some interesting resultse The 
literature informs us that the hearing impaired are under-repre6ented in 
professional and managerial positions (and this study oonfires that hear- 
ing impaired respondents oertainly peroeive themselves to be so under-rep- 
resented)* How far is this related to 80oial Olass? To what extent does 
sooial olass affeat the options for strategy management in ummkilled and 
semi-skilled oocupationev where, by derinitiong an employe& has less oon- 
trol over his working oonditions? (A few tentative indioations only have 
emerged from this study). 
My initial ambivalenoe regarding the merits of a oombined quantitat- 
ive and qualitative approaoh to a subjeot of this natural and its somewhat 
tardy resolution, have perhaps mearrt that the fall riohness of what inter- 
pretative sooiology has to offer oould wall be developed further. I am 
thinking of a small-soale, intensive study, of at the most 5-8 subjects, 
along the lines adopted by SHERWOOD (op. cit) , using a thematio rather 
than a somewhat more structnred approaoh to interviewing. * 
Ideally, if ethical objections againBt its use could be overcome, 
the field is wide open for partioipant observation, both in the pre-employ. 
ment stages of job hunting observing enoounters with the statutory plaoe. 
ment officersp in actual job interviews., and in the work setting itself. 
This would enable the I realities' of both definer and defined to be ex- 
Plored and conceivably open the door for the establishment of a mutually 
productive dialogue. One side of the dialectiov however necessary it has 
- 309 - 
been to explorep representsq after all, only a partial 'truth'* 
And, whilst employment has been a particularly fruitful area in which 
to explore the interface between hearing and hearing impairedp there are 
other life domains of equal importance for our understanding of the social 
prooesses in operation whioh relegate the hearing impaired to marginal 
status in our society: suoh as the family dynamios of those postlingually 
deafened; relationships with professionals and Professional organisations; 
oonfrontation with thw medioal and para-medioal bureaaoraoy (inoluding the 
experience of hospitalisation); dealings with the legal system; -and coping 
with the ramifioa-tions of our Welfare State - olaiming Sooial Seourityq 
Unemployment Benefit, rent and rate rebates eto. - diffioulties with whioh 
were mentioned by several respondents I talked with* 
Lastly, but this by no means exhausts the list of possibilitieel the 
polioy implioations of my thesis could be explored in muoh greater detail 
than I have chosen to do. As DMLING (1979) suggests: "Studies of the ad- 
aptations achieved by these Ideviantt (sic) members might also be of 
importance to policy makers and other societal representativew. who 
evaluate existing social definitions and the consequent treatment 
these members receive from various 'service' agenoies"Ie 
Sortm of the patterned adaptations to stigma and stereotyping and 
their varying suooess/failurep have been describedo Although I shall go 
on to outline a few areas where polioy ohange, might be implemented in the 
short-term in an attempt to alleviate present injustioesp the mediust and 
longer-term polioy iserues require a muoh more extensive exploration than 
the oonstraints of this thesis allow. * Indeed, the urgenoy of pl . ng 
appropriately for short-term needs can, perhaps, only be adequately adc'ý- 
ressed by exploring the future dimensiono 
In the mid-term, research could well address itself to such questions 
as: should we be pressing governments to invest money in sohemes to enable 
the hearing impaired - along with other impaired people - to participate 
more effectively in a workforce with a growing unemployment rate? Or 
- 310 - 
should we, alternatively, be investigating ways of redistributing 
the work 
'available' and plaxming positively for those who have particular diffi- 
aulties in competing to receive a guaranteed minian, wage from the State 
in return, perhapsl for some kind of oommunity work? Could this be done 
without creating a second-class citizenry? 
Further long-term considerations open up exciting prospeots for this 
very particular group of the handicappeds The development of modern tele- 
communication teohniquem iE; likely to have profound implioations for future 
working patterns* Increasingly, people will be working at home rather -than 
in a structured work environment p dealing essentially with visual rwbher 
than auditory materialt via two-way TV terminals. The present emphasis 
on oral communicative competence and smoothness in the management of inter- 
personal relationships is likelY 'to give waY to visual oompetence requiring 
a high degree of literaoye The opportunities for stigma and stereotyping 
by work peers and employers may be signifioantly reduoed, If this is so 
for the hearing impairedq it is likely to have similar implioations forý 
the eoonomic partioipation of o-ther impaired people* Training in -the use 
of such technological know-how needs to be planned well in advance, and 
this is an area ripe for asoessment now* 
I have indicated only one or two directions in which the implioations 
of my thesis oould be fruitfully explored. The polioy questions are al. 
most infinite, and the possibilities for future researoh, to my mindl ex. 
citing and exhilerating. 
Rather than providing specific answers to specific questions in aoo- 
ordance with pre-formulated hypotheses, it is my hope that this thesis has 
laid the foundations on whioh others may fruitfully build* In offering 
an alternative way of looking at the 'taken-for-granted' , and challenging 
some of the most tenaciously held assumptions which have dominated - and 
continue to exert a stranglehold - on the world of the hearing impaired, 
hope to have suooeeded in "jostling the imagination" for suoh researoh 
- 311 - 
to materialise. 
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS 
Such recommendations or solutions I have to suggest are predicated* 
on something which the very operation of stigma virtually precludes: a 
change of attitude on the part of informal and official labellers, What 
can one effectively do about stigma and stereotyping? The process of 
8capegoating minority groups who are not in a position of power to impose 
their definitions of 'reality' upon the majority is as old as history. 
And I am sinosilarly sceptical about_the efficacy of education or re- 
education on its own to change, attitudes. In the first place it is a 
lengthy process. Moreovers there is little evidence to show that, div- 
orced from a wider political perspective, it is effective, CUMMING and 
CUMMING's (1957) experiment in trying to educate the host community to 
re-accept their discharged ex-mental patient friends and relatives back 
into the community was a failure. It was a failure courageously and hon- 
estly described. Yet the authors still demonstrated implicitly their re- 
liance on a 'more informed' education programme to rectify their mistaken 
preconceptions, 
Additionally, I contend that WEST's (op. cit) argument regarding the 
failure of the British Epilepsy Association to promote understanding and 
sympathy "because the message is often at odds with peoples' expectations" 
insufficient. 
After much mental vacillation I am of the opinion that any signifi. 
cant change - not necessarily in attitudes - that is a luxury -, but in 
behaviour can only come about with the backing of legislation. It is 
stigmatising behaviour which must be proscribed. Ultimately, with the 
help of educations changes in attitude will hopefully follow* 
Fundamentally they are predicated on the assumption of a general if 
not universal consensus on Utilitarian human values concerning the maxi. 
misation of human happiness and the minimising of human misery. If the 
kinds of disadvantage and discrimination which the hearing impaired in 
this research claim to suffer and suffer in common - are held to be 
unjust in a civilised society then certain things may f ollow. I am not 
a moral arbiter. The justification for making specific recommendations 
re8tS on the PAtoc*4wht 240 w 
- 312 - 
Thus, although it goes against the very tide of historyl and -the our- 
rent militancy of the signing deafj I plead a case for the hearing impaired 
population a43 a whole, to bury their differences and present a foroefulg un- 
ited front* To fight for the recognition of sign as a lancu e may well be 
a necessary pre-requisitel bat ultimately it is bat one issue amongst many. 
A relaxation of the contempt in which sigppL has traditionally been held will 
not resolve the many other areas in whioh disorimination against all hearing 
impaired is seen to oocaro The development of a toolleotive oonscioumiess, 
(SCHUR, 1980) refleots preoisely the thmatt of this thesis: that an appre- 
ciation of the oommoLwLlitZ of shared experience of stigma and stereotyping 
might provide the foundation for -the initial political thrast for ohangee 
This is not the place to enter into arguments concerning whether and 
how far the law is I entitledt to go in promoting social changeo As 'to wba; t 
legislation might be expecrted to aohieveq it is useful to have an exemplar. 
I mWest we -turn to the States for a model* Whilst I oontend that CORAD 
(1982) ij3 over-Optimistio as to the effiosay of sections M md 504 of the 
Voostional, Rehabilitation Act - and the National Center for Law and the I)eaf 
has oarefully doaumented -the widespread nature of non-complianoo (1979)m- 
the law does provide a base-line from whioh sooiety might re-define its 
frame of ref erenoe towards hearing impaizuente 
More important is the symbolio significanoe of having prosoriptive 
legislation on the statute books. It tends to oreate and reinforoe a oli- 
mate whioh is conduoive to further sucoessp and is likely to enoomrage 
the stigmatised group) to greater efforts at mobilisationo 
For a stigmatised group, there are additional hurdles, The hearing im- 
Paired population has been noted for its lack of politically active and 
effective leaders - from both 'camps'. Yet the prior politioal thrust 
necessary for legislation to be implemented requires such a corpus Of 
leaders, with competence in the majority language. Without it, even the 
boldest confrontation strategy tends to laok credibility. It is perhaps here 
that either the orally deaf I competent in S. E. E. , or the signing deaf able 
- 313 - 
to straddle both deaf and hearing worldBI have a role to play as spokesper- 
sons. It is essential to obviate the distortions arising from different 
meaning systems between hearing and hearing impaired worlds of experience. 
The experience and meaning structures arising out of being deafq oomm=i- 
cation mode apartg must override the differences which result from differ. 
ent socialisation processes* 
Broad anti-discriminatory measures apart, ideally what I should like to 
see legislated for, as far as the hearing impaired are oonoerned, is pro- 
vision to oover three areas of need whioh have been identified in my find. 
ings: the mandatory provision of equipmentp suoh as TDDs ; the appoin-b- 
ment of interoessors 'to act as seoretaries and 'interpreters' for both the 
orally and manually deaf, and to resolve any on-going problems arising in 
the work situation; and the training of either 10HOs, or other personnel 
in the particular oommunioation needs of the hearing impairedq to improve 
job referral services and assist in interview management* 
The reluotance of employers to instal equipment whioh would enable a 
hearing impaired person to perform his job with greater easeq or to per. 
fom a job for which he is in all other respects Perfectly qualified, has 
been repeatedly demonstrated in this thesis, It has been argaed that suoh 
reluctance is all part and parcel of the stigmatising and stereotyping pro- 
ceSBes. Given that attitudes will probably not change radically with ed. 
ucation and gentle persuasion, I suggest that legislation is implemented 
to require compliance with the provision of aide. Its cost-effectiveness 
over time must be weighed against the economic and human cost of eoonomi. 
Cally unproductive lives, under-utilised capacities and skills, and un- 
trained capabilities. 
What has also emerged has been the absence of anyone sufficiently 
conversant with the inherent communication problems of the hearing impaired 
to act as an intercessor. The appointment of even part-time personnel, 
with both signing skills and experience in communicating with the orally 
- 314 - 
hearing impaired, would greatly facilitate on-the-job orientation andl 
what is crucially lacking, feedback. Moreover, miErtakes, mi sunder st andingm 
and disrupted relationships could be sorted out without fear of incurring 
opprobrium* 
Most of all what seems to be needed is the presence of a respected in- 
teroessor at the point, before trouble breaks out. As I have shown,, it is 
rare for a sooial worker to be oalled in until the situation has deterior- 
ated beyond repairg and the hearing impaired person either storued out or 
been dismissedo The presenoe of an I interpreter' 9 sensitive to the kinds 
of ridioule whioh I have documented as an on-going part of 'the work exper. 
ience, partioularly of disoredited respondents, oould well prevent sudh 
trouble from arising in the first plaoe., 
It will be argued that the mandatory, appointment of suoh personnel is 
hardly cost-effeative in a firm employing one, or at the most twoq hearing 
impaired people. I 13uggestl, therefore, the appointment of peripectetic wor- 
kers, regionally based, and able to liaise with firms in the area employing 
other hearing impaired workersl and possibly geared to performing similar 
functions for other impaired personnel who experienoe, diffioulties. It may 
well transpire that the appointment of suoh a person would stimulate firm, 3 
at present hostile to the idea to hire hearing impaired people in jobs 
appropriate to their skills and oapabilitieso 
I am aware that this is, supposedly, part of the funation of the DRO* 
HOweverg in no case in the sample was I aware of intervention of this kind* 
Whilst the DRO has beoome a fashionable target for oritioism, the reoent 
Government decision (29th July 1982) to preserve the present system basic- 
ally intact does place the onus of responsibility squarely back on the ser- 
vi ce8ubstantially to improve its delivery, or to acknowledge work loads 
Preclude this and syphon off in-depth liaison work to others, 
My findings have borne out those of BEATTIE (1981) of the total inad- 
equacy of the DRO service - at the point of delivery, and at the crisis in- 
- 315 - 
tervention point discussed above. Whilstq perhaps, little can be done at 
this stage to change the organisational imperatives which generate a reluo, - 
tance to -think creatively beyond the traditionalp stereotyped images of -the 
kinds of jobs 'the deaf' are capable ofq what can be improved are the MOO 
communication skills to facilitate interview management and job orientation. 
am not suggesting that DROs should be required -to learn signq al- 
though a rudimentary knowledge of a few oourtesy signs would be appreoiatede 
Finger spellingg hawever, is quick and easy to learn and could make that 
critical difference between being peroeived as willing to help and being 
patently uninterestede Their training should be expanded to inolude in- 
struction on at least the basics of communicating with all groups of the 
hearing impaired populationg both manually and orally impaired* A service 
which exists, ostensibly, to help those with impairuents to looa; te Job opp. 
ortunities is demonstrably inadeqtxa-be when cominiltation by s(xae hearing 
impaired olients is impossible beoause the IRO is not versed in the appro. 
priate oommunioation skillo 
I 
ThiB much, I suggest, may be accomplished by legislationg together 
with the backing of an organisation comparable to the Equ&l Opix)rtunities 
Commission where oases of non-complianoe oan be taken up* 
I am less sanguine regarding the prospeots of improving those infor. 
mal interpersonal relationships at work whioh, as I have indioated, are as 
powerful in the creation of deviant outcomes as are the definitions of 
offioial labellerso 
However, if it is seen that the Government is making a eonoerted eff. 
ort to improve access to some of the more tangible barriers from which the 
hearing impaired are traditionally exoluded, it is my hope that a ohange, in 
behaviour will indeed, ultimately, bring about a change in the way the 
hearing impaired tend to be negatively evaluatedw 
In the final analysisp I come full circle. Legislation and the neo- 
- 316 - 
essary prior political thrust will only come from a group which haE; managed 
to overcome the many factors which would fragment it. And it is only through 
the medium of interaction that people are enabled to recognise the common- 
ality of their problems and interests, and appreoiate that these are loo- 
ated sociallyt rather than inhering in the individaal, 
1 
Manually and or- 
ally communioating hearing impaired - despite an understandable mutual diEp. - 
trust borne of years of reciprocal shamingg-need to interact with each 
other to appreoiate that theirs is one and the same problem* 
I derive very oonsiderable reassuranoe from the oonolusiona. drawn by 
HIGGINS and NASH (1982) at the 300iology Conferenoe at Gallaudet, 1982., *, For 
the first timev those very sooiologists who have done so muoh to penetrate 
the peroeptions and meaning systems of the signing deaf oommunity have 
shown themselves open to the wider issues. They conclude: "As we explore the 
lives of deaf people, we will be greatly aided if we are alive to the 
experiences3 of those who are similarly situated in society* Think- 
ing and reBearoh about black Americans, ethnic groups, gays and dis- 
abled individuals can sensitize us to possibilities among the deaf 
They too are outsiders, -in their own way. 6 From knowledge of the 
struggle of these other outsiders in their coping with the dominant 
society, we mav get a better understanding of the struggle of deaf 
people"* 
Written towards the end of my research periodl it is, to the best of my 
knowledge, the most positive and odherent statement in the entire body of 
literature on the hearing impaired, whioh suggests aftention might be 
drawn to the wider implications of minority status for 'the signing deaf* 
For this thesis, doing the unthinkablel and oomparing how different groups 
of the hearing impaired perceive their situation isl perhaps, thinkable 
after all. 
- 317 - 
NOTES 
11 On l1th February, 19839 a Private Member's Bill, The Disablement 
Prohibition of UnjuBtifiable Discrimination Billq had its second reading. 
It was defeated. Significantly, however, deaf people attended and sat in 
the public gallery, following the proceedings with the aid of an interpre. 
ter* 
- 317 
POSTSCRIPT 
It came to my notice on completion of the writing of this thesis 
that a Conference had been hold in Washington in JanuarY 1983 bringing 
together organisatioxis of the hwwing impaired to discuss ways in which 
co-operation could be facilitated to achieve common political goals. 
These orgamisations included representatives from both the mignim commu. 
nity, such as the National Association of the Deaf, and the orally hear- 
ing iwpaired, such an the Alexander Graham Bell Association. 
It is significant that the following even needs saying: 
"Considering the number of organizations in the deafness field,, 
we do not currently uoutlly compare notes an the positions and in- 
terests of our organizations, Without this knowledge we r the 
great risk of dissipating our energies in the government relations 
area by cancell-Lin out each other's efforts through coutradictory 
statements . *o My personal observation is that we can occasionally 
honestly disagre* on some thingst but we should be aware of our 
differences and consider then carefully so that we will not destroy 
our overall government efforts or reduce our effectiveness in those 
many other areas where there in pcoitive consensus among us"o 
(PIMMTAL, 1983) 
The response (HURWITZ)g from a "deaf consumer" was I)rwUCtably 
cautious, indicative of the threat oralism in still seen to pose to 
the siani n community* 
It only r*mJln for me to hope that this theisis representa a mod. 
est contribution to an understanding of the beAsis of that conammus 
which affects all groups of the hearing impaire4t and that in tim a 
similar conference might be mounted in England, 
APPENDICES 
Volume 2 
- 318 - 
APPENDIX l. - REVIEW OF THE LITEPATURE 
Reference was made in Chapter 3 to the reaisonB why a Review of the Lit- 
erature on Emplzyment had been omitted from the text. Before I rectify 
this, howeverl the dearth of sociological analyses of hearing impairment 
generallyl until very recently, will be discussed. It is an omission which 
has been reflected in the way the employment problema of the hearing impaired 
have boon written about. 
le SOCIOLOGY -A NEGLECTED DISCIPLINE 
It should be noted that the study of communication itself has been rel. 
atively neglected in sociology, until the advent of the symbolic interaction. 
ist and ethnomethodological schools of thought. Other studies have been 
largely fragmentary, implying "o., a view of social commudcation an a series 
of discrete areas of experience without much connection" (McQUAILl 1975). 
FOUTY and HARTE (1964) have comment*d: The social aspects of deaf- 
ness have received remarkably little attention from sociologists* Yet 
it is evident that deafness, with the coummication problems it in- 
volves, most profoundly affects interp*rsonal relations" (my itals). 
Until the late 1970's and early 1980's the few sociological studies 
which have been conducted on hearing impairment have generally focussed on 
sub-cultural theory in relation to the profoundly prelingually deaf, whog 
it is argueds tend to form deaf communities with a counter-ideology of 
their own (LUNDE, 1956). An in-depth analysis of the w; sLy guch cogmmnities 
functioned and their relationship with the hearing world 'outside's how- 
ever, awaited more sophisticated attention* 
Three other studies merit attention as much for their silospil ty ais 
for their general quality: those of GORMAN (1960); SUSSMAN (1975) and 
WEINBERGER (1978) 9 
Dr. Gorman's seminal study focusses on the 'Ivory dea,. VI (largely the 
profoundly prelingually deaf). Deaf himself I the author analyses his data 
in terms of role theory and reference group theory in an attempt to diecuss 
of "the existence and effects of various forces which deterodne the 
role of the deaf person". 
His scope is wide-rangingg covering the field of education, employaont, 
- 319 - 
family relationBhiPst attitudes of signifi0ant othersl and communioatione 
yet his grip on his theoretical perspective is fully maintained, and an in- 
sightful and meaningful picture of the deaf person's world and the modified 
roles which the hearing person is prepared to make available to him , and 
the deaf person's acceptance of them, are revealed. 
A. B. SUSSKAN's very satisfactorily argued thesis uses the self-oonoept 
theory of MEAD (1934) and identifies the very negative self-oonoepts whioh 
are generally held by the deaf 9 and whioh tend to be proje(rted not only on 
to the hearingg but on to other hearing impaired people., He stresses the 
mutual interdependence of self-concept and perceived attitudes of signifi- 
oant otheres in MEADIAN terminology, how an individual views I and 
interacts with the world is partly a function of the way he views himself 
- and the views of self are determined by the extent to whioh the 11 role of 
the other" is integratede It is a sophistioated theoretioal analysist 
largely 
but again applies/to the profoundly prelingually deaf (for whom he is 
currently a oaunBellor) * 
The few other loelf-oonoept' studies (HEIDER and HEIDER, 1941; NURPHYt 
DICKSTM and MIPPS, 1960-j HELEN CRAIG9 1965) suffer from a failure to ex- 
amine the particular social situations in which sOlf-iNm8e formation fWi-- 
Otions. WhilErt they often oomment peroeptively on the importanoe of sig%. 
nifioant others' appraisals in the oreation of self-appraisall they fail, 
as GARRISON and TESCH (1978) point out, to treat self-conoept as a "speoifio 
and relational oonstruct"o 
A third exception is the work of WEINBERCERe However, after a ohrono- 
logioal review of the various aspeots of labelling theoryq he then pro(meds 
to subject his data to a irtiff statistical analysis, losing sightq some- 
whatv of the perspective he has so thoroughly explored. Peroeptions may 
be measured but are not described by statistics. He suggeStB, not without 
some justification, that it is necessary to exercise extreme caution in 
making broad inferences about the utility of labelling theory, taking a 
- 320 - 
GOVIAN (op-cit) view of the alleged limitations of empirically verifying 
any data. Howeverg contrary to the established pattern to dateg he fooussed 
on those with newly acquired hearing loss. But no effort was made to ex.. 
tend his analysis to other groups of the hearing impaired or to integrate 
data and theory more meaningfully* 
These exceptions have been literaly oases in an otherwise barren terr- 
ain. What is puzzling is that until the publication of HIGGINS' (opeoit) 
book in 1980, none of these previous works appears to have triggered off a 
general reaction amongst other sociologists., 
In an attempt to explain why the deaf have so systematically eluded 
the attention of sociologists, it is pertinent to examine where research 
has been directed. Generally it has been fairly consistently wedded to 
what might be called an I individual pathologicall (or I individual systems', 
SCHEF', 1966) model. There has been a proliferation of studies of so-called 
f socio-psychological adjustment' I the best examples of this genre being the 
works of LEVINE (1961)and MYKLE13UST (1964)9 For the 'hard of hearing' and 
those with acquired hearing impairment, the worics of KNAPP (1948) and 
RAMSDELL (1978) typify this approaoh. The profUBion of suoh studies has 
led to a veritable pot-pwrri of findings relating to IQ, sooial maturity / 
immaturity, extraversion/introversion/ and personal I adaptability' , 
Not only do such studies tend to individualise - and de-politicize - 
the problemv suggesting that alleged defioienoies inhere within the indiv- 
idual rather than being socially constructed. They also lead to 110. an in- 
sistence on 'remedial' measures and a belief in Inormalisation' which, 
given the irreversible nature of most profound deafness, constitutes 
a psychiatric denial reaction" ('MONTGOMERY, 1980). 
This is not to decry the importance of such studies. But they repre. 
sent only one side of the picture* It is impossible to 'make sense' of the 
individual pathology or 'individual systems' model divorced from an anal- 
ysis of the way impairment of any kind is a socially constructed phenom- 
enon. It is the mutual interdependencep the complementarity of the two, 
- 321 - 
which give coherence and a better appreciation of the problem. 
Attitude studies and surveys which might conceivably have had a bear- 
ing on the development of a sociology of hearing impairment have similarly 
flourished. Exemplified by the ]Aest offering from the O. p, C. S (BUNTING9 
1981), they form part of a fairly long tradition in research (of* HOROWITZ 
and REES9 1962; SCHROEDEL and SCHIFF, 1972)o 
Obviously such studies have more than just a superficial attractions 
They are regarded as an infinitely more 'productive' means of approaching 
the 'problems' of the deaf. The methodological and practical difficulties 
involved in actually communicating with the hearing impaired for research 
purposes are conveniEntly by-passed. Indeed, some of their findings, even 
if sometimes contradictory, are often salutary* Deaf children, for exampleg 
are found to be "low on the totem pole of desirability" (MURPHY9 DICKSTEIN 
and DRIPPS, op-cit), when hearing teachers are asked to rank what types of 
impaired pupils they prefer to teaeho 
However, the problems with attitude studies are legion. Not only is 
it difficult to demonstrate how far they predict actual behaviour; they 
ma, y ".. reflect more tolerant attitudes than actually exist because respond- 
ents feel pressure to voice socially acceptable opinions" (RYAN, 
KEFIPNER and EMLEN, 1980) -a point made by ALTMAN . 
(1981) and others. This 
will become evident when I come to disouss the literature on employers' 
attitudes to hiring the hearing impaired. 
BUNTING' s (1981) study is a perfect example . As with all attitude 
surveys conducted by hearing people, they are for the consumption of hear- 
ing people. It is the definitions and evaluations of the hearing which pre- 
vaill legitimising the low status of the impaired in society whilst simul- 
taneously purporting to ameliorate it (FINKELSTEIN, 1980)o There is no 
Opportunity for the hearing impaired to modify and correct many of the 
cruder and jejune cultural sterotypes which are often manifest. They may 
easily enter the corpus of received wisdom which is constructed 
I about the 
deaf' 
. Stereotypes are reinforced and are correspondingly 
difficult to 
- 322 - 
dislodge. 'j"hus "'The reasonably good understanding of deafness 11 (reported 
in Hearing, 1981) which Mr. Hugh Rossie, Minister for the Disabled, felt 
emerged from the study is hardly reflected in the perceptions of the hear- 
ing impaired themselves. As BENDERLY (op. cit) notesp few Americans have 
actually met a profoundly deaf person* 
I suggestj therefore, that attitude studies, far from contributing to 
a climate in which a sociological evaluation might take placep have the in- 
sidiaus effect of simply legitimating the status quo by telling people 
what they want to heare 
Otherwise, research literature has concentrated massively on studying 
the legacy of linguistic devastation of 150 years of oralist education. 
The literature is too vast for more than bibliographic reference. The study 
of sign language itself has burgeoned, both in an attempt to disprove the 
claims of the oralists, and in an effort to give it status as a language in 
its own rightv and remove -the stigma attached to a minority communication 
mode. Latterly, research has focussed on 'Total Communication' as a 
means of 'resolving' the oralist/manualist controversy,, 
Thus, looking at the directions which research has taken over the past 
20 years, it is perhaps not surprising that sociology has had so little 
part to play. The primacy of the 'medical model' of individual pathology, 
which has accompanied the growth and prestige of the paramedical professions CD 
of audiology and educational and clinical psychology, ha s, ensured, that 
'the problem' is firmly located in the purported deficiencies of the individ- 
ual*Hearing impairment as an essentially social construction has been 
mystified and obscured. 
The publication of a cluster of books in 1980/81: HIGGINS' "Outsiders 
in a Hearing World", BECKER'S "Growing old in Silence" 
(1980), and NASH 
and NASH' s ethnographic "Deafness in Society" 
(1981) therefore came as some- 
thing of a bolt from the blueo 
- 323 - 
HIGGINS has successfully used the analytical tools of deviance socio. - 
logy to penetrate the deaf world and the interface between deaf and hearing 
people. It is a classic study of the ways an outsider group cope with is- 
putations of stigma and stereotyping, in this instance by the construction 
and integration of a counter stigma ideology in the form of deaf communition. 
His frame of reference thus lies squarely with the signin . or those 
he terms the Ilsocially deaf", ie. those belonging to the deaf community pro- 
per. He examines the relationships they are able to adopt by virtue of this 
membership vith those other deafl the "audiometrically" or orally deaf. and 
the hearing world. He argues that the notion of strategy amma ement, in deal- 
ing with the problems of spoiled identity has been over-played. Energy is 
directed only to the routine manaLgement of interaction. The identity of 
the I'socially deaf 11 as normal is secure by virtue of membership with this 
community. However this is not an argument which can be applied outside 
the protective framework of that communityt as I have shown* 
Nevertheless it is an exciting and polemical book* And the deaf comm- 
unity does provide a focal point for sociological analysis* Most iMPOrt- 
antly, the first tentative moves to broaden the implications of his analysis 
to other minority groups are made* BECKER's study of the elderly profoundly 
prelingually deaf appeared in the same year. It is an interesting excursion 
into the discipline of applied anthropology, although it can equally be read 
as a work of sociology. She suggests that the patternedadaptations to ma- 
rginal status which the deaf develop fairly early on in lif e are instru- 
mental in facilitating adaptation to a iBecond'disability'- that of old age, 
The importance of the values of interdependence, and the collective orien- 
tation of the signing deaf community is in sharp contrast to the individ- 
ualistic, intensely competitive and socially mobile values of the normally 
hearing; the latter being,, she argues, well suited to work achievement 
but less successful in coping with the lack of role structure which in char- 
acteristic of old age. She discusses the future of the deaf community, 
b8L18Lncing its innate conservatism and (necessary) 
- 324 - 
pressures towards peer group conformity against the continuous threats to 
its extinction from the OUt8ide. Its 8UrVival, she arguest is dependent on 
its being respected as a source of transmission of the heritage of the 
deaf - via Sign Language. Yetj as I have intimatedg it is precisely the 
rstatus Of sign language which is perceived to be under threat by the ad- 
option of T. C. and S. E. E. (or more accurately, Signin Standard English). 
It is a question of fundamental importance. I would argue that the our- 
vival of minority cultures depends largely upon an ability to straddle 
both worlds - in this case the linguistic worlds of deaf and hearing* In 
this way cultural plurality can be maintained. 
The ethnographic work of NASH and NASH (1981) is,, inter alias a far. 
ther discursive analYsis of the meaning structure of both signin and 
orally deaf people, It examines polemically varieties of linguistic usage 
amongst the deaf, and the patterns continuously being evolved in response 
to the constant denigration of the deaf community's language and status. 
It explores deaf/deaf as well as deaf/hearing interaction as "negotiated 
outcomes of framed meanings". 
It also breaks new territory by contrasting middle and lower class con- 
8Ciou8ne8s with what the authors term 'deaf consciousness' along a series 
of parameters, such as linguistic styles and adherence to the individual- 
istic pursuit of success. Overall it provides theoretical coherence to 
many previously fragmented and ill-understood facets of deaf/deaf exper- 9 
ience. However, one searches in vain for a comprehensive description of 
where and how the authors obtained their fascinating insights. Thisl I 
contend, is as vital a part of the research exercise as the presentation 
of the data and arguments themselves. Neverthelessl it is a richly re- 
warding book, aimed primarily for the SOCiOlOgi8t** 
The dawn of a new era in the analysis and interpretation of hearing 
impairment was the Sociology Conference held at Gallaudet College in 1982. 
Of the many papers presented therej those of SEIDEL and ZAKAREWSKY gener- 
* It was designated a work of reference at the RNID Library. However, 
the Librarian kindly let me have it out on loan as, she explainedg "no one 
can understand it"& 
- 324 
ally followed the pathr. opened by HIGGINS and NASH and NASH. They con- 
centrated on penetrating the meaning systems of the deaf, the patterns of 
interaction developed to cope with relations between a highly stigmatised 
group and a dominant hearing culturej and the forms of social organisation 
evolved in response to such Onegation" (SEIDEL). ZAKAREWSKY interestingly 
dealt with the double burden of stigma suffered by deaf homosexuals, pro- 
viding a fascinating insight into the conformity of the deaf community 
and its rejection of deviants within its midst. 
Although it was "taken for granted" (BRIEN, 1982) that this would 
be a Conference focussing on the signing deaf comminity (ies) - WEINBERGER 
and RADELLT excepted - and the venue could hardly have dictated otherwises 
a heartening indication of scope for a broader analysis in the future was 
made in its conclusion: "If we look closely we will find more inBtructive 
similarities between the deaf and other outsiders"(HIGGINS and MASH). 
A new willingness and receptivity to penetrating the world of the, non- 
/contd. over 
- 325 - 
Signing deaf who are not members of the inner circle of a deaf communitY 
is a much-needed breath of fresh air* 
Thus the sociology of hearing impairment seems poised on the brink of 
exciting new developments. One crucial area where, to the best of my know- 
ledgep a sociological analysis has been quite lacking, is that of employmente 
A discursive review of some of the vast body of existing literature will re- 
vealq I hope, the contribution which sociology,, as a discipline, has to 
offer. One reservation: I hwe been obliged to concentrate on the major 
oontributors to the field, the very immensity of coverage presenting too 
formidable a task for total inclusiveness. Even so, this task has not been 
light one. 
Perhaps it is significant that most of the studies - particularly the 
earlier ones - have been American. I referred to their many limitations 
in Chapter 3: their almost exclusive pre-occupation with the prelingually 
deaf (variously defined); their instrumentality; the lack of standardised 
methods of data collection and analysis, and agreement on definitional 
terms, making comparisons otiose. This is not to commit the error of con. 
demning I descriptive' works out of hand. Description is often quite diffi- 
cult. But description devoid of any theoretical underpinning to give oo- 
herence to what amounts to a vast body of facts and figures becomes im- 
possible to interpret. Neverthelessv what these studies did achieve was 
to stimulate a degree of awareness of the disadvantaged position occupied 
by the deaf in the labour market in the United States. It was almost a 
decade later before a similar awareness could be demonstrated in the U. K. 
2. A-, ý HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 
Historically, however, the employment prospects of the hearing im-- 
paired were not always conceived of in such terms, publiclY at any rate. 
(The excellent and incisive review of the economic status of the deaf in 
the 19th century by IvIITCHELL9 
(1971) is a notable exception)* 
The EICHOLZ Report (1932), commissioned to investigate the position 
in industry of the hearing impaired and the faoilities for their eduoationj 
ý 326 - 
concluded there was little support for the claim for special legislation 
to redress purported inequality. "At a time when as many as 75 per cent or 
more of deaf mute men are employed it cannot seriously be maintained 
that the attitudes of employers is definitely antagonistic to the 
deaf and dumb". 
Any difficulties which the deaf were alleged to encounter were attrib- 
uted variously to "mental weakness'19 "character defects'19 "an inability to 
control their elemental impulses", 
and, for women, "sexual instability". Generally, the "Unsatisfactory cases" 
brought to the attention of the Commission were attributed to ".. a lack of 
development of the higher range of ideas through which ordinary men 
and women learn to govern their behaviourtf. 
Neverthelessp the Report managed to draw attention to the importance of' 
selecting 'appropriate' work for the deaf and, perhaps preBaging later 
studies in the UK, the need for vocational training. 
An excellent discussion of the role of the statel or rather state in. 
actionv may be found in MONS (19739 1980). However, it is worth noting 
that in a thesis devoted to an examination of the relationship between law 
and impairment, the omission of any discussion on the merits or otherwise 
of enforcing tmoralityl is disappointinge. 
Both the TOMLINSON (1943) and PIERCY (1956) Committees oonsidered the 
position of the deaf to be relatively unproblematic. The TCKLINSON Commi- 
ttee, for instance, commented: ""The deaf present a much more limited pro- 
blem than the blind'19 
considering that most pupils of special schools for the deaf ".. have already 
received manual and practical instruction which may assist them to 
obtain remunerative employment without further training ... and many 
of them compete successfully in the labour market ... In generall 
deafness is not a bar to employment save in certain 
Zu-nspecified_7 
occupations" 
It concluded its deliberations on hearing impairment with the comment: 
'too and employed persons who become deaf later in life are able to 
remain in their present occupation"* 
For a Committee otherwise renowned for its liberal and humane orientation, 
its blindness as far as the deaf are concerned is difficult to explain* 
An incisivev critical account of the accommodations and compromises 
ac-tu- 
ally made prior to its publication, and 
the 1944 Disabled Persons Act to 
- 327 - 
which it gave birth is to be found in BOLDERSON (1980)o 
The PIERCY Committee commented in a similarly optimistic manner: "re- 
habilitation of older persons .. does not call for special comment be- 
cause deafness in itself is not normally a barrier to employment". 
Continued legislative inertia reflects and reinforces this optimistic 
picture, allaying any sense of urgency and concern. The wording of the leaf- 
let trEmploying Someone Who is Deaf" (EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AGENCY) is quite 
reminiscent of EICHOLZ, It states briskly: "There is a wide field of poss- 
ible employment opportunities which includes the professional, skilledl 
semi-skilled and unskilled jobs in industry .. In certain jobs, how 
badly or how well an employee can hear has little relevance, and in 
many noisy environmentsl a deaf person may be better able to concen- 
trate than someone who is able to hear"* (A qualification is inserted 
relating to sensitivity to noise suffered by some hearing impaired victims)e 
It continues in similar vein: "For the hard of hearingg inexpensive 
special amplifiers are available which can be attached to telephones 
without preventing their use by other peoplelle 
This blithely disregards both the widespread ignorance of their existence 
by many employers; and the more important fact that amplifioation is most 
effective for those suffering from conductive rather than sensori-neural 
deafness. Moreover, applications have to be ohannelled through the D. R. O. 
Both BIRD and TREVAINS (1978) and BEATTIE (1981) have drawn attention to 
the reluctance to apply for such aids for this reason. And even where 
application is made, their evidence suggest that employers are far from 
eager to install such equipment - borne out by the perceptions of some of 
my own respondents* 
NOISE-INDUCED DEAFNESS 
A similar pattern of inertia has characterised the area of industrial 
deafness. Occupational deafness has been fairly comprehensively covered in 
the literature (HINCHCLIFFE and HINCHCLIFFEj 1974; KERSEv 1975; HARRISON, 
1978; . BEATTIE, 1981)v so I shall make only the briefest reference to ite 
Cognisance of the detrimental effects of noise on hearing acuity occ- 
urred as early as the 2nd Century A. D. when PLINY wrote: 
" Nilus praeoipi- 
tans se fragore auditum adcolis aufert " 
(in HARRISON, op. cit) 
referring to the adverse effects of exposure to the noise 
- 328 - 
of the Nile cataracts, Centuries later, historians noted the prevalence of 
coppersmiths'p blacksmiths' and boilermakers' deafness., 
Incidence has been variously estimated: from the conservative figure 
of half a million workers at risk in manufacturing industry mentioned by the 
Factory Inspectorate (1971); to the more recent survey of the Institute of 
Sound and Vibration Research (Times, 15*6.1978) which argues that the numbers 
at risk could be as high as 1-12 milliono A local study 
(TAYLOR, PEARSON et 
als 1967) demonstrated in Dundee that ".. there are about 18,000 people occý- 
upationally assailed by the noise of jute machiner-j". 
The question arises as to whyp in the absenoe of legislation, so few 
cases have come to court under common law provisiono SELWYN (1973) and 
FAIERS (1978) comment on the diffioulties of proving the link between occu- 
pational damage and hazards which might occur normally in the environment, 
its insidiousness of onset, and our general sooial attitudes towards deaf- 
ness: "We all regard being hard of hearing as part of the growing-old pro- 
cess . ** The average worker has a good risk appreciation of traumatic 
injury .. with noise-induced deafness, the risk appreciation level is 
very low and, in consequence, the seriousness of the problem is rarely 
accepted" (FAIERS, op. cit)e 
Thus, not only have few oases been brought, They have been notoriously 
hard to wine For a discussion of the cases, the reader is referred to 
SELWM (op. cit) and KERSE (1975) 9 
The story - as yet incomplete - of the dilatory nature of legislative 
intervention may be found in the Report of the Wilson Committee (1963), 
the re-oort of BURNS and ROBINSON (1970); the Department of Employment Code 
of Practice (1972); and the permisal-ve self-regulatory provisions con- 
tained in the Health and Safety at Work Actf (1974). 
The only redress available lies in a claim for compensation under 
the Social Security Act 19759 when deafness was finally prescribed as an 
occupational disease. However, its aegis has been so limitedl and the cri- 
teria for qualification so stringentf. that the disparity between the num- 
ber of claimants receiving benefit 
(some 4,500 as reported in Hearing, 1980) 
1 
- 329 - 
and the estimated coverage by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council 
Report (1978) of 150,000, requires no further comment* 
We are left with a thoroughly unsatisfactory picture: of a fraction of 
employees at risk being 'eligible' to claim under Social Security regulat- 
ions, whose stringency acts as a very real deterrent to application; along,. 
side a virtually unworkable common law compensation system; with legislation 
where avoidance of liability is all too common. Not unexpectedly, politi. 
cal expediency has much to answer for: "Any future action must take into 
account the cost for industry as well as the benefit of reduced risk 
of hearing damage. If we were totally to remove any possible risk 
of industrial deafness, we would do away with, perhaps, hundreds of 
thousands of jobs ., We must ensure that a reasonable balance is 
maintained between costs and benefits" (HANSARD9 1980)* 
Finally, with the quota system set to run a further eourse despite the 
acknowledged inadequacy of its enforcementl public interest in the hearing 
impaired - as reflected in such statutory provision as exists - remains 
static, The question which is still left unanswered is why the statutory 
position is so resistant to change when the situationg as evidenced by 
the many studies I shall reviewg-is so patently unsatisfactory* 
A DEPRESSED ECONOKIC PICTURE 
In 1980, the general picture was described thus by BENDERLY, * "The 
system fails deaf workers not once but twice. They get less education 
than the hearing, and they don't get jobs that fully exploit, the heal%. 
ing they have e Not accidentallyp therefore, deaf workers tend to 
cluster in industries such as the manufacture of non-durable goods, 
and in trades such as printing and sewing, where they can get by with 
stereotyped, and thus reasonably predictableg oral communication* 
Only the rare employer truly accommodates the deaf worker"* 
will look at the substantive issues raised by this and previous 
works under the following heads whereby problems have been identified: Un- 
employmentq Underemployment and related issues suoh as lack of training, 
depressed skill levels, the restrioted range of jobs available and laok 
of promotion prospectso A separate section will be devoted to such ref- 
erences as exist on oommunjoation patterns and problems of the hearing im- 
paired at worke Finally, I shall look at the diff ioulties enoountered in 
actually obtaining a job; the literature on attitudes of employerB; and 
- 330 - 
predictions for the future. 
5o UNMPLOYMENT 
It has been generally agreed that unemployment oonstitutes less of a 
problem for the profoundly hearing impaired than underemployment - although 
this judgement is very much subject to modification in the current recession* 
(And underemployment oonstitutes a form of unemployment)* 
It is almost impossible to estimate correctly the extent to which mar. 
ket fluctuations differentially affect certain groups in the population or 
to posit a direct causal relationship between hearing impairment and un- 
employment, It is generally aocepted that age, laolk of marketable skills 
(or possession of obsolete akills)q laok of availability of workq and im- 
paiment are factors traditionally associated with greater risk of unemploy- 
ment (SHOWLER and SINFIELD9 1981)9 The problem remains, for the hearing 
impairedl one of assessing their employability against a badkground of 
possible employer prejudice and ignorance, inadequacy of placement services, 
ignorance of career opportunities, and lack of adequate traininge 
Earlier studies in the United States generally confirmed, howeverv 
that the rate of unemployment of deaf adults tended to be higher than that 
of their hearing counterparts - although this is a finding disputed by DE 
CARO and BRIEN (1981)o BOATNER, STUCKLESS and MOORE (1964) studied 177 
juniors and 236 alumni vf 9 North Eastern Schools for the Deaf and found an 
unemployment rate of 17% (calculated as a percentage over a6 year period) . 
as against a regional estimate of 4-46 for the general population in Conn 0- 
ticut. KRONENBERG and BLAKE' s (1966) complementary study of 193 junior 
and senior students and 685 alumni of Schools for the Deaf in 7 Southern 
States estimated a 25% unemployment rate for deaf adult males in the South 
West (when the rate of unemployment nationally for a comparably aged pop- 
ulation was 1102%). The latter authors 
did recognise the problems in arr- 
iving at such figures due to the 
difficulties in assessing employability 
- 331 - 
and the desire and motivation for work. Diverse sample selection makes 
comparisons even of these two studies possibly misleading. I quote their 
findings to illustrate the gravity of the problem. CONNOR and ROSENSTEIN 
(1963) in -their sample of 177 juniors and former students of New England 
Sohools for the Deaf fould 11% cited problems in obtaining work (although few 
reasons were given)* 
Despite the impossibility of comparing data, the indications are that 
the deaf are differentially penalised, even oompared with other impaired 
groups,. As QUIGLEY (in KRONENBERG and BLAKE, op-oit) oomments of the impli. 
cations for employment of -the deaf wl., ich emerged from these earlier studies: 
Improvement in the outlook for the disab. W in general has not applied 
equally to the deaf' .. Our modalities of rehabilitation of the deaf 
have simply not reached the level of effectiveness as with the hear- 
ing disabled flo 
Much the most comprehensive and reliable data in -the US relating, inter 
alial to unemployment, has been collected as part of a National Census of 
the Deaf Population by SCHEIN and DELK (1974) - the first census of the 
deaf to be conducted there since -the Bureau of Census Study in 1930. Using 
a definition related to the age of onset of hearing lossq its authors 
found that less than 3114c of deaf white males were unemployed in 19T21 oom- 
paring favourably with the national unemployment rate for all males at that 
time (4-9/'0; but that deaf women and non-white deaf males suffered markedly 
wrse, the latter having an unemployment rate "nea3ly five times that of 
white deaf males". 
Even these figures are likely to underrepresent the problems Certain min- 
orities within the deaf minority, and social isolates outside the deaf net- 
work were excluded (BENDERLY, Opecit)- The authors werep nonetheless, 
concerned lest an unnecessarily gloomy picture should emerge, and empha&- 
ised "o. the obverse side of*the coin": namely "The overwhelming majority 
of the prevocationally deaf sample is employed". 
However, the later work of SCHEIN (1978)9 reflecting international 
trends suggested b-v REICH'3 
(1974) samP of 162 alumni of Canadian special 
* This is defined as "those persons who could not hear and understand 
S-peech and who had-los 
(or_never had) that ability prior to 19 years of 
y. ell 
0 
- 332 - 
schools for the deaf, presents a far more disturbing picture. His results 
show: "Labour force participation by deaf people has declined from 65*5 per- 
cent in 1972 to 61*3 per cent in 1977 -. 1111ales dropped from 8003 to 
7498 percent. Females from 50-0 to 47*2 percento These declines are 
contrary to national trends". 
Although unemployment increased nationally during this period, SCHEIN main- 
tains "Deaf males suffered most, with an increase from 594 to 10*2 percent". 
Even these figu-res are regarded as underestimating the true extent of the 
problemp as his sample respondents had a higher average educational achieve- 
ment and income than non-respondents* 
Other individual studies have added further dimensions to the picture. 
A particularly sensitive study of unemployment carried out a decade prior 
to the researoh of SCHEIN and DELK by ADLER (1963) suggested that unemploy- 
ment amongst the deaf was essentially a young man's problem -a factor 
borne out by REICH (op. cit)e ADLER commented. "The reasons for unemploy- 
ment among deaf men are as numerous and diverse as with normal hear- 
ing men; and although not all can be attributed to the handicap of 
deafness alone, deafness is, neverthelessv an uncompromising employ- 
ment control factor that creates problems a hearing man never exper- 
iences". 
The average length of time her admittedly small and severely impaired sam- 
ple were unemployed was 4 years in 59 ie. 80% of their careers* A similar 
study conducted today would doubtless lead to similar findings amongst 
older men* 
English stadies tended to emerge somewhat later 
(pace those of CLARK 
and CROWDEN, 1939; and DREWRY, 1958)l and to focus on the personal, social 
and vocational adjustment of deaf school leavers 
(IINIONTGCMERY, 1967; RODDA, 
1970; the BRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION9 1974; STORERy 1975 - to mention a few), 
They are primarily status studies which examine the conditions of 
the 
deaf in a hearing work environment. Although to some extent 
they suffer 
from similar defects of over-simplification and over-generalisation-as 
their 
American counterpartsq they are less pure descriptive and 
instrumentale 
Attempts are made to locate problems within a 
broader explanatory context, 
Particularly that of oppressive educational philosophies. 
Again, con- 
- 333 - 
centration has focussed largely on the 'prelingually' deaf, until latterly* 
In line with the work of CONNOR and ROSENSTEIN (op, cit) some studies 
have concentrated less on attempting to measure actual unemployment, 
than on the difficulties encountered in obtaining work - in my view a pro- 
gressive step, considering the problems involved* RODDA's rigorous study 
found that those attending special schoolsy for example. were not only less 
likely to take up part-time employment, but "the number obtaining such jobs 
also decreases with increased loss of hearing for speech and for pure 
tones", 
Low vocational aspirations - and concomitant lack of employment, or under- 
employment (itself a form of unemployment) - have been related to the gen- 
erally low expectations of teachers in special schoolsl and the lack of deaf 
teachers to act as role models (MONTGCMERY, 1967) * 
STORER's (1975) study has produced not dissimilar results to-,, those of 
his American contemporaries* Although his sample was small (49 subjects) 
and confined geographically to the West Midlandst he found that the pro- 
portion of his respondents who had experiencedv or were experiencing unem- 
ployment at the time of interview was "high" (16%o of his sample)* 
As indicated earlier, attention has just recently begLm to focus on 
the employmeet difficulties of those with acquired deafness, an hitherto 
neglected group. One might anticipate that unemployment would be less of 
a problem than drops in occupational status as hearing deterioratedl apart 
from those adventitiously deafened who may be unable to continue in a post 
requiring high levels of communication. 
The highly sophisticatedv quantitative study of THOMAS arid HERBST 
(1980) 
of a large sample of 211 hearing impaired subjects who had been issued with 
a hearing aid for the first time between 1970 and 19T, 6 found that . 
f1the hearing impaired are neither more nor less likely to be at work 
than the normally hearing". 
Other studies, such as those of AnMD 
(1974,1975(a), 1975 (b), BIRD 
and TREVAINS, 1978, BEATTIZI 1981, TREVAINS7 1982ý have followed the pattern 
- 334 - 
indicated earlier and focussed more on the difficulties associated with ob- 
taining employment for those with acquired loss. Perceptions of unemploy- 
ment were clearly important in BIRD and TREVAINS' methodologically neat, 
but small pilot study. They concluded of their subjects: "Although their 
handicap did not have any effect on recruitment prospects when apply- 
ing for their present post, many believed it would if they were to 
apply for new jobs". 
TREVAINS' (1982) study of 95 respondents recruited from audiology cli- 
nics, voluntary agencies and personal contacts7 noted that 32: 66 respondents 
who had looked for a job since the onset of their hearing loss reported 
having difficulties, particularly at the application form/interview stagep 
where unpredictability is high and problems Of di solosure/non--di sclo sure 
at their most acute. She concludes: "Comparison between -the accounts of 
current employers' attitudes and prospective employers' attitudes 
suggests that the partially hearing are particularly vulnerable when 
seeking 'new jobs"'* 
Finally BEATTIE's (1981) study of 96 respondents found actual unem- 
ployment to be minimal* As with earlier UK studiesl on the prelingually 
deaf, no direct causal link between personal/sociall commnnication and tech- 
nical skills with occupational adjustment was postulated* She found, how- 
ever,, that her subjects themselves did not relate her more general questions 
she asked to the work situation* But, as she comments: ".. problems and 
difficulties were brought homej not within their families and in 
their leisure activities but at work". 
Employment was a situation which exacerbated feelingB of inadequacy and 
fai lure. 
Although much more conscious of the social context of hearing loss 
and of the perceptions of their respondentsv these UK studies still remain 
located largely within an operational, instrumental framework, more appro- 
priate to the field of social administration than the achievement of a 
broader sociological understanding. 
Some "indication of the increasing extent of the problem of unemployment 
for the hearing impaired may be given by reference to figures released by 
the Manpower Services Commission of the numbers of registered unemployed. 
- 335 - 
However,, the figures must be interpreted with extreme caution* The M. S*C- 
uses a similar typology to that of the Department of Health and Social Seo- 
urity, viz* "Deaf without speech", "Deaf with speech" and "Hard of Hearing". 
No explanation is given to determine by what speoific oriteria the hearing 
impaired are assigned to one or other eategorys Moreover, the figures may 
safely be assumed to grossly under-estimate the extent of the problemg in 
view of the widely acknowledged reluotance to be registered (CEREAVES and 
MASSIE, 1977; ICEWLEq 1977: JORDAN, 1979)4. As a base-linel however, they 
indicate the gravity of the problem. 
The data is further oomplicated as figures for "the hard of hearing" 
were not made available to me for the years 1970-1978p but underlying 
trends may be discerned. 
YEAR REGISTERED LEAF All R*D*P, *s TOTAL UNEKPLOYED , UNEMPLD, (ADULTS) UNEKPLOYED 
1970 878 72,116 606,017 
1971 927 80,172 7229270 
1972 1,096 91,063 929,214 
1973 889 77060 661,197 
1974 731 639375 6469800 
1975 860 65,369 899,700 
1976 11098 75t857 11231t218 
1977 12185 759248 1,335t635 
1978 lt187 709765 lt387t484 
1979 lt006 63,6oo 19279t8O8 
1980 1,115 779933 1,4549662 
1981 lt6-' 
.? U 
lOOt44O 2t426t271 
1982 it872 1139889 29895,871 
The figures for 1979.82 are arrived at by adding figures for the 
"hard of hearing" to those for "Deaf with speeoh" and "Deaf without 
speeoh'19 bringing the total number of registered hearing impaired unem- 
ployed people for these years to: 
Total Registered 
7te gý "Hard 
1979 976 
1980 1,062 
1981 193,58 
1982 1,453 
of heari Deaf Unempld 
11982 
21177 
31016 
3,325 
The upward trend for those olassified as IrDeaf with and without 
speech" is not unexpected in view of the general economic recession, What 
is, perhaps, surprising is a similarly 
high figure for those Olassifiecl 
These figures are reproduced with the kind permission of 
the Manpower 
Services Commission 
- 336 - 
as "hard of hearing1t, given the oontention that few in this group register 
(BEATTIEj opocit). An explanation may lie in BLAXTER's suggestion (. iýn 
BEATTIE) that in times of eoonomic recessiong the lightly and very severely 
impaired have most problems in getting a job - an interesting paradox, but 
one whioh is worth bearing in mind* 
Reviewing -the employment status of all hearing impaired people, the 
more reoeat literature -thus presents the problem of job aegaisition as an 
area of increasing ooncerng partioularly for the prelingually deaf. For 
those with acquired hearing losst the difficulties involved in interview 
management seem to serve as a very effecrtive deterrent to job ohange. The 
implioations of this in oreating an oompationally immobileg inflexible and 
dooile labour foroe are not just oonfined to the hearing impaired. They 
also affect the ý'able-bodied) labour force. Bat the prospect of being for. 
ced, or wishingy to enter the competitive straggle for a diminishing num- 
ber of jobs - from the evidence of these studies - seems to hit the hearing 
impaired population disproprionately harde 
UNDEREKPLOYMENT 
This has been considered a far more emotive issue. SORRENTINO (1981) 
oomments: IlUnemployment is only one measure of under-utilization of the 
labour force, Under-utilization may also take the form of under- 
employment - such as persons in the labour force who work part-time 
.. or persons who must work beneath their skill or educational 
level"* 
As notedv the political implications of underemployment are far more "aco- 
eptable" than are those of unemployment (MONTGamy, j., 1978)o 
However, the whole area bristles with definitional problems& How does 
one measure underemployment? How far is underemployment attributable to 
deafness per sev rather than the lack of qualifications 
(which may, or may 
not be due to hearing impairment), age, or a host of other factors* 
THMAS et al. (1982) found that their follow-up study on those with 
severe aoquired hearing loss was unable to shed any light upon the problem 
of underemployment, precisely because of such 
definitional problems. They 
- 337 - 
comment: "We found it almost impossible to disentangle the mimerous factors 
involved. For example, people can be in a job with inferior status 
because (a) it was genuinely impossible to continue in the favoured 
job because of hearing loss, (b) they did not have the ability to con- 
tinue in the favoured job irrespective of hearing lossq or (o) because 
they had suffered unfair discrimination on the basis of hearing lossif. 
Nevertheless, together with -the lack of promotion prospeets, it is the 
problem most frequently identified in the literature as affecting the hear- 
ing impaired. Its definitional ambiguities seem to have been largely ig- 
nored (STAHLER9 1969; WILLIAKS and SUSSKANq 1971). Thus STAHLER could write: 
"The basic question is how to get the deaf into jobs that are oompa-t- 
ible with their aptitudes, their intelligence, their abilities and 
their real interests"o 
He goes on to arguethat the deaf are generally quickly absorbed into the 
labour market, but often at a level well below their capabilities, "They 
quickly reach a plateau and there they remain'to The result is ".. un- 
deremployment is so prevalent as to become a major problem for most 
deaf people who are capable of and interested in working"* 
And BOYCE WILLIAKS (1981)* could still argue that it is a non-problematio 
oonoept-o Otherwise, only SCHEIN and DEIK (1974) have shown some appreoi. 
ation of -the oomplexities involved. Whilst acknowledging its inadeqnaoies 
as a single criteriong they used educational attainment as a "gross indi. 
oation"o They found "e9almost 43 percent of deaf adults who have completed 
13 years or more of school .. have principal occupations in the foll- 
owing categories: clericall transit and nontransit operatives, farm 
and non-farm laborers,, and service and household workers, Undereal- 
ployment certainly describes many of these job placements, though 
not necessarily all"o 
Cause and effeetv outcome and manifestation are so closely interwoven 
that it would strain the argument to attempt to group the factors related 
to underemployment in any systematic fashion. I have, thereforej simply 
dealt with the issues as they have emerged in the literature under the 
following heads: the insuffioiency of training and re-training opportuni- 
ties; the low level of skill at which many deaf people operate; job dis-- 
satisfaction and the disparity between aspirations, expectations and achie- 
vements; the restricted range of jobs for which the hearing impaired are 
oonidered 'suitable' and the possible role of professionals in oreating 
such a climate; low occupational mobility; and laok of promotion prospects. 
* Visit to Department of Health, Education and Welfarej Washington D. C., 
March 1981 
- 338 - 
(a) Insufficient Training and_Re-training Opportunities 
BOATNER et al (op. cit) point to a substantial body of evidence derived 
from a list of 'vocations' taught in residential. schools for the deaf, 
and argue that ".,. in spite of all the training resources of the school 
/the deaf/ appear to be placed in relatively unremunerative and un- 
challenging occupationsIto 
The unexceptional range of training given - from agriculture, barberingt 
leatherwork, masoyu7y, printing, painting and decorating, sign painting and 
clock repairing is not such as to inspire confidence in deaf potential. 
IfIt is obvious" BOATNER concludes "that these have limited vocational 
application"* 
Similar oonclusions were drawn by LUNDE and BIGMAN's (1959) studY Of 109000 
deaf respondentst and from KRONENBERG AND BLAM's worke 
It is patently a situation which has not materially altered since the 
1930's when CLARK and CROWDEN (1939) compiled a list of occupations in 
which most deaf people were commonly employed - the inference being that 
vooational training duly bore fruit. The trades, with one or two excep- 
tionsv are more or less identical* Only very modest expansion of training 
in such areas as computing or word processing have taken place even 
since the 19601 s. 
The stereotypic image of what 'the deaf' are considered to be capable 
of doing would appear to underlie the whole philosophy of suoh training 
programmes as are available. This is a theme developed by MONTGCKERY 
(19679 1978) and RODDA (1972), and noted by BENDERLY (op-oit). The almost 
universal conclusion for the need to extend vocational training has barely 
materialised, Although, as RODDA points out, efforts are being made in 
the UK at sohools suoh as Oak Lodgeq Donaldsons, Nuffield Priory and Bur. 
wood Park (as my visits to the former two have confirmed), these are but 
the tip of the ioeberg* 
The problemp moreoverl has been described as training for -what? As 
SILVERMAN Lin KRONENBERG and BLAKE) argaes: f, Eduoators are faoed with the 
- 339 - 
perplexing problem of preparing young people for jobs that at the 
time of their sohooling do not yet exist"* 
A prescient remark for 19640 but hardly an insuperable problem. The em- 
phasis isl above allq on training for flezibilitye 
It is to more recent works (PHILLIPS, 1975 (a) and (b) that an indi- 
cation may be found of the self-perpetuating nature of the process. He 
comments: "Because of -the ease in 'training the deaf worker for routine 
jobs, they may continue to be unduly restricted to jobs where the 
training is readily and easily accomplished", 
(b) Reduced Skill Levels 
Integrally related to the body of evidence on reErtricted training 
opportunitiesp particularly within special schools for the deafv and 22d- 
schooling levelsq especially in the UK (MONTGCKERY, 1967), is the reduced 
level of skill at which deaf people tend to be employed, As MONTGKWERY 
(1967) notes ". *the majority of those whose abilities are underemployed 
belong to the partly and wholly unskilled group"* 
BOATNER et alo found that 71% of their sample were to be found 
amongst the semi-skilled and unskilled oocupationsl suggesting that "*. the 
proportion of young deaf males in semi-skilled and unskilled poep- 
itions is double that of the national proportion, and substantially 
higher also among deaf females than among the generally employed 
female population"* 
KRONENBERG and BLAKE's complementary study found 61% of their sample to 
be similarly located "amongst the lower ranked oocupatiOnB"* 
These are comments which echo throughout both the American and British 
literature: ItA heavy conoentration in skilled and semi-skilled oocup- 
ations" (LUNDE and BIWAN); 
"Industrial opportunities are greatest for deaf men who are engaged 
in semi-skilled and unskilled work" (DREWRY, 1958); 
the tendenoy of the deaf to work at "rather routine tradesy involving 
more or less repetitive work" (FURFEY and HARTE, 1964); 
If*-@ a preponderance of respondents are employed in semi-skilled and 
unskilled jobs" (STORER9 1975)e 
lmý 
Fewq if anyq respondents 
in these studies oocupied professionall 
- 340 - 
technical or sales positions, and BOATNER et al. concluded they were un- 
likely to do so. This is a finding supported by OLCMAN (1963P in MONTGCKERYP 
1967) who has commented on: 11 .. the pLtifully small number of placements 
in the professions ". 
There is no reason to supposev howeverg that given training and support, 
the hearing impaired are not capable of achieving much higher levelEi of 
Eacill (SCHEIN, 1968; SCHEIN and DEIK, opocit; CRAMMATTE, 1968)o 
The question which must be borne in mind is the imponderable one: 
the level of employability at higher levels of akill. FURFEY and HARTE 
(opecit)v for exampleg find the concentration of deaf employees at the low. 
er end of the skill spectrum ",. understandable .., if a job involves flexi- 
bility, it also involves the need to understand instruotions'19 
However, to the best of my knowledgel no attempt has been made to in- 
vestigate the potential employability of the deaf given the assistance of 
aid(e)s now statutorily available in the United States. The relativw, suco. 
ess of Gallaudet alumni in broadening the soope and upgrading the skill 
level of jobs the deaf are deemed capable of xttestsp in my view, to the 
role of social and work skill training and work experience. And BENDERLY 
(op, cit) suggests, presoiently for my argument 9 that the suocess of what 
she teims "a small group of prosperous exceptions" is determined craoially 
by "their ability to mediate between the two cultures" (ie. to handle 
both manual and 'standard' oral communication skills)* This has not been 
an issue dealt with by writers in the employment field* 
(c) Job Sat i sfaction/Dissat isf action 
Much of the thrust of research enquiry on employment has focussed on 
the extent to whioh the hearing impaired are seen to be satisfied or dio- 
satisfied with their worke However, as noted by several mithors 
(WILENSKY, 
1967; BIRD and TREVAINS9 op, cit.; TREVAINS9 op*cit), it ir, notoriously 
hard to measure such a concept and to abstract data which is meaningful 
over a wide range of ocoupationso "Satisfaction with work 
has to be con- 
- 341 - 
sidered in relation to individual attitudesq and the extent to whioh 
work gratifies individual needs" (TREVAINS, 1982). 
Howeverg as with the overall problem of underemploymentv the complexities 
of the issue have largely been ignored in the literaturet which explains 
much of the inconsistency in the findings, 
BOATNER et alo found that although most of their subjeots reported 
they were satisfied with their present job ".. most , in fact I aspire to 
jobs requiring greater skill". 
KRONENBERG and BLAKE's study indioated that whilst similar frustrations 
existed, the discrepanoy-between aspirations and aohievements was less 
marked, particularly amongst womenv and that ".. most deaf employees were 
well satisfied with their present employment". 
It would indicate that women are doubly disadvantaged: by their impairment 
and by their sex. Thus equivalence of aspirations and achievements - at 
a low level - might not be uncommon. A disinclination to aspire to #sun- 
uerual" occupattions was also manifestj wi-th a corresponding tendency to 
favour the traditional occupations followed by the deaf* Aspirations app- 
eared -to be firmly related to training courses given at schools for the 
deafq and jobs deaf respondents knew other deaf people had filled in the 
past 9 
A slight variation occurred amongst ROSENSTEIN and LERMAN's 
(1963) 
sample of 177 ex-pupils of Lexington Sohool for the Deaf I in that job diE; --- 
satisfaction was greatest amongst the skilled and the un-skillede The 
semi-skilled appeared relatively content with their lot* 
Some explanation for this phenomenon may, perhaps, be seen in the 
much more presoient analys0s of BIRD and TREVAINS9 and TREVAINS of those 
with acquired hearing loss* Their findings were oontrary to fairly well 
established trends amongst the hearing population, where levels of job 
satisfaction are highest amongst professional and teohnical staff I and 
lowest amongst clerioal workers* A muoh smalleproportion of 
hearing imý- 
paired employees of professional and managerial status 
felt satisfied with 
their -Dositionst oompared with a muoh 
larger proportion of those in 
- 342 - 
skilled or unskilled work. They speculate that those in higher positions 
are liable to experience greater frustrations in fulfilling their expect- 
ations of work. Those on the lower echelons of the career ladder tend to 
be more grateful - and correspondingly more satisfied - beouase they have 
a job at all* In other words, impairment very suocessfully depresses 
expectations* What is ignored in this part of their analysist howevert is 
any discussion of the possibility that it is the way impaizuent is eval- 
uated in our society which might lead to such a chain of reactionsp rather 
than simPlY fOOussing, by implioationg on an individaal Pathology model 
of impaiment., 
It must be borne in mind that the above oonjeotures were made of 
those with acquired deafness. For the 'prelinguallyl deaf, UK evidenceg 
although over-simplified, is not, however, dissimilar, Although gender 
differenoes emerged from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DW's Irish 
StudY (1970), in that men tended to have a more favourable attitude to. 
wards their employment than women, possibly the time gap between this stu- 
d, r, and that of KRONENBERG and BLAKE has allowed womeng even in Irelandq 
to raise their aspirations slightly? Boredom and dirt were among -the 
ohief reasons mentioned as I dissatisfiers' * 
Boredom is a recurrent themev as evidenoed by STORER. The sheer re- 
petitiveness of some jobs was responsible largely for the levels of job 
dissatisfaction (in 58% of jobs hel4)found in his sample, And DREWRTI s 
earlier study had indioated "*. an indifferenoe and laok of enthusiasm 
is shown by a number of deaf adolesoents about their jobs"o 
This is in line with 'nOralall hearing expectations: that those with low 
skill and status levels would feel most disoontented* 
In the 3 other major studies of those with aoquired hearing loss, 
findings revealed an increased appreciation of the complexities of the 
question. THCKAS and HERBST found generally that "e*the hearing impaired 
were significantly less happy at work than the normally hearing; 
/and/ although not an economic problem insofar as it does not seem 
to cause unemploymentt deafness seems to 
lower the quality of work. 
- 343 - 
ing life* It is this sense of personal unhappiness, without major 
crises, that typifies the pervasive effects of acquired deafness"a 
And TREVAINSI, in her Igest work (1982) oonoluded: "Hearing loss often 
appeared to have a major part to play in determining the level of job 
satisfaction - sometimes in surprising ways o. the ability to retain 
a job, and in some oases to hide one's hearing loss, were goals in 
themselves, and fulfilment of them enough to guarantee job satis. - 
faction'le 
It is a plausible hypothesis. 
Generally, howeverg I suggest -the usefulness of trying to aohieve a 
ibeasure* of job-satisfaction has been over-rated. It is likely that most 
employees are extremely selective in rating their overall job satisfaction 
(or lack of it) 9 and reluctant to give contrary amplificatory detail where 
this would appear to detract from the credibility of their initial response. 
Or oonceivably, partial answers may be a funotion of anxiety, lest Igrum- 
bles' might leak baok to their employers, whatever the reassuranoes about 
oonfidentiality. WILENSKY' s (1967) more plausible suggestion - that to 
achit to a dislike of one's work is tantamount to an admission of personal 
failureq given that the work one does is an indispensable part of the way 
sooiety evaluates one as a person - has not found its way into the oorpus 
of 'knowledge' about -the hearing impaired. 
( d) The Range of JobB - and the Role of Professionals 
It is difficult to ascertain whether or not the professions concerned 
with the provision of information and guidance about careers - princip- 
ally teachers, careers officers, DROsp and social workers for -the deaf - 
have Irealistiol expeotations about their olienteleg or whether they are 
as muoh viotims of the generally held cultural stereotypes about the deaf 
person's 'incompetence' as many hearing people; the result being that job 
Placement tends to become routinised at the lowest common denominator. 
The few indications from the literature tend to support the latter con- 
tention. If this is so, it constitutes a particularly pernicious manif. 
estation of underemploymentg but one whose implications have remained 
largely unpxplored. 
- 344 - 
There is some historical evidence which gives credence to such a 
stance., (MITCHELL, S., 1971) She quotes the advice given to the deaf by 
onep Samuel Porter (in Amerioan Annals of the Deaf, July 1858)e He caut. - 
ioned the deaf " -a. from seeking to intrude themselves into situations for 
which they are naturally unfitted .. the deaf man will do well to 
submit as gracefully as he cang and with a quiet resignation, to the 
will of Providence; thankfully availing himself of such oompen- 
sations in his power 
Generally, in her incisive analysis of the economic status of the deaf in 
the 19th oentury, she oomments "deaf adults were told to keep their sights 
low and to aocept the subordinate role prepared for them". 
To the extent that the old values are perpetuated in today's currency 
of thought eomes from statements made, for example by RODDA Lin monmmy, 
1967): It You are told so often -that, the best job for you is a typist that 
eventually you believe this "s 
On the other side of the Atlantiol an attitude of benevolent pater- 
nalism was suggested by CONNOR and ROSENSTEIN (opocit)p whose hearing im- 
paired graduates from Lexingtong despite their abilityg gravitated into 
jobs which were considered to place little demand. on their oapabilitiese 
The authors suggest that the deaf are t aught, to want to work for employ- 
ers rather than run their own businesses, or do 'creative' work. At mostg 
they are taught ".. to attain a saleable skill at a semi-technioal or 
skilled level"* 
KRONENBERG and BLAKE have commentedl too, that "It is apparent that 
many individuals and agencies are content to 'just get a job' for 
'the deaf 11 g 
thus ensuring that the deaf operate at the lower end of the skill market. 
It is indeed open to specrulation how far any choice is in fact pre. 
empted by the lack of oocupational information traditionally given by 
placement officers, stereotypio images by professional careers advisers 
as to what 'the deaf' are capable of; "the prevailing social norms which 
surround the hearing impaired" 
(RODDAj op*oit); 
Orp as MONTGCKERY additionally suggests, the well-established preferenee 
of the profoundly prelinguallY deaf for ",. the conoretel short-term re- 
ward rather than the more abstract or distant reward" 
(1967)o 
(Even this latter is a socially conditioned response, and not necessarily 
ý 345 - 
part of the lpsychio apparatus'of the deaf)* 
Evidence from the literature of the restricted range of job OpPortu- 
nities is almost unequivocal, It was commented on as early as 1958 by 
DREWRY as particularly affecting the more able deaf: 110. -there is not much 
encouragement for the deaf to enter other avenues of ejaployment 
than the traditional orafts like boot repairing and joinering in 
which the initial experience was sometimes gained in the handicraft 
classes at sohool'14, 
And LEHMAN and GUILFOYLE (1970) argue of the British scene: "e. at all 
ages deaf subjects choose jobs at lower sooio-economio levels than 
do their hearing siblings, and that they tend to cluster at the semi- 
skilled and unskilled levels", 
Nearly 20 years after 'the early work of DREWRY, STORER indicated 
that in -the Wolverhampton area where he oondacted his survey, the range of 
jobs was virtually unlimited ".. but -the hearing impaired and their imm- 
ediate relatives appeared to have but rudimentary knowledge of the 
possibilities"* 
It is in this area that any approximation to an understanding of the 
potentially damaging effects of professionals as official labellers or 
agents of sooial oontrol emerges in the literature., One is tantalisingly 
beckoned by the rich possibilities for exploration and analy, 13is, only to 
be rebuffed as the isEme is shelved. Thus RODDA (opocit) oontends that 
schools bear a heavy responsibility in presenting possibly restrioted car. 
eers information and advice to their oharges* He oomments with some sur- 
prise at ",. the persistency wi-L whioh the beliefs about the mental infer- 
iority of the deaf and hearing-impaired oontinue to be held. even b. 7 
professionals". (my italso) 
The issuev howeverp was evidently too hot to handle* The argument is 
not pursued* 
Yet Judv DODD (1977) in a'trustratingly brief article attests to the 
pervasive influence of stereotypic notions about what the deaf can and 
owmot - or should not - do. She argues persuasively that deaf workers 
are so often found in low-paid, low-status, dead-end jobs preoisely beo- 
ause of the effeots of "self-seleotion and aspiration on traditional 
stereotyped notions of what deaf men and deaf women oan do"o 
Deafness, like genderv is regarded by sooiety as a haadioaP to holding 
ý 346 - 
certain jobs. 
Nevertneless, MONTGOMERY (1967,19789 1981) has been one of the most 
outE; poken and polemical writers on the subject. He contends, for instance, 
that %. under the paternal cloak of the disablement register .. many aco. 
ept work for which they are not particularly suited o. under the con- 
viotion that any job is better than none". 
Vex7 pertinentlyp he queBtiOnS the lack of deaf teachers in deaf schools, 
an obvious but untapped resource, which could provide very effective role 
models for pupils. Nothing more eloquently testifies to the double stand- 
ards of oralist teachers of the deaf. As MONTGOMERY has argued, whilst 
the impressic, n is given that pupils are generally thought of quite highly 
as pupils, this regard does not extend into the world of workv where they 
tend to be relegated to inferior eoonomic status. The implioations oould 
hardly be more stark: if their orally taught deaf protegees are oonsidered 
to be such a success, wby the reluctance to employ them as teachers? 
Unfortunately, the exhilerating possibilities opened up by 
DODD and MONTGOMERY for further research and exploration haveg to the best 
of my knowledgeg remained untapped. I can only refer -the reader to my argw- 
uments at the beginning of this chap-ter regarding possible reasons for 
the lack of exploration of such a rich , mource of 
ideas* 
The more recent studies of PHILLIPS (op. cit), and DE CAR09 EVANS and 
DOWALIBY (1980) continue -the fact and figure orientation towards the 
issue of restricted job opportunitieso 
PHILLIPS cited 515 "speciffic and distinct" career openings for the 
deaf, includingg significantly, professional, technical and managerial 
Posts. But opportunities actually available, he found, were far more like- 
ly to occur in work oriented towards data and things rather than people. 
The inherent weakness of suoh data, however, will readily be apparent* 
questionnaire-type approachq sampling reBpeCtiVely 128 firms and 
busi- 
neBses, 125 trade associations and 26 institutions of higher education 
- 347 - 
however oomprehensively surveyedg suffers from the defects of all attitude 
surveys mentioned at the beginning of this Review. The fact that his data 
revealed many negative attitudes simply highlights the real gravity of the 
problem, 
DE CARO et al (op. cit) assessed the attitudes regarding advising sim- 
ilarly qualified deaf and hearing persons training for 14 different oooup- 
ations, and found "significant differences in the expressed advice to hear- 
ing and deaf persons"t 
(although the attitudes of these significant others apparently showed no 
difference). The authors are careful to point out that whilst there are 
occupations which the deaf could not reasonably train for at the moment, 
there was no way of establishing whether they oould train for suoh jobst 
given the structure of the British school system, 
Thusq if a diverse range of jobs for the deaf exists and is identified 
as being suitable for the hearing impaired, why iB it not being exploited? 
This is a question which begs for some systematic analysis - as yet un. 
addressed in the literature beyond the assertions quoted above, precisely 
because, I suggest, the theoretical apparatus with which to undertake 
such a study has not been perceived as I relevant I. 
Another factor integrally related to the previous variables identified 
is that of 
(a) Low Occupational Mobilit 
Carol REICH (1974)v for examplel has commented thatq compared to the 
hearing population, her deaf sample remained relatively stationary (as an- 
alysed by movement from first to current job) "One would expect some 
movement"t 
she notes* 
This is a factor mentioned by most of the authors cited to date. 
CRMMATTE's (op. oit) study of 100 "profoundly or severely deaf'# profession. 
als also pointed to the "Occupational stabilitytt of his sample, but this 
- 348 - 
is perhaps more in keeping with expectations. Being already trained to do 
professional tasks, they are less likely to be mobile between jobs than 
other groapse 
However, for occupational groups in skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled 
trades, the evidence of low occupational mobility of deaf employees is 
profoundly disturbingg when flexibility and change are essential prerequis- 
for adaptation to a rapidly ohanging work envitoment*. The inferenees 
to be drawn are: 
That the hearing impaired are oontent and satisfied with-their job 
prospects, I have suggested that although some of the literature does in- 
dioate a degree of oontentment, the over-simplified approaoh traditionally 
adopted masks other underlying problems* 
(b) It is indioative of a docile labour force too afraid of risking un- 
employment by moving. 
(c) It reflects the lack of appropriate training and re-training oppor- 
tunities. 
(d) Converselyl greater mobility might indioate an inability to hold 
down a job. 
The literature largely fails to draw out suoh implicationsl apart 
from the comments of GELIZAN (1965) and STORER (opecit)* As a manifest. 
ation of underemploymentq I agree with STORER that it is a partioularly un- 
healthy signe It is significant that it was his Hearing Class I subjects 
(ie* those least impaired) who exhibited the least 'stable' oooupational 
behaviour; whilst those most severely impaired were most I stable' a This 
is not, however, a finding altogether oonsistent with the indioations 
revealed by the more in-depth questioning of my researoh. 
For those with aoquired hearing lossv little mention has been made 
of this issue* BEATTIE (OP-Cit) simply oomments that it is probable that 
many of her sample are likely to have stayed in the same job for many 
Years #'as a result of hearing loss". 
(The connection is not quite so dir- 
ý 349 - 
eo+. )* It might be argued for both groups thatt as with skill level and 
job satisfactiong 10cation at either extreme of the severity oontinuum 
could equally militate against occupational change* 
GELMAN (op, cit) had the prescience to see, even in 1965t that "eoon- 
omic security will be predicated upon the ability to change ocoup- 
ations and to use continuing education to acquire techniques and ab- 
straot conceptions necessary for adapting to a more complex and var- 
iable occupational model'* 
The occupational immobility of the deafl particularly those educated in 
special schools, is reflected in their sooio-oultural immobilitye "To be 
changeable is to become insecurett 
GELIXAN comments, Insecurity - and change - are often viewed negatively 
by the highly protective institutions for the deaf 4. Yet change is vital to 
the eoonomio ma-vival of the hearing impairede 
(f) Promotion Prospects 
The evidence from the literature on the lack of promotion prospects 
appears to oonfirm the depressed oocupational status of many deaf employeese 
But it does not answer with any degree of reliability whether denial of 
promotion is due to deafness per seo Earlier studies simply assumed that 
it was, The frequency with which the hearing impaired are doaumented as 
being passed over for promotion is? howeverl very suggestive, It is some. 
thing which is commented on with almost unanimous agreement in the liter- 
atureq particularly with regard to the prelingually deaf* 
The need to distinguish between promotion whieh involves a shift-to 
another agenoy; and Itoareer ladder promotion" within the same agenoy (SCHEIN, 
DEIK, and HOMM, 1980) is not one reoognised by earlier writers. Yet it 
is an important distinction, involving both "the traditional barrier to 
supervisory posts" and "the lack of awareness of career ladders and 
advancement of posts outside of the agency" (SCHEIN et. all 1980)o 
Both oritioally involve oommunication skills - partioularly the ability to 
be kept in touoh with -what is going on, In their study, SCHEIN et al* 
found that of 4 non-promoted workers in their present job, 3 had been there 
only a short while; whilst 5 other deaf workers reported at 
least one 
1-04A-- mWil thom -nnsition is possibly shifting marginally, Oarew- 
- 350 - 
nowe Reference to earlier studies indicates a bleaker picture* 
ICRON'RIBERG and BLAKE: oommented: "Even with additional training, voo- 
ational opportunities under the same employer remain limited or 
negligible for many employees" - 
a conclusion shared by BOATNER et alIB complementary studyg And DREWRys 
UK study had concluded: "Most male adolescents rate their promotion pro- 
spects low". 
He found that most firms he approached were reluctant to take on bright 
deaf youngsters in the higher range of occupations. 
CONNOR and ROSENSTEIN (op, cit) point to a lack of confidence the 
hearing impaired suffer, where self-confidence is "inherent in moving up- 
wards in job situations" 
-a -theme which is highlighted by the much later findings of BIRD and 
TREVAINS. A life-time's experience of negative evaluations of one's cap- 
abilities. is hardly conducive to the development of heightened self-esteem* 
Carol REICH (op. cit) found only 3% of her sample in a supervisory position, 
"providing further indication of the limited opportunities that 
the deaf enjoy for advancement"* 
Dissatisfaction with chances for promotion was a factor identified 
as early as 1958 in UJNDE and BIGKAN's study* More recently, a study 
carried out by BOWEj DEIX and SCHEIN (1973), investigating allegations 
of discrimination on this score, found 174 deaf subjects claimed to have 
suffered discrimination by their employers, 105 involving Federal agencies* 
Of complaints identified, lack of promotion prospects figured prominently 
in the experiences of blue-collar workers. The authors comment: "Typic>- 
ally, these persons were informed that they could not be promoted 
because 'deaf people cannot handle jobs requiring verbal contact"'. 
Of white-collar Federal employeest 7: 19 complained of being passed over 
for promotion. 
Strangely, it was not a factor dealt with other than fairly perfuno- 
torily in SCHEIN and DELK's N'. C. D. P. BtUdy (1974)o Reference waB made 
briefly to the fact that there were some deaf doctors, lawyers and dent. 
ists. "That there are even a few succesFiful deaf persons in these profess- 
ions 
- 351 - 
demonstrates that s-ach employment is feasible" 
was the only comment made. 
'Feasible perhaps. But does it often materialise? Evidence from 
PHILLIPS' survey (op. cit) suggests that '#**communication problems with other 
workers were often cited as the basic reasons for non promotion to 
supervisory or managerial positions"* 
And even for those "rare achievers'19 CRAMMATTE (op-oit) noted that further 
promotion for the deaf professional is often blooked by Communication diffi. 
culties, The faot that, to the best of my knowledge, 'this is the only 
study of professional employment of the deaf in the literature isq in itselft 
significant, * However, what is so critically absent is any assessment of 
the way in whioh loommuniowbion difficulties' are evaluated by those in a 
position to offer promotion. The implicit assumption herej as with other 
studiesl is that oommunication difficulties simply present praotioal ob- 
staoles to the achievement. of such economic goals* The taken-for-granted 
nature of this assumption is rarely questionede 
CRAMMATTE comments for example: "deaf professional workers are anom- 
alous becauE; e -they are handicapped in communication but yet are making 
their careers in occupations which require more than a little oommuni- 
cationg dealing as they do with ideas and people rather than with 
tools and raw materials only"* 
He notes that a fair proportion of even this "privileged" group are em- 
ployed giving services to the deaf - "laudable occupations but not partio- 
ularly challenging in a professional sense'19 
as he commentB with some aoerbity. But the analysis does not extend be- 
yond thi so 
Promotion within the firm for this group of deaf workers was very 
much a function of terrure of service .. "all but two of -the nineteen respond- 
ents with administrative responsibilities had served ten or more 
years with one firm"* 
Of the 24 respondents whose service had exceeded 20 years, 12 had been giv- 
en administrative responsibilityo Not that devotion to a single employer 
always paid off., Howeverp CRAMMATTIE concluded that deaf employees gener- 
ally fared better as regards further promotion if they remained within 
the 
same firm* 
- 352 - 
(Interestingly, by way of digressiong one small piece of mythology 
concerning the limited, if not minimal linguistic skills and hence 'auto- 
majdc' disqualification from economic participation is dispelled in CRAMTTE's 
study, vide the large number of deaf born and early deafened subjeats who 
appeared in the professional group he investigated. Were they all those 
"rare oral successes" of CONRAD (op. cit) one is tempted to ask? It is 
also aldiscrepanoyt intriguingly mentioned, and tantalisingly left unex- 
plored by SCIMN and DELK (1974) who found that "born-deaf workers held 
proportionally more higher-grade jobs than those who lost their 
hearing after birth but before age 3") -P 
Fbr those with acquired deafness, one would anticipate that obstacles 
to advancement might constitute the most intractable problem of all: for 
those already in professional positionsl retaining them in the face of 
possibly deteriorating hearing; for those yet to ascend the scale, find- 
ing the paths to advancement blooked. 
Howeverl HERBST and THOMAS (op. cit) conclude, somewhat surprisingly: 
11.9 Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the hearing impaired 
feel that their prospects of promotion or change differ significantly 
from those of the normally hearing", 
As details are not available a---- the time of writing to assess how such a 
conclusion was arrived atj I mention it as apparently discrepant infor- 
mation which deserves further explication* 
BIRD and TREVAINS' findings are much more in line with expectations 
on this score* Howeverg it appeared to be a sense of diminished self-con- 
fidence (referred to earlier), as much as 'objective' communication de- 
ficiencies which were responsible for a reluctance on the part of their 
subjeots to a]2plv for promotion. And 18 of their respondents had not been 
Promoted since being taken on by their present employer. As they note: 
"In some cases, this was simply because there was 'nowhere to be pro- 
moted to'* Others feltj however, that their hearing impairment had 
affected their self--oonfidence so much that they were reluctant to 
be considered for promotion" - 
a finding confirmed by TREVAINS' subsequent study. 
79 THE BUSINESS OF ACTUALLY ITINDING A JOB 
- 353- 
The business of searching the papersp visitsto Job Centres and DROs, 
following up contacts, the completion of application forms, andq critically, 
the interview itselft have been somewhat cursorily dealt with in the lit- 
erature, Suoh information as exists is of a general naturep oovering all 
those handicapped by a communication impairment., Yet the rich possibilities 
for extending the analysis to include the hearing impaired have escaped 
the attention of previous researchers., And what actually goes on in the in- 
terview situation between a hearing impaired applicant and a prospective 
employer is an area which merits direct observation* 
Otherwise, a few studies have oommented on the source of help most 
commonly solicited by the deaf in their search for jobs - principally the 
need for help in oompleting forms, and having an interoessor to help at 
interviews. (The possibler disadvantages of this have, as far as I am awaret 
only been addressed by CRAIG and SILVER, 1966). Oooasionally, the mode of 
coaummication used is mentionedg againg however, negleo-ting to analyse 
the sooial oonsequences of laok of oompetenoe in 'standard' English in 
this cruoial assessment situation* 
Thus FMCH (1974) found most sources of help were informal, friends 
and deaf agencies being approached most often. Other sources of help were 
found to be relatively unimportant. 85% of her applicantB were acoompanied 
i 
by a friend or relative on their first job interview, deolining to 64% 
in their ourrent job interview. She oonoluded: "Thus the deaf appear to be 
very dependent for helpin obtaining a job" - 
a finding supported by ADLER' s (1963) earlier studye She had found that 
newspaper advertisements were geared to 7th or 8th grade reading, Many 
prelingually deaf read at, 4th or 5th gradesp or lower 
(the English equiv- 
alent being a reading age of approximatelv 7/8)* 
Similar findings regarding the souroe, of help were made by BOATNERet 
al. I and KRONENBERG and 
BI, 9 Over half of BOATNER et, al's respondents 
found employment via relatives and friends. The "public employment agencies" 
were used by only 13% of their sample. An even 
lower proportiong 3%9 
- 354 - 
used the statutory services in KRONENBERG and BLAKE's STUDY. A similar 
laok of oonfidence is shown in the UK literature regarding the use of the 
DRO (DREWRY)* Generallyp few hearing impaired find their jobs independently. 
Yet little attempt has been made to try and establish whyt and the subse- 
quent effects of this on interview succesm(or otherwise)e 
Even for professional workersl CRAMMATTE found that relatives and 
friends played an instrumental role in the initial job-seeking prooesst 
for the 64% of his sample who wanted assistance. He concludes that "Some 
sort of catalyst is necessary to trigger a favourable reaction to the 
prospect of employing a deaf person"* 
Unlike CRAIG and SILVER-(op, oit) who oonsidered that the praotioe of aoo,. 
ompanying deaf job applicants to an interview adversely affected their 
"self-Emffioienoy image"t CRAMKATTE oonsidered the intervention of a third 
party invaluable., "It is only logical", he comments "oe to assume that 
encomiums on the qualifications of an applicant are more readily be- 
lieve&-Iwhen they come from a third party"o 
(My own findings suggest that -the merits of reliance on a third party are 
at least debat able )o 
The interview situation itself has been dealt with more thoughtfully 
by other writers as a particularly problematic exeroise in interaction man- 
agement for those with oommunioation handioaps generally* The orux of the qz; p- 
matter is the emphasis Western cultural institutions place on a highly 
stylised oral interviewq together with the inoreasing tendenoy to supple- 
ment this with a battery of verbally leaded tests demanding language skills 
whioh deaf people do not always possess. Thus LEKERT 
(1951) found in his 
investigation of stutterers that their search for employment was "freq- 
uently complicated by the more formalized employment procedures in 
urban communities 9. the prospective worker is judged almost entirely 
upon the basis of this limitedl segmental contact, largely verbal 
in nature"* 
As LEKERT fully realisedl deviations from skill in the use of such 
stylised communicative performance are generally heavily sanctioned 
in 
our aohievement-oriented culture* Similarly MOARM, 
WAHL and DOOLAN (1978) 
oonoluded that male lisping is so negatively evaluated by other adults 
- 355 - 
that ".. there is a possibility that lisping could seriously jeopardise 
one's employment or social opportunities". 
The interview was e; ingled out for speoial mention* 
Such an in-teractionist perspective has been conspicuously absent from 
the few references whicht to the best of my knowledge, exist oonoerning 
impression management at interviews by 'the hearing impaired. Yet the in- 
terview situxtion provides a venue par ezeellenee for the applioa-bion of 
suoh a perspective* The few references I have found remain firmly Idesorip- 
tivelq suoh as that of ADLER, referred to in the text* 
One of the few references to the mode of communication used in -the in- 
terview by the prelingually deaf is made by REICH and REICH (1976), in 
their follow-up study of 162 abimmi of 2 Canadian special schools. From 
self-report analyses, they found : 11%ore people used speeoh in their most 
recent interviews than in the first interview"q 
but even this figure only amounted to 50% of their sample* 30% oommunio- 
ated by writingg 3% by manual communioation (by whioh I assume the authors 
mean gesture 9 few employers being proficient in sign language) , and 17% 
had no form of oommunication. Brief mentiow only of the poor impression 
made by4lthe less literate deaf" has been made by WELL (1962) o 
BLOCK (1968) comments on how he conceives of the difficulties: ".. deaf- 
ness is unique among handicaps in that it is the major one which re- 
tards free communication between an appointing officer and appli- 
cant. The attitude of an appointing officer (even one with the best 
will) towards a deaf person, therefore, cannot help but be coloured 
by whatever initial diffioulties he has in interviewing a deaf per- 
son for a job. He is likely to be unfavorably impressed if the in. - 
terview is made more difficult and awkward because of the failure 
of the appointing officer and the applicant to understand one another'$. 
The implications in terms of the negative sanotions ascribed to deficient 
oommunicative perfomance and the unease this generates, between prospeo- 
tive employer and hearing impaired applicant are not taokleds 
It is, perhapop the oontinuous insistenee on the uniqueness of hear- 
ing impairment - particularly the signing prelingually 
impaired - which 
has been a powerful factor in limiting the scope and 
breadth of analvoiso 
Analories with other communicatively handicapped people seem -to 
have been 
- 356 - 
studiously ignoredq thereby discouraging receptivity to alternative per- 
13pectives. 
Much the most sophisticated reference of its kind I was able to find 
is that of CELIxAN (op-cit). Looking at the ManY factors militating ag. 
ainst the prelingually deaf obtaining employment, he argues that failure is 
related to the lack of possession of the kind of "vocational persona con. 
sonant with occupational stereotypes, acting and looking like the sort 
of person who can fill the requirements of the job sought"* 
Farther disadvantages are related to the restricted sooialisation of 
the profoundly prelingually deaf , which prevents free movement among the 
wider community, tapping its resources and following up contacts which 
might lead to a job, They particularly miss out on access to leads which, 
if acted on promptly, might result in a job. Even in casual workg where 
there are few preliminaries and selection is generally on a first-come. 
first-served basis, it is a further instanoel CMIIXAN arguesq of the way 
in which communication deprivation maydisadvantage the hearing impaired in 
the business of finding a job* There analysis rests, 
COKMUNICATION 
As noted in Chapter 39 although hear; ing impairment is oonstantly re- 
ferred to ag aI disorder of oommunication' 9 the implioations of being judged 
oommunioatively inoompetent , and thus departing from the normative ex- 
pectations people tend to have of smoothness of interactiong have been 
largely ignored in the literature (pace -the descriptive and pragmatio 
studies of CRAMMATTE, PHILLIPS and BIRD and TREVAINS already referred to). 
The implications of deviating from I standard' speech and linguistic com- 
petence in the oompetitive and exposed work of work have been soaroel3r 
acknowledged, with the exception of CISLIXAN who identifies the need to 
maintain aoceptable working relationships as paramount in job retention. 
Yet I communication difficulties' have been variously identified as 
one of the chief sources of complaint in employing deaf workers 
(BOATNER 
et al., KRONENBERG and BLAKE) I although, interestingly, 'the problems were 
- 357 - 
not considered insurmountable. Otherwisev studies have concentrated on in- 
vestigating -the modes of communioation used at workl again without attempting 
to pursue -the implications of the meanings attributed bycthers to defective 
co=unicative performance in the work setting. 
Thus the findings of UJNDE and BICKAN9 ROSENSTEIN and LERMAN9 BOATNER 
et al, v and KRONENBERG and BLAKE are broadly in agreement about self-repor- 
ted modes of communication. About one-third of all deaf employed surveyed 
in these studies report the use of speeoh for their job-related communio. 
ations; and two-thirds use varying oombinations of speeohy writingg manual 
oom=nioation or gesture* 
ROSENSTEIN and LEHMAN suggested that the mode of communication would 
vary with the subject matter. They found increased use of speech and writ- 
ing, in job-related matters, as opposed to that used in social communication., 
It is hardly a surprising conclusion. As few hearing people know sign lan- 
guage, it is reasonable to expect that speech and writing should increase 
in work situations, where I wtandard' means of oommunication are the norm., 
The value of participant observation in the workplace, although pos- 
ing severe ethical problems for studying those hearing impaired who are en. 
gaged in trying to 'pass'q is nevertheless a salutary antidote to some of 
the above assertions* PRINCE (1967) found signifioant discrepanoies bet- 
ween self-reported communication patterns and those aotually observed 
being used at work. 
He has demonstrated how the use of gesture is underestimated (as re. 
ported) and that of writing over-estimated (as observed)* He concluded: 
".. though reading and writing skills may be important to the deaf 
adult in acquiring concepts and informationg they are not used ex- 
tensively for communication purposes in a work setting"o 
(This is in line with my own understanding of the crLioial importance of 
speech performance at work9 and what happens to those who are 
deficient 
in this regard* Moreoverg the cumbersomeq time-consuming, 
if not alienating 
effects of recourse to writing have already been suggested 
in the text)* 
- 358 - 
The mode of communication also varies with circumstance. SCHEIN and 
DELK (opeoit) analysed oommunication patterns aooording to whom they were 
directed. Not unpredietablyl they found that with supervisors "a deaf per- 
son speaks about as often as he writes'19 
with the supervisor replying in the same mode* Oral modes were also found 
to predominate in communication with work oolleagues, unless the latter 
are deaf too, in which case manual communication predominates* 
Participant observation apart, STORER has, perhapsl tackled the ques- 
tion of communication patterns used at work with the most sophistication, 
comparing and contrasting, for examplel modes used at work with those used 
at home with friends and family, His least impaired respondents used, as 
predicted "predominarrtly oral means for talkingg andl if appropriate, 
giving instructions at work". 
Those with greater communicatiom. handicaps generally oombined oral with 
graphic and kinesic modes. 
The disparity between this pattern and preferred patterns of oommuni. 
cation used at home was apparent. STOIRER concludes that ",. respondents 
were prepared to use partly oral means of communication when among 
workmates and colleagues even if they did not with close relatives 
and friends"s 
And confirming an earlier finding of DREWRY, he found women more adept at 
oral communioation than men* 
What does emerge from this restricted data is that in the hearing 
world of workv most hearing impaired employees attempt to adapt their comm- 
unication, to the majority expectations. Recourse to other modes is only 
used when expreSBive and reoeptive oommunication skills are inadequate for 
the task in hand. And as with most minority languages, the use of sign 
is usually held in abeyanoe in oonfronting those using the dominant maj. 
ority language. Regretfullyq I can see no place in the work setting jLen- 
erally for the adoption of sign languagee These patterned adaptations to 
hearing norms-, would appear to apply across the whole spectrum of hearing 
impairment - again a factor which has been largely ignored in the employ- 
ment literature. 
- 359 - 
If a direct relationship between mode of communication actually used, 
its efficaoy, and employment Isuocess' is postulatedg this would suggest 
that 'the emphasis placed by MONTGCKERY and MILLER (1977) . (and discussed 
in the text) on comprehension of written English rather than effective 
speech performance as the crucial theme . is somewhat misplaced* It may 
well be that in the higher eohelons of employmentq comprehen ion of written 
English may make a orticial differenoe between suacess and failure, Againg 
for those hearing impaired totally deficient in speech, whose onj means of 
communioation is via writing, literaoy mV m. *e the dirferenoe between 
failure and total and utter defilement* It is only in these two senses 
that I agree with the above aa-thors' stress on the importanoe, of ftmotional 
literacy-* It is lack of oral oommmioation - and hence incompetent speech 
performance - which is the fandamental inhibiting tkes&. at work at present. 
The work of STUCKLESS (1975) would perhaps lend supportto such a oon- 
tentione Although his sample of 332, subjeots were hearingg his findings 
have some quite positive implications for some hearing impaired workers* 
He found 83% of a subject's communication involved speaking and listening 
face-to-faoe, phoning and intercom communication taking up 12% of inter- 
action timej and reading and writing only 2% of a person's normal working 
oommini cation time. Furthermore q he found "By a considerable margin 
(78 
percent) communication took place on a one-, to-one basis rather -than 
in groups" ... and "most of the oomdunioation was with 
follow-employ- 
ees (65 percent) of which most was with fellow employees in the same 
As a generalised guide his findings are instructive., However, for 
those whose ooaummication Wcills depart too grossly from expecrtational the 
face-to-face nat=e of muoh work interaction has slightly ominous impli. 
cations - borne out my my research findings* And obviously, 
for profess- 
ional and managerial positions, the patterns he observed are likely to 
be different, the emphasis being on more group communication, contacts with 
People outside the immediate department, and stress on telephone management. 
The few brief references to intelligibility of communication at work 
.- 36o - 
have been made by LUNDE and BIGMANj and ROSENSTEIN and LERMAN, but oompar- 
ability of data is impossible due to the reasons stated earlier. The former, 
for exampleg asked their subjects to rate their ability to understand others 
(but not the reverse question). 30%o reported they were able to understand 
conversationst 31% said their ability was limited, and 27% reported little 
or no ability* The reverse question, the intelligibility of the hearing 
impaired to otherBj was posed by the latter authors. They found that the 
women in -their sample rated themselves slightly less favourably in their 
ability to understand others, as opposed to being understoodg 
How others actnally perceive and react to the intelligibility of com- 
unication rarely seems to have been addressedo However, brief reference 
to irritation, friction and occasional hostility were mentioned by CRANNATTE; 
and BIRD and TREVAINS noted that "Faoe-to-face oommunications with hearing 
impaired people may sometimes be difficult and time-consuming and 
hearing people, perhaps unconsoiouslyj may reduce the amount of ver- 
bal interaction with them" - 
a somewhat naive understatement of the problem, I suggest, 
Whilst the opinions of supervisorwoonoerning any work-rela-ted pro- 
blems encountered with their deaf employees were sought by BOATNER et al, 9 
and KRONENBERG and BLAKE, and oommunication was indeed mentioned as the 
most common problemv chiefly in respect of conveying and ensuring accurate 
receipt of instructionsp and in locating and paging deaf employeest ex- 
actly what these supervisors felt was not, howeverp forthcoming. Whilst 
such communication difficulties were considered a problem , they were, 
howeverl not deemed insuperable f 
(a finding later supported by STORER). 
The reader is nonetheless cautioned against too optimistic a response. 
Supervisors are likely to give more favourable replies than their aztual 
behaviour on the job might warrant. 
A salutaryland probably, more realistic reminder comes from PHILLIPS' 
(1975 a and b) survey* Bearing in mind the general reluctance to disPlAY 
Oneself in an unfavourable light, the harsher picture presented here is 
- 361 - 
more likely to represent a 'truer' version of others' perceptions of the 
hearing impaired as prospective employees* It may, because of the reasons 
already cited concerning attitude studiesp still underestimate the grav- 
ity of the problem. 
PHILLIPS found "Communication on the job is often seen as a major fac)-- 
tor in keeping the deaf worker from being employable in certain oco. 
upational endeavours"o 
Areas of diffioulty speoifically mentioned by his respondents were the in- 
ability to use the phone& interaotion with othermorkers, both in oonn ot. 
ion with the job and sooiallyo He found many employers eategorically rejeo- 
ted the possibility of hiring deaf workers in clerical positions because 
of the phone, And Amdamentallyg he found: "Jobs involving taking or giving 
speoial orders or engaging in speoific job activities whioh require 
the acourate oommunication of speoific information leading to a pre- 
oise understanding of the job demand were not oonsidered appropriate 
for the deaf worker"* 
Tailoring a job communioation-wise to fit the particular needs of the hear- 
ing impaired was rarely oonsidered (as CRAMMATTE also noted), There wasp 
nevertheless, some uncertainty as to the actual communicative capabilities 
of the deaf in these ciremstancesg which tended to resolve itself into a 
"when in doubtl don't" polioy on hiring* 
But critically, it was real or purported communication difficulties 
which were cited as reasons for lack of promotion to supervisory or mana- 
gerial posts* Interpersonal communication was often seen as "more than 
the deaf person could handle". 
This is a useful juncture at which to disouss CRAMMATTE's findings on 
communication, a chapter of his book being devoted to a descriptiom of the 
communication patterns and particular communication difficulties of those 
hearing impaired who have managed to achieve professional status. However, 
again the analysis is largely instrumental and pragmatiog although pro- 
viding useftl pointers for future oonceptual development. 
Demands on communication skills are, not surprisingly, tougher at 
this level. As his population consisted of profoundly deaf respondentBI 
how they managed to resolve the Droblem of expression and reception of 
ý 362 - 
ideas is thus of more than ordinary interest. 
He found that 84%o of his sample used oral communication most frequently, 
with writing as a supplementary standby. His subjects used speech and lip- 
reading with considerable skillp it should be noted* 
Specific communication problem areas were iden-tifiedg namely partici. 
pation in the organisation's grapevinev the 'P. R. ' aspect of many profess. 
ional positions, dealing with negative reactionE; from less well-known wor- 
kers from other departments or outside, olients; the phone, and conferences 
and meetings. Oddly enough, the problems inherent in the supervision of 
hearing employees merited only brief consideration as "a situation posEp- 
ibly conducive to friction"* 
He suggests this is a problem oonfined more to supervision at lower occu. 
pational levels* 
The necessity for participation in the grapevine varied, For some it 
was a vital part of keeping abreast with any malfunctioning in the depart- 
mento Contrary to expectations, 73 respondents were told voluntarily 
about I grapevine information' 9 rather than having to request it I suggesting, 
CRAMMATTE arguesq "that oasual sooial oommunioation was fairly free. and 
frequent for these deaf workers"* 
One has no meanss however, of asoertaining how muoh of the information was 
distilledg abridged and omittedt the deaf respondent, of ooursel being 
least well placed to judge thiso 
The phone predictably caused problems, Sometimes phone duties were 
passed over completely to othersq or handling the phone was mediated via 
a third party. (Legislation making the provision of T, D. D. sl and the app- 
ointment of interpreters mandatory had not been implemented at the time of 
writing) * 
Conferences appeared to pose more insuperable problems, although 51 
respondents nevertheless attended them on a fairly regular basis* Often 
a oombination of devices was used: a third party taking notes, briefing 
before and after the meeting; and lipreading where possible. 
But, signifi- 
- 363 - 
cantlyp reliance on others was essential. It is also interesting that he 
found informal assistance of this nature was much more readily forthcoming 
than actual tailoring of the job to accommodate to a deaf person's needs. 
Where this oo=. Lr d, it often oonsisted of the elimination of a partioular 
duty (eg. phones) rather than a more positivel constructive approach* 
CRAMMATTE ooncluded he was unable to find one particular determinant 
of professional suocess amongst his deaf population other than "oompetenoe 
and drive$#- factors instrumental in any person's occupational success. I 
find his rejeotion of the salienoe of oommunication skills as at least one 
of the most crucial factors pea-plexingg given his initial insistence on 
the primacy of such skills at a managerial level. Possibly a higher level 
of oral oompetence was simply taken for granted* Or perhaps one may de. 
duce that communication deficiencies in fact place no bar on promotionto 
This is not in accord with any other finding (of* BENDERLY9 opooit)o 
What ist perhaps, suggestive, is the converse of his argumentv which 
he does not consider: that lack, of skill in communication has an absol. 
utely detrimental impact on job prospects, totally disproportionate to the 
laok of other qualities deemed neoessary for suooesse 
Had any theoretical perspective underpinned -the 'evidence' it would 
have been a great deal easier to take issue with the datas As it isp it 
is diffioult to do more than describe what has been described* I have 
devoted some attention to it, nonetheless, asp apart from the study of 
BIRD and TREVAINS (opocit), it remained, until the late 1970'st the most 
detailed and comprehensive picture of communication problems to date* 
Howeverv the most valuable study I have found of communi cation patterns 
and their concomitant social problems at work has been made not of the 
prelingually' deaf, but of an adult sample of olerioal workers with 
aoquired loss (BIRD and MEVAINS, op. cit). It represents something of 
a departure. whilst traditional ground - mode of oommunication usedy 
frequency of oontaott those with whom subjects communicated most - is 
- 364 - 
covered, the study provides a fairly full discussion of the social and work 
problems to which difficulties in these areas give rise. Although the fo-- 
aus is practical and operational and, as the authors concedet descriptive 
rather than explanatory, 'communication difficulties' at work are at least 
located within a 'social problems' context, 
Direct observation at the workplace was rejected, mainly because of 
antioipated reluctance on the part of hearing employees to being identifiedv 
particularly for those managing to conceal their impairment. But by sam- 
pling hearing controls in similar clerical posts, and the use of loonfir- 
mers' (relatives or friends "who could discuss the effects of hearing loss 
from an observer's point of view"), 
the authors attempted to remedy the gap identified by PRINCE (op. cit) earl. 
ier* The use of both quantitative and qualitative data is neatly juxta. 
posedl although the full riohness of what the latter has to offer is neo- 
essarily relegated to a seoondary role. The smallness of the sample (34 
olerical workers) has been oritioisedg but I suggest that the supposed 
necessity for large samples in order to give reliability and validity to 
studies has been grossly overrated. * 
The types of communication difficulties moert frequently mentioned as 
occurring at work are broadly reminiscent of those identified by deaf re- 
spondents in CRAMMATTE's study. Thus their discussion of the impact of 
"a generally reduced level of communication,, 
on employment prospects encompasses both the traditional areas alreadv 
highlighted: job satisfactiong promotion problemsp job acquisitionj as well 
as areas whioh (CRAMMATTE9 perhaps, apart) have been virtually ignored* 
These include exclusion from social activities at work, gossip, comrade- 
shipp the reduced quality of such social relationships as are established 
at work, and feelings of isolation and diminished self-oonfidence speoifi- 
cally related to the woric situation. 
Despite its Pilot status and lack of conceptual underpinningg to my 
knowledge nothing comparable has been written relating communication 
de- 
- 365 - 
ficiencies so closely to the intricate pattern of formal and informal 
teraction at work. As with the subsequent larger study of TREVAINS (1982), 
it represents an attempt to make social sense of those hampered by a oommu- 
nication, disorderl and its implications for the quality of working life of 
its victims. 
Perhaps one obvious question concerns the validity of a direct causal 
connection between difficulties in communicative ability per se and the ad. 
verse effects on employment prospects. The many other variables which 
might mitigate or exacerbate an existing communication disorder in a work 
setting are necessarily omitted here -I think with some justifications It 
isp after all, communication skills, or the lack of them, which are the 
prime handioapping features of the hearing impaired. 
A discussion of the studies of both CRAMMATTE and BIRD and TREVAINS 
raises the tantalising questions which prompted my own research: the need 
for a oomparative study spanning the range of hearing impairment; together 
with a conceptual framework which would hopefully give ooherenceto the 
manner in which the hearing impaired are disadvantaged economically in our 
society. I have takenthe study of BIRD and TREVAINS as my own point of 
departure, in an attempt to enlarge the scope of their "preliminary in- 
sights into the type of communication problems which /the hearing 
impaired/ experience, 
90 ATTITUDES OF EMPLOYERS 
A fairly well doc=ented body of literature exists on employers' pro. 
fessed attitudes and preferenees towards a variety of impaired people, 
(of. inter alia, CIEUMAN, 1959; RIMARDI TRIANDIS and PATTERSON, 1963; 
WILLIMS9 1972; SCHROEDEL and JACOBSEN, 1978)o Not surprisingly expressed. 
attitudes vary with the nature of the partioular impairment. Thus RICKARD 
et al. found that the deaf wereless discriminated against than epileptics 
and those discharged from mental and penal institutionsl but considered 
much less 'desirable' than the wheel-chair bound and those suffering from 
TB. WILLIAMS (OP-Oi-t-) ooncluded: "Though it mav be good busineaB to hire 
- 366 - 
handicapped personsl the assertion has never been proven for the 
typical handicapped person"* 
WILLIAMS' 1972 study found only 54% of his sampled employers would 
hire a deaf person for a produotion job "always" or "usually, but not al- 
ways"; 25% replied I'sometimeBl but not usually9t; and 3% "never"* 
For managerial Poertsp 75% of hiB respondentS Baid they would never oonsider 
a deaf applicant, 
Some similarly discriminatory references to the way employerw-speoi- 
fically evaluate +, he hearing impaired aB negative hiring proBpeOtB has 
emerged in the literature (GREENMUNt 1958; PHILLIPS, opooit; MERTON and 
ROTHKANj 1978; DE CARO et all op. cit; and BENDERLY, op. oit)o Muoh seems 
to hinge on whether prospective employerm already have direct experience of 
impairment or not (not necessarily restricted to hearing impairment)l or 
whether surveys are oonducted against a baokground of ignoranoe of impair. 
ment generallyl and of a particular condition* Thus in PHILLIPS' surveyp 
uncertainty and a general lack of information about what oonarti-tuted deaf. 
ness seemed to promote a general disinolination to give someone a chanoeo 
The earlier findings of BOATNER et all KRONENBERG and BLAKE9 and 
ROSENSTEIN and LERMAN would tend to lend some substance to this, Actual 
experience with deaf employees does tend to mitigate some of the grosser 
discriminatory practices and atti-tudes found by PHILLIPS. KRONENBERG and 
BLAKE9 for example, found that despite diffioulties in oomanirlioation q 
93% of supervisors of their deaf workers sampled rated their employees as 
average or above average. And in BOATNER et all s complementary study, 
77% of his supervisors sampled favoured employing more deaf workers. 
ROSENSTEIN and LERKAN found oonsistently good ratings to be made by em- 
ployers of their deaf alumni on follow up. 
(It should be noted that eruoh 
ratings were not neoessarily aooompanied by improved oocupational, status 
or opportunities for their deaf employees. ) And again, the reader is aler- 
ted to the dangers implicit in emoh 'attitude' questions. 
The traditional received wisdom about the deaf 9 often relied upon 
to 
- 367 - 
justify a refusal to hire - namely absenteeismi and the risk of accidents - 
has been disproved in several studiest most notably that of WORT (1972)9 
who inveBtigatedinteraction between deaf and hearing oo-workerB and Buper- 
visors-with there particular issues in mind, He concluded that the deaf 
employee was generally perceived as a "diligent, dependable workerl whose 
record in regard to work performance (as assessed by supervisors and 
co-workers) is generally good or better than those of his hearing 
counterpart in regard to absenteeism or occupational injuryq and who 
enjoys commendable respect from his co-workers and supervisors"* 
Howeverl it should be noted that this study fooussed on what WORT himself 
described as an "occupationally successful group of deaf workers". Whether 
such a roseate picture would emerge from the ooaupationally less succesEp- 
ful deaf worker is much more debatable. 
Other studies have shown that this more tolerant attitude could be 
completely reversed by the experience of just one single unsatisfactory 
deaf employee (CRAIG and SILVER, 1966),, The hearing impaired are no more 
nor less likely to make satisfaotory employees -than any other groupr of 
workers. Yet such is their precariOUS status, that experienoe of one Irot. 
ten apple' seems to be suooessfully generalised to the detriment of the 
whole hearing impaired population. The implications of this have not been 
followed through in the literature, 
Moreoverg it was notable in the Audies cited above that favourable 
attitudes -towards the deaf as good workers did not appear to be trans- 
lated into practioal terms, by way of employing them in positions oommen- 
surate -with their educational qualifications and abilities (as noted-for 
HJORTI s study); nor did it faoilitate, 'the efforts of those deaf employees 
who aspired to higher posts (NEYHUS9 1964; PHILLIPS, op. cit). Thus inter- 
action between hearing impaired and hearing did not necessarily lead to 
positive practical improvements. Both CRAMMATTE's study and the earlier 
study of NEYHLJS (of 80 deaf adults drawn from social and religious organ- 
isationw. for the deaf) lend substance to this. CRAMMATTE found that eai-- 
Ployers still held "strong doubts about deaf people 
being able to communi- 
cate sufficientlY to hold any job", 
- 368 - 
despite his insistence that communication was not the critical variableg 
and direct evidence by his respondents which supported such doubtse 
And NEYHUSj despite the relatively low response rate of his studýy (43%) 
concluded that theýcompdratively lo-4coupational status which his sample deaf 
population held could reflect a willingness to hire at lower levels of 
ell- 
skills. However, it seemed to indicate a marked disinclination to go be- 
yond this point into areas identified as requiring speoific communioation 
skills, ie. managerial and professional positions. 
BIRD and TREVAINS concluded of their sample that "Employers may be 
sympathetic towards the partially hearing because of their handicapq 
but still not credit them with the same employment potential as a 
normal-hearing person"* 
What is evident from all this literature is the not unexpeoted dis. - 
crepanoy between expressed attitudes and actual hiring policies - the 
Achilles heel of all attitude surveys* Where discriminatory attitudes are 
evidentl the situation may be regarded as particularly bleak* Thas REHAB* 
BRIEF (1979) notes of the work of SCHROEDEL and JACCBSEN (1978) "Unfortu- 
nately what an employer says about hiring practices and what -that 
same employer does when confronted with a disabled applicant may be 
quite different. Evidence suggests that about 60 peroent of employers 
say they would hire disabled workers. Only one-third do so. In 
other words, there is more verbalized intention to hire than actual 
hiring"* 
The literature again has referred largely to the prelingually deaf 
(BIRD and TREVAINS, and TREVAINS apart). BEATTIE (op. cit), howeverl found 
it quite impossible to make any generalisations, concerning employers' 
attitudes to those with acquired loss. I would concur in this dilema, 
for all hearing impaired people. So much lip service is paid to 'the I'soo- 
ially acceptable concept of employing the handicapped" 
(GABRETT, 1964) 
that reliance on a more meaningful evaluation of the existence of employ- 
er prejudice and discrimination must oome from the hearing impaired them- 
selve s. 
10a PREDICTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 
The literature is again confined to the 'prelinguallyl deaf. SCHOVE 
wrote in 1944: "For deaf workers who can qualifyj there will 
be better 
- 369 - 
understanding in industry, and a wider range of opportunity than ever 
before. For those who cannot measure up to employment standards which 
have been advanced to a new high level, there will be nothing much in 
sight except pauperismg andq perhaps, pensions or the sheltered work- 
shope The borderline cases, the marginal workers, will tend to dis- 
appear. They will either be in the labour force or they will be. out 
of it entirelytto 
How far does this grim prognosis stand the test of time? To somme ex- 
tent it has been supported by events. To the extent that it has been supp. 
orted by the projections made is somewhat more open to conjecture. Pre- 
dictions have always been noto. iously unreliable. Contingenoies such as 
the oil crisisl the eruption of international hostilities in the Middle and 
South, East Abial 
0 and a world recession cannot always 
be catered for, 
There is, nonetheless, a fair amount of unanimity in the projections 
which have been made - largely American - and their implications for the 
deaf and other 'marginal' woricers. GELMAN (opocit)v for example, points 
to the long-term effects of technological change which are increasingly 
"widening the gap between the culturally acceptable and the semi. 
acceptable or unacceptable"* 
In oommorr with other impaired people, the deaf are regarded as "anomalous 
persons" 
in our oulture (JENSEKA and SHEARS9 1969)o 
KRONENBERG and BLAKE, and BOATNER et ale had alreadýy drawn atterrtion 
to the critical nature of the deaf's employment situation. As the former 
note: "In any economy, the deaf are limited". 
And BOATNER et. al., argue strongly that, "without. modifioation in vooational, 
training an already critioal position will deteriorate"* 
Little modification has taken place* As BENDERLY (1980) notes, today the 
deaf are competing with Ilrboth the cheap labour of Asia and the advance of 
automationg trapped in the most stagnant reaches of American industryfle, 
Data on the general trends whioh have taken plaoe in employment over 
the past deoadeq and predictions made for ftture developments, - with ob. 
vious ramifications for the UK - have emerged from the work af FRIEIKAN 
(MARVIN, 1967), and the predictions made by the Bureau of Labour Statig. 
tios (1970)o Some verifioation is provided by 'the data of SCHEIN 
(1978) 
and WESTCOTT and BEDNARZIK (1981). 
7\ 
- 370 - 
FRIEDMAN has drawn attention to the need for a better educated and 
skilled workforcel acceleration of the urban shiftv and a new developmen'tv 
that ofthe suburban shiftq disadvantaging -the inner cities traditionally 
the preserve of minority groups; the reduction of self-employment; and the 
trend away from heavy to light industry with concomitant effects on the 
E; tatUB of blio-collar industrial workers* 
Both FRIEDMAN and the B. L*S. emphasise the shift to service and white- 
collar jobs, with critical implications for the deaf employed in tradition- 
al blue-collar occupations and routine assembly line work. FRIEDMAN noted 
that in 1966 white-collar job-s represented 45% of the nation's total em- 
ploymentl whilst blue-collar jobs had diminished to 37%. The B. L. So esti- 
mated that by 1980 the former would have increased to approximately 
50% of the total workforce (some 68 million people)v with a corresponding 
decrease in blue-collar posts. 
These predictions have turned out to be substantially correct (WEST- 
C()TT and BEDNARZIK 1 1981). They comment: "The decline in employment during 
1980 was concentrated in blue-collar occupations .. Total blue. -c-ollar 
employment dropped 1,7m. between the 4th quarter of 1979 and the 
third quarter of 1980". 
And of the growth in white-collar employmenty largely complementary -to 
the growth of service sector employment, they note: "Service-producing 
employment continued to follow its long-run upward trendl although 
at a considerably slower pace"* 
B. L. S. predictions also drew attention to other significant trends: 
an increase in the labour force by about 20% to some 100 million workerEr-4 
including a large proportion of younger workers (although this is likely 
to diminish in the 19902 s as the birth rate. irons itself out); a decline in 
hours worked; and a substantial rise in eduoational attainments required. 
Emphasis is placed on the changing content and skill requirements of many 
occupations. By 1980 B. L*S. estimated that only 1: 16 adult workers will 
have had less than 8 years' schoolingg and nearly 1: 6 will have oompleted 
4 ye arB' college education. "The job outlook for the 
disadvantaged with 
limited schooling is likely to remain bleak", 
- 371 - 
they commento 
What these earlier predictions failed to emphal3ise is the large in- 
crease in both the US and the UK of the female labour forow - both working 
and wishing toierk, (SORRENTIN09 1981) - again with implications for the 
hearing impaired woman who is likely to be doubly inhibited in her ohances 
of obtaining work, or obtaining satisfactory work. 
As far as occupational breakdown is concerned, the predicted growth in 
the professionalv technical and managerial sphere is likely to conti=eo 
Estimated as comprising 10.3 million workers in 1968, this was anticipated 
to rise to 151 million in 1980 (B. L. S. ) Clerioal and sales positions were 
also expected to increase by about 50%. The service sector has expanded in 
the two growth areas enviWed by FRIEI24AN: namely local and national gov- 
errunent, and the Imiscellaneous' service sector - real estateg retail and 
wholesale servioes, trade and finanoel insuranoev health and medioal carep 
education, hotels and repair services. WESTCOTT and BEDNARZIK note: "The 
only services sector industry to post a noticeable job loss in 1980 
was transportation and public utilities (70,000)o However, employ- 
ment was on the rebound at yearend"o 
The situation is changing so rapidly j however I that the next decade 
may well see changes in the proportion of growth in selected service seo- 
tors - witness the out-backs in public expenditure by both American and 
British governments, and the privatisation of many publio servioe jobs. 
'Private' service industries - hotel and cateringg travel, real estate 
and insurance may be expected to increase at the expense of education and 
health care. Again the implications for the hearing impaired workerl 
scarcely represented here, are bleak. It is only in the longer-term, 
when the full impact of changes in telecommunications become manifest, 
that the situation may improve* 
The fate of skilledg semi-skilled and unskilled workers, as indioated 
in the literature, was predicted to be variable, if not tenuous* For 
skilled workers 'Employment .. is expected to expand more slowly 
than 
total employmentl rising from 10m. in 1968 to 12*2m. in 1980" 
(FRIEDMAN) 
- 372 - 
For the semi-skilled, employment was seen as likely to decelerate. For 
the manufacturing sector, partioularly the car industryq this has indeed 
proved to be the case* 
Finallyl the unemployment rate in the United Statesq which reached,, - 
nearly 8 million, or 7,6% of the labour force mid 1980 is continuing its 
upward trend (11*5 million in November 1982)e Whilst the impaired are not 
singled out for speoial mention, it may be speculated that they form a 
fairly substantial part of this figure as do teenagers and Blacks., 
The implications of these predictions for the UK, whose economy is 
heavily dependent on that of the U. S. - and for the deaf populations of 
both countriesl is hardly enoouraging in the immediate future. As SCHEIN 
(1974b) notes: ""This means -that deaf workers will need to alter their ooo- 
upational habits to keep pace with the shifting demands., Sixty per 
cent of male deaf adults in the NCDP sample were employed as crafts- 
men or semiskilled operatorsl while nearly half of the female deaf 
adults were similarly engaged. Only 8% of males and 11% of females 
held technical and professional positions. In shortl most deaf wor- 
kers are presently in occupations declining in demand or projected 
to undergo a small growth, while few are in the rapidly increasing 
categories"* 
There are very particular factors in the past and present eoonomic 
sooialisation of the deaf which militate against the change, flexibility 
and mobility whioh the above trends demand. WEINRICH (1972) defines 
these as follows: 
le The deaf person "enters the labour market later than his hearing 
oounterpart beoause it takes longer -to oomplete his formal education", 
thereby starting his career at a disadvantagel a factor commented on by 
MONTGCKERY (1967) and LAURITSEN (1972)e 
2. The ignorance, if not prejudice of employers has led to pre-hire ex- 
aminations being "oriented towards the normal"* Hiring is again delayed 
because of the deaf person's inability to fulfil on-the-job or apprentice- 
ship training* 
Is The deaf demonstrate a distinct tendency towards occupational immobility. 
They are "disproportionately concentrated among 
the generally less 
desirable manual jobs and in industries in which automation and 
tech- 
- 373 - 
nological change have had the greatest impact"* 
These are factors which have already emerged in the literature reviewed 
to date. Taken collectivelyt they represent a dismal picture* 
CMLLMAN (op. cit) further notes the social factors which ",,. are stacked 
against the development of a successful work personality, and result 
in atypical vocational development" 
for the deaf person, These include the lack of appropriate role modelsq 
lack of exposure to pre-vocational experience, the restricted life-spaee 
and "limited socio-cultural horizons" of many deaf peopleg arising out of 
years of residential schooling and -I am obliged to add - acculturation 
in a deaf community noted for its stress on sociability rather than aoh. 
ievement. Early life experiences, he suggestsq which arise from rewtrio. 
ted language input and communication deprivation "seriously distort per. 
ceptions of realitylt. 
The result isp he powerfully argues "*. the formation of work personalities 
at variance with culturally acceptable stereotypes .. the vocational 
persona is provincial" (my itals. ) 
Thus -the developmental experiences of the deaf 11., do not transmit aeoep- 
table patterns for a work personality"o 
These are then reinforoed by the patterns of work subsequently followed* 
I find these 'social' arguments even more compelling than the strictly 
economic factors whichl as argued, militate against the possibility of 
successfully m=ounting the obstacles posed by new trends in industry* 
The educational implicationsp above allj are forbidding. Illiteracyp 
or marginal literacy, and innumeracy will render people unemployable* 
Yet as BOYCE WILLIAMS (in WEINRICH, opocit) - and many before and after 
him - comments: 11 ., deaf youth generally terminate formal educatiomi at 
18 or 19 years .. A large number are functionally -illiteratev read- 
ing below 4th grade and expressing themselves eorrespondingly"s 
Limited opportunities for further education will compromise the deaf 
adolescent's prospects still further. 
As has been evident from the literature, the deaf population has tra- 
ditionally been employed in the now declining blue-collar sector, whilst 
most of the growth in employment opportunities has ooourred 
in the ser- 
- 374 - 
vice sector - and now expanding micro-chip industry, The service seo- 
torp with its heavy emphasis on 'standard' communication skills, has not 
historically featured as a large-scale employer of the deaf; ý and dispates 
over educational philosophies have hardly encouraged entry into the new 
technology. 
The very essence of success in -the service sector is on face-to-face 
interpersonal communication. EDGAR LOWELL (1971) queries: "Do we need to 
re examine the Service occupations to determine which ones place a 
premium on personal faoe-to-face, communication? " 
The answer would seem to be yesl if one of the main avenues for future em- 
plo, 7ment of the hearing impaired is going to lie in this sector* Polish' 
'style', 'personality' as manifest in effective speech performance and 
successful impression management are at a premium here. They are often 
the very skills which a communication deficit - and, critically the manner 
in which it is evaluated by society at large - preclude. 
And success in the burgeoning micro-chip arena is entirely depend- 
ent on a speedy resolution of the age-old controversy over oralist/Manua- 
list eduoation in favour of the adoption of gen-aine Total Communioation* 
The attendant risks this poses for the adulteration of sign language - 
particularly BSL proper - must be confronted* 
The accuracy of the above predictions has possibly even been under- 
estimatedl as further reference to SCHEIN' s (1978) most recent work demon- 
strateso The resultsp he comments fl.. present a disturbing picture of the 
deaf population's economic decline during the five yearst 1972-1977 . 
** While most people - deaf and hearing - have suffered somewhat dur- 
ing the stagflation, deaf people have lost much more than the gen- 
eral populationt'. 
What has been cruoially absent, to the best of my knowledge, from 
these dire forecastsp is any attempt to look at the implications of tele- 
communications technology say 20/30 years hence* If , as ouggestedo the 
emphasis will shift from employment in large conglomerates to much more 
isolated employment in the homev and from dependence on 
traditional audi- 
tory input - and thus oral communication skills - 
to visually handled mat- 
- 375 - 
erialg the implications for the hearing impaired take on quite a new 
dimension. 
The present literature is not without its short-term 'solutions'. 
The role of counselling and vocational rehabilitation services is crucial. 
Re-training courses urgently need to be established for deaf workers pre- 
viously trained in now obsolescent jobs, The inculcation of attitudes 
which encourage change, flexibilityl and above all mobility is vital. All 
these have been reoognised by many of the authors mentioned in this Review. 
Finally the deaf cannot wait for the educational controversies so 
long raging over their heads to be resolved. Education for a fast-changing 
technology with emphasis on the acquisition of 'standard' communication 
ý1- skills is a prime goal. It is not something which fluency and pride in 
Sign Language alone can resolve. The ability to straddle both deaf and 
hearing worlds - with a mastery of manual and oral means of communication 
(whioh early exposure to Sign has indeed been shown to faoilitate) - will 
determine the future eoonomic viability of the deaf. This has notp how- 
ever, been a position stressed in the literature. And longer-term econ- 
omic viability requires possession of both oral and literaoy skills. 
Societal reactiong too, must be modified. The possibility for this is 
enhanced where minority groups are able to straddle both worlds. Jewryj 
for example, has survived 21000 years of Diaspora by a combination of pre- 
servation of its culture and adaptation to the majority culture for its 
economic survival* So it must be for the hearing impairedo 
Thusp whilst the literature on employment has highlighted an area 
of need and provided the researcher with some basic IleadB'j what has been 
conspicuously absent is any systematic attempt to understand, the processes 
at work behind -this evidently dismal picture. I contend that without 
such an understanding, little progress can be made, As has 
been evident, 
the literature on employment prospects has remained firmly wedded 
to a 
static level of analysis, content to rely on fairly crude 
indicators 
- 376 - 
from which to draw inferences, without any attempt to penetrate the many 
layers of meaning and 'reality' which constitute the problem. 
The instrumentality of the literaturep and its focus largely on those 
deafened 'prelingually' have ensured that a global view of the hearing 
impaired as part of a wider pioture of 'outsiders', marginal to sooiety, 
is obscured. It is above all parochial in nature, It has revealed itself 
as a series of dislocated I facts'* The urgent necessity to locate these 
'facts' within a broader explanatory theoretical framework to give coherence 
to what are otherwise unrelated findings is what I have attempted to do. 
(D 
(D (1) 
. 
0 4) 
4) o 0, -, 4) P4 
(D 
1ý1 4) ý 
; 
0) 
rd 
2m 
rd 
rd 
> rd rd 
Cd 
4) 
k 
4) 0 U) 4) rd 
9 q 
0 (D 0 -9 0 
0 r-4 Y) 
(D r-4 r-4 > 
4) 
N 4-* 
-rq 
0 
:! E: 
0 
; jý 
:>0 
0 04 r-I 
> 
0 
rg U) 
r4 
0 
C. 3 rd (D 4) (D 
Ri 
rd 
-4 
t'. Z, 4 
P, -g -P rk 
z 
r 
-r4 r-4 d 
0 
-t-4 
0 
> 
;4 
A -ri A 
$4 
A 
51 9 C 
ý 
1-4 (D -4 rr. 
+ 
0 
M U2 0 CII 0 0 
: E: 
E-4 
m 
0 
m 
m rq -rq 0 - 4) 1 
4) 
M 
a 
- 
W 
Iý 
0 
M 
o 
m rd 
4) r-I 
-P 
-r4 W 
ca i 
r4 
0 
-fa 
4) 
4-4 
.4 
/W 
- i 
c 
(D 
m 
q 
fW 
-H 
c 
4) 
m 
-4 r4 m 10 (d 0 
9: 
q 
r-4 4) 
a 
-P 
;9 
0 
0 
4 
4) 
r-4 
m sl 
r 
S., 4) 
-r 
S3 r 4D 
4 
14 
w 
co z 
to 
ca 
:8 
" (D 
ýo rm 
F4 " 4) 
F-4 
m 
ca 0 
ml 
CM 
rA M Q- 
(D 
(D 68 
pq 
>ri -9 1 cd 
1 -4 cd co q; -9 
, 
> .4 E-4 0 rM4 4) 0 -P 
ý 
; 
13-1 ý 
'd 
4) 0 94 
0 ;j 
es 
c 
PL4 
M (8) 
0 9-4 
:9 
z 
d: 
j 
0 
0 
p; - 
4) 
li 
0 
1ý 
4) 
ýi 
4) 
1ý "1 
00 
1.6 M 1 
m 9m 
pQ 0 U) U2 cn U) U) ý 4) 00 m 4 M 0 0 0 
ý; 
cn 
r4 *4 z 
E-4 
m 
0: 7-, p 
A 
0= 
%lD L('% 0 
- 
4z 
- 
Llr. ý CM 
A 
"r 
q $4 14 4) 
0 
:9 
pq F-4 rn U N t rn r-4 A-0 -H 
rf) ri It ED 4 -P 
= r-I 
L("\ 
0 
0 
E0 
r 
C\j 
r. l. M 
pq rn C) 
" 
\0 0 
l 'l 1 , 
C\J 
C j r-I R - 
t- 
" rl Q C\j U % rn WN U \ U l 94 \ 4 ;t L % 
. D. -0) ý-ý 
1 
c>ý 5= 
0 
ei 
1-4 HHHHH F-4 F-4 
ILI 
:9 
/377 
0 
a) 
fTj co 
t-- 
ob 
r 
9 
0 
4,1 
W 
rd 
CO 
0- p 
td --. e 
0 
id Co 
r: -1 
0.0 
0 
10 0 -f-4 
> 
CH 
0 
m 
+1 
m 
51 
o Cf--4 
93 0 
(P to 
Id x 
Ild 
,0 lý 
Cd 0 
193 43 0 
tD 
0 
P4 > 
cf) 
4) (D 
> U) rd 
E-4 (D 0 (D 
H0 4-W 
-ri 
4- 
4) (D 
I 
(D 4-) 
rd 
0 
00 
ýe Cie 
'Sý ý ý 
m 
ý 
.0 
;40 
r-4 ca -P cd M +a 43 -P CO +3 (D 
0 
-f-f 
rd 
0 ;g 4) A -rq IdW z 4) 
;. 4 
4) 
A4 4) 
4) (D 
ul 
(L) 
40 4 
Cd 
(D 
04 
rd 
rd 
0 z z -rq 
W 
Cd 
4) 
4) 
(D 
-P 
co 
p 
(D 
rd 
0 
q) F4 0 
$Lf 
0 u2 4) 9) 4) (D 
M 0; 'Z, rn u2 W 
0 ý, 0, r-i 0 
Id Id 
Co » 
. ri A 14 
-e Co 0 
. f-f -p -p 12 ri 
C', 
0) 
4) 
0 CA 02 
ýF4 0 
10 113 10 
0 4ý -P 0 0 
rX4 0 0 ON cli \0 4-1 0 
O 0 r= On Lf*% fll cd r= 
0 . 
l 
49 110 CY 
ul 
ml r-4 CYN 0 1-D Kt «9 en U-N -e ý, 0 -e CM 
S 
0 
O H H 1-4 I-I H H 
! 
0 V; t; 04 0 0 ý m 
No C\j 
t 
ri2 
mZ 
a) f4 
(D 
. 
z 
tl- %. 9 
C%j 
z8 
I; * lq; t 
Ul"% en 
I 
ca 
0 
: E: I 
(0 
v t-I 
0 
Ln \Z 
,; ztl 10 
/37 
(D Id 
>g 
(1) 
:> 
4) 
U) 
CY (D 
-P 
(D (1) 
> > 0 
u2 r12 ce 
94 
0 4) 0 
-p -p 9: 5 
. ri r4 0 W 0 
& & X x 
% 0- 0 
(D 0 -f-f 
. r-i 
93 
m 0 
0 0 
m 
02 
.0 
\D 0 
-1 
-900 9 
r 
.H r-4 rd IL4 
Z 
94 
02 
rd 
4) 0 
m 
0 4) 
-ri 
(P 0 0 r-i 
Ic; tl 00 \o 
- ,8 rn 93 .4 LL 
% e . rf P 0 rj2 
t 
Co CY L-- 
qrt UN Lfl% u Ln 
" H 
F-i 
Pi tý 41 0 
E-4 0 
pq 
PCI 
Fq IL4 ILI F-4 P4 
ýP_ : W- :8 : W- 
I 
% 
a, 
a, a, Cl) 
HO a) 
. 1-I Cl) 
rj) 
ý-4194 
r4 
0 
P41 ILI ;4 
rd rd 
00 
ý9 ýV- 
cn In 
(D 
rM4 z 
0 
E-4 
.H 
Cd 
r74 0 
0 
U-N 
0 
ul 
cm R <g e 
C; 
E-4 
0 
ý!: l 
m 
4 C; 
ED m 
w 
0 0 0 
Cl) .i Cl) 
a) a) a) a) . 43 
"r4 Cl) r4 
& 
c-s 
a, a, 
-p a, 
c-s rd a, G) '-4 
-p rI 0 . r-$ 
cd 4 
rt co 
IL4 
ca 
CD 
rd 
(D 
m 
0 
i 
;9 
a- LrN 
r-q N C\l 
Cd 
(In 
rn re) 
HH 
P4 
I-I 
S 
S 
S 
4) 
(D 
$L4 
(D 
> 
0 U2 
0 
> 
4-1 C- 
4) 
2 . ri ý0 0 i 
Ul 
m 
4-4 4-4 
ID 
z 
(D C\j 
r-4 
-P % 
4 
' ,a -P A 4 g., rd F4 
. rq 0 4D rj pcl r w m PCI 
D) 0 
qrsr 0 0 
1-4 914 
CM CM rn C) C. -i 
rn q: t Lf-N R*- Lf-% 
ý; ::: I- ý- ý> " 1-4 " 
ý; 
E-4 0 PC4 
P; 
$4 
M 
a) 
a, 
rn 
a, 
I. '-' 
& 
lxi 
9 
4) 4) 0 
k ILI 2 
> > 
U2 U) U2 
(D 
+3 
.4 bD U) 
: ý, 
0 
-H 0 U) 
Cd 
r-A 
r-4 (D 
rq 
d 
r4 
c 
P4 si N 
ýE: 
-el -e, -< 0 
02 
02 
4) 10 A 
1.4 C%l 
- 3 
% 'r 
A6M n 
-ri 
0 Q 4 
WN .40 
r4 
PCI 
-H r 
PCI 
pq -4 Cd 
nt en 0 qe en r-4 
Lrl% en rn re) le le 
:> ý> t:, - t:: - :: I-- :::.. I::,. 
l 6 0 Cj 0 
0 
ý -; 
6 Co m m 0 0 m 
/379 
. 1-1% 
Co 
+I 
a2 
r= 
0 
rj2 
In c: 
10 
. ri -9 14 
0 
4) cý 
+M -e 
5ý 
;90 
0 
0 
2c 0 
0 r-i 0 
00 
41 
Z0 44 
(D -p > 
(D :i 
00 
IL, 0ý 
cd 0 
A 
0 
* Co A 
/380 
(D 
> 
4) 4) 
4-31 
H 
car 
I 
I I 
r-4 140 
(0 M 
(D 
s 
cd 
4) PEI 
rd 
(D 
4) (D 
m 
. r4 -f-1 CM 
-4 pq rq 
r-4 V-4 00 rn 
MI CM 
0 
02 
- 381 - 
APPENDIX 2: Table 2b 
COKKUNICATION MODES OF RESPONDENTS 
COMMUNICATION GRO`LJP I 
RespondentF3 were all 
where residual hearing 
ni cat eI normal ly' 9ie. 
Mrs. L. L. and Miss A, S. 
Miss B. G. and Mr. B. T. 
when in the oompany of 
COKKUNICATION GR(XJP II 
oral with fluent speeoh, good lipreading skills 
was seriousiy impairea, ilteraiel and aule to commu- 
using 'standard' Bpeechl both at work and at home* 
used sign to facilitate their jobs; and only Mr. L. M. 
used sign on the occasions during their leisure time 
signing deaf friends. 
Respondents were again all 'oral' communicatorsq although their lip- 
reading skills were somewhat less fluent and subjects had difficulty sus- 
taining lipreading over a period of time. All were literate, although Mr. 
J. R. Is literacy was poor (this may or may not be due to his hearing impair- 
ment). All communicated orally both at home and at work. None signed (Miss 
C. G. expressly avoiding it)* 
COKMUNICATION GROUP III 
Respondents all possessed some speechl but their competence was in- 
creasingly impaired. Mr. H. H. combined oral skills with the use of sign at 
home to communicate with his deaf wife and join in the activities of the 
deaf community. Mr. F-J. repudiates the use of sign entirely* Miss L. SO 
was forbidden to use it as a child, but despite parental pressure now is 
beginning to learn to use it 'socially'* All three respondents' literacy 
was somewhat impaired. All try to communicate orally at work, with recourse 
to gestures and notes if there are difficulties* 
COWUNICATION GROUP IV 
3 respondents, Mrs. B. L., Mrs. S. T. and Mrs. N. F, used combined methods 
of oralism and manualism. - being essential ingredients to their jobs with 
the deaf. Socially, only Mrs. S. T. preferred the use of sign, which she also 
used at home with her deaf husband. The oral skills of all respondents were 
poorp with lipreading skills largely minimal. All respondents were literate'D 
Mr. M, C. and Mr. E. B. used a combination of speech and writing at work, with 
recourse to gesture if necessary, Both Mra M. C. and Mrs. NeF. reverted to 
'speech' at homeq Mr. M. C. having belonged to the deaf oommunityl but now 
deferring to the oralist pressures of his deaf wife. 
COMMUNICATION GROUP V 
6 respondents in this Group signed as their preferred mode of oommuni- 
cation. At work, howeverp they were obliged to use a combination of writing 
and gesture, their speech skills being minimal, or non-existent, Their lit- 
eracy variedq sentence structure often reflecting the use of BSL (of. Miss 
M. A. ) Both Miss A, L, and Miss G*F, rejected the use of sign, were literateg 
and communicated one way only by speech (however discordant in the latter 
case) q and the use of writing at work. 
Miss P. K., Mr. C. S. and Mr. X. R. 
were without any vehicle of communication at work or at home, other than 
gesture and home-made sign, comprehensible only to their immediate family. 
* of* Appendix 9 "Ease of Communication with -. 11 Scale. 
rd /382 
$4 c- 
0 A, 
. £Z 
04 0 = rd (d -(A 
N - 2 cd 0 -p -e-3 
-e . i 
%-. - 4 
I- 0 
$4 rd A :: 
- 
rmd -p 
o 
0 
z 
-i 
2 
Co 0 
m C 0 m , 
2 
p 
r-1 0 f-1 0ä 
I 
0 -p Co 
ri Ul 
19 0 P 0 d p4 (P F m 4 
02 
m cd -t 22 rf F--1 . r-., ) . ri ri2 0 rd (P r4 ca $Z > Cd %i -ri 
r 2 
p4 r4 -r-f 
7 4 
ig 
. r 
i 9 . Q) a) 4) o 0 ýD pq )-2 
4) 
r-I 
10 co 
E-4 
to CM 
X 
02 
n ý3 
0 
cý- e--4 Lflý r-4 cu cm 0 U-N 94 en 
0 4) u2 02 
4) 94 
gý 
94 0 li: i $4 
>-3 0 ýý r= 0 9 94 -p 0 >* 0 lp 0 -ri 00 -p r-f 14 H0 
r 
124 0 4-1 
u2 0902 s4 r-i 4-4 rn r--4 
0 
12.4 u2 +I CD -ri 
02 
0 
F-1 0m +) 
u2 -p 02 
>A S. 1 
20 
>ä 9.4 
,ýZ 4) p4 -p 
9 
42 4) tý U2 CO 00 ri r-i -9 0 +M _m 
_r4 1- 0 ID a2 
$4 
-ri ;4 
;402 
93 9.4 lp 
-p 
A 
1 
>-4 0m 4) -5 g7 0- 
Co 00 14 c; 
141) ý3 -4 m Jull 
(ß 0000ý 
opc, 1 ýD -p 0) (P -p 0 Cd 0 1: 14 02 C> ri 0 ý-2 (D -p $4 Ci 1e (D -p (0 1E -p r-f 0 (P -% 0 rd 4) 0 (P 0) S: 44 m r4 0 -rf -i g-i 9-, in 0 14 -p m e) 0 124. lý 02 p4 -p (L) 03 -p rt 
0 
0) rd P, S -p ri 
0 
a) 0 02 0 
cn «4 p zgl 0m 127. ", A=90= 9-4 0E $ýf 4) 00i; 1L4 PCI 
0 ýD 
4-1 
bß 
M Co S., r. CD 0 -p- X0 >to 0) 
Z 
Z0mH rd 2? ., 4 0 132 
>b Z: c: s4 -2 bi) Hm0 92 e0 0 +3 - r-1 0m 4) e a2 f-i 0 u2 
6 -ri 
9 *Cd bD 0 ri F. # >. 3 r-1 
rcf 1.1 94 91 00 99 0 V-1 
-p -ri -p -p r-i 0 cd 51 Z! p0 
bD 0 -H > r4 -8 p 91 
m0p 
(P 00 
tj fic: ri 
0 
1C3 112 
0 PZ r1 ri rd 0 0. 
r, 0 -p 00000 r--4 030 4-4 (P ý 0009 cd cd 0 to A0 m 
cd gý 0000A ý3 s3 r4 CM 14 li. 0 A --, Pq E-4 E-4 rn r. 1 P r-1 4» 914 PQ 
E-4 
P; 
a* 14 m 
co 
m 
m 
0 
03 
0 
co 
w 
M 0 
Tj 
r= 
z 
m 
+2 
P4 4) 
0 
73 
rd 
00 
P4 a) 
4) 
ILI 0 
E-4 0 
Tj 
S:: 
0 2? 
0 
0 cd 
0 4) 
M Er-I 
r-4 
(D 
E-4 
43 
(1) 
k 
(D 
A 
(D 
0 
0 
PCI 
04 
0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
(» 0 0 m 0 
0 
rn t- r--4 L-- 
CM 
00 
-- 
%4o 110 Ljrl% 
r 4 
aýN 
to 
00 
0 ; 02 9) 
x0 -4 4.3ý - 0 
0 , ý r4 C 
0 0. ' 
2 
t 
(1) x 
9-1 -- e $ 
m 
0 Z r-i I-4 4 x: o 4 le , W 0 a) 4 _H 0 -4 0 -r-i Z m 54 0 0 m p ý 4 0 n 50 0 m Ff F-4 94 U) $4 4 3 z 0 - pf 0 10 C. 4 5 
1 (P 1 
04 
$4 
a) r= P ri2 
CLO (D 
U, 
U) 
IIZD 
0 
Wm 
ý t 43 m 
-P 
M -f-I 
0 
9 ? ý 
P4 
4 m 
rq -P 
il 
4) 
r4 
g 
A 
r-I ::: rom 
C/2 IID 
;9 
4) 
4) 
M 
171 
a) 
93 w 
-rl ý +3 
0 
-4 r-i 
r--i (V) 
-r4 
k 
0 
.9 
-4 
- ; ý- 
m 
. 04 
1 
0 
0 
1., 
(D 
E-f 
0 
;9 
:: s 
P: 0.., 
() 
(D 
- 
CrN 
43 
q: l 
ýo U) 
E3 
r-4 $4 
0 
(D 0 
ýE: 
m > 
(D 
r bD 
0 m m 0 P4 
m 0 
:; ý 
0 
M 
0 4) 
m 0 
. 41 - r-4 0 0 rt % 
- e- r-i 
P4 
o 
0 : 
U2 2? 0 9 0 l 4D 9 0 > 
0 
A 04 
> -4 Of 11 P21 r4 cd 4) E-4 r P, A 0 r-4 4) V-4 I 
(D ý 4) V2 r-4 0 
A -j - 0, pq C: 4 * 40 0 &0 4) 0 ; P4 od 0 
E-4 P S 
r4 
S 
-. 0 
pa pq 
c; «ý pq pq 
02 m 
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co c2 92 
E4 
P; 
9 
, cf pm 
0 
0 rj2 
(M 
r-4 C\j 
Lfl% 00 
cy 
. 
44 &1 0 
4) 0 
43 
rn m 
ca 
A 0 
0 
0 
0 
9t 
w 
0 . 42 
-ri 
0 
0 
A 
0 
;9 H 0 m 
m 
P. I> 
Cd 
0 $4 
S 
U) 
"S 
"S 
"S 
/383 
pq 
0 
:; 'I. Iw 
40 
cd 
P4 
r4 
to 
EI 
U2 
.eN 
m 
k) 10 
PCI I g., 
00 
k 
rniW A 
0 
EQ 
8) 
, 42 
r-I 
H 
!ý m 
cd 
r-f 
cd 0 42 
Cd Ck4 
I. 
I 
1) 
ILI 
(D 
0 
0 
P4 
w 
:z -rl 
ýa J . ri 
to 
q;: t 
E-4 
ILI 
0 
(D En 
Cd 
14D 
0 
0 
ýc 
0 
P. 
4 
W 
V-4 
W 
*rl ft 
%_.. o IL, 
0 
r-i 
-p 14 m 
m A--1 ä (1) 
P 
0 
. r-D 
r-4 
S 
UIS 
E-4 
C,, " 
S 
11 
c 
"rl 4 
$4 
to E-4 
m 
(D 
r-A 
N4 
:3 b. 0 
co ED w 
( 0 
$4 rl r-i ri 
D 
5 -P 
,a 4 0 
e 
C12 
r-I m 
c ? 
(D 4 13. 
E-4 
0 
E 
0 
;9 
r; 4 CYN ir-I 
to 
94 
r-I 0 
rd Cf) 
4-4 (W 
r4 
V-4 
CD 
w -9 j 
ý 
0 
9 
; 
4) -r4 4 
1 
rl 11 (D 
4 o 
- rd 
11 -r F-4 
0 rq 
9t 
-r-I 0 k m 
9 
P4 
5 n -P P E 4 0 R ! 4 E-4 -4 E: 0 -9 r 
lim m 
m 
0 
-ý4 
A 
k P 
c 
ý. 
3 m 
o 4 c 
a c 
E-4 
co C; d 0 
a e ( 0 
--l 
ý) 
4: r 0 9 
F4 
ob 
m ýý 4) 
r-4 0m M 99 
-r4 
r-I 0 -P M 
0 > 0 
0 
0 
0 
0 r4 > 
0 
:4 0 ri C14 
40 
ILI JL4 
/384 
/385 
CH P4 $4 
Cd 00 0 (1) 49m 
r4 1ý A Im r-f 
M 
4) 1P 
P 94 k 
-11 
00 olq 
0 IOL4 
0 4) ILI rd m +3 p 42 
00 
ol 94 00 P4 
-P 
rl ý= p00 
ca 4-4 N 
Ea 4) 0 04 
E-4 U2 
.0 
oz m 
H00 rd ;4 
r= 0 : ý04 
. r. 4 C*4 -; t ;4 cc) 10 
r-I 14 r-4 \0 
C; %. 10 k 
4) 
(D 94 3.6, --, 
4) 
1 
F, 
rd 
.4 
-r-I 0 (D loq 
r-4 m .9 r-4 llý pq rj S0 4) ra k0m 0 In (D r= rd 
0N 
0 Fq (D 0 
4i8 00 -ri M $ý, P4 
-H r4 A4ýVS +3 
(n . 10 týl 0 ; -, 
ILI 4 r-4 4) P4 
-H rj 
i>b 
0 S4 S P4 
10.1 m00 to 0 
ILt --. o a) 0 
rn 4) 0 
E-4 
ý- 
4: 0 
m r4 Ul -H -1j, 
78 
c>d (is 3: co A 04 
Cd F4 04 (D k 
9-4 'o" 
ca 4) 
4 
.1 C- g -ka -<. 9 r-4 9 :9 U) 0 $4 el rs A r4 ýD -4 +3 0 -ri Hkk (D 4 
010 F4 
fa 
0 4) $4 
ý41 
3m0 
rg 0 f-j -ri 
m r-4 
0 
+2 
Cd 0 V-4 m 4) 
ro $4 00 rq 4) r. 4 Pq 0 
t). 4 P4 -8 40 
Fi; g 
cc 
S4 : P- 1 
10 
P4 
000 V2 0 
1 (D P4 cd 
pq 
rd 
U) P4 wA a) 0--l 
k 
m00 r-i bD E-4 mr ll. -Ip st, a si to 0 cc rd r4 
-4 4) w0ý i>b P4 (a co ;q V2 1-4 
00 si $4 -H 4) g 04 
r4 m ri +3 J: 
I rd 
6D W ol m rd 
04 $1 $1 ý: ) 
-r-I o roi 
0 
0 
E-4 
r= 
-P 
r -rq 
(1) 
E-4 
P4 0 
ý2; pr4 ýE: 
$4 0 
m 
co OD 0m 
94 r-I f-f ;4 $4 -H 
- 386 - 
APPENDIX 3: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS 
The criteria I decided upon in the selection of a sample reflected my 
interest in focussing on a broad spectrum of hearing impairment. They were 
as follows: 
le Age range: 22-55 
2e Living in the Greater London area 
A balance of sexes (if possible) 
4e In employment I or if unemployed at the time of the interview, with em- 
ployment experience since the onset of hearing impairment of not more than 
2 years ago, and wanting work. 
As large a spectrum of hearing loss as I felt I could 'realistically' 
handle 
Not multiply handicapped 
Mother tongue English 
It will be noted -that the criteria are fairly wide-ranging* The ration- 
ale for this lay in anticipated difficulties in finding respondents (BIRD and 
TRWAINS, 1978; TUTAINS, 1982)o Ideallyv it would have been useful to have 
added one further stipulation, namely similarity of occupationo but the ex- 
perience of the above authors in obtaining subjects within one occupational 
category deterred me* (In the event q the wide range was more than justified), 
The justification for the choice of criteria is as follows: 
le Age Range 
I was anxious to exclude school leavers as they have been the subject of 
marýy other researoh studies (DREWRYj 1958; MONTGaMY, 1967; RODDAl 1970; 
STORER, 1975, and others). Moreover, I partioularly wanted to study what is 
probably a disappearing group of the adult workforce* The adult hearing im- 
Paired are likely to be among the last generation of employees committed to 
the traditional work ethict where training for one job is presumed to last 
until retirementl and to be engaged in trades traditionally ocaupied 
by 
deaf wozicerso -- . --", \ 
- 387 - 
Technological developments are likely to have disproportionate effects on the 
work patterns of the younger hearing impaired emerging from schools in the 
1980's. I was also anxious to exclude the elderly as hearing impairment tends 
to be just one of a complex of ailments associated with the process of ageing, 
and not necessarily the main handicap throughout adult life, (The question. 
hasp in any event, been addressed by HERBST, 1981; - HERBST and HMPHREY, 1981; 
and - for the deaf community - BECKER 9 G. 1 1980) * 
However, I modified the age limits to inclnde those prelingually deaf 
who had left sohool to make up the signing and orally deaf populations -a de- 
cision made when my 'snowballing' sub-group got under way* AnC I included 
respondents over the age of 551 one of whom had retired, a further one of 
whom had retired at corroboration interviewl and the remaining 2 of whom were 
still woxicing; but all of whom had had oonsiderable experienoe of dealing 
with the handicap -throughout their employment, careers. 
2e Restricting respondents to those living in the Greater London area sim- 
ply reflected the practical necessity of restricting travelling as far as 
possible, as I do not drive* (However, in the eventj one respondent I visi. 
ted for a weekend in Nottinghamp and another visited me from Sussex)o 
It was hypothesised initially that male and female perceptions might 
differ, and hence a balance of sexes was positively sought, Ultimately, 
this was not an issue I chose -to analyse, 
Whilst it was antioipated that some respondents might well be unemployed, 
it was essential that the hearing world of employment had been experienoedi 
and that such experience was not so far removed from memory as markedly t1o 
distort perceptions* 
By the -time I embarked on the empirioal work, I had learnt the rudiments 
of pidgin sign., However, I was acutely aware that my skills were then quite 
insufficient for me to be able to communicate with the signing deafe 
The 
- 388 - 
rationale for persevering with it at all was my speculation that I might 
well come across respondents who used both oral and manual communication and 
might be more receptive to a researcher who was trying to learn. (This happ- 
ened with Mr. HH. 9 whose wife used manual communication only. As there was 
no other room for her to retire to during the interview, I was grateful for 
the possession of even oourtesy signs to alleviate any feelings of her being 
ignored). It was also intended as a lbadk-upl Ia reserve in case, at a 
later stagel I felt able to sample those profoundly prelingually deaf with 
marginally intelligible speeoh, but whose preferred m(wde of oommunioation 
waz sign., As it transpiredl from mid 1981 onwardsq I learnt suffioient sign 
language to enable me to include a small number of signing respondents in 
the sample* I eventually sampled the whole spectrum Of communication modes* 
6e It was obviously necessary to exclude other impairmentpq to avoid the 
dilemma of knowing what perceptions and meanings related to which impair. 
mento 
Similarly the exclusion of those whose mother tongue was not Englis 
was intended to obviate the situation of dealing with a double linguistic 
handicap. 2 respondentsq born respectively in Burma and Italyp were, how- 
ever includedt having adopted English as their 'native' languagee 
- 389 - 
APPENDIX 4: SOURCES APPROACHED FOR RESPOYDENTS 
1. Data Sources either not feasible or sources refused 
(a) Schools: Oak Lodge. The Deputy Head suggested that the tracing of 
records dating back sufficiently to cater for the age group I had in mind 
might be dif fiault o 
(b) Royal National Institute for -the Deaf - no direct referrals available. 
(c) British Association for the Hard of Hearing. The Director suggested 
that members of Hard of Hearing Clubs would probably be over the age limits 
I had specified in my criteria 
(d) The Link Centre for the Deafened in Eastbourne. Whilst Ms. Re McCALL 
was kindly prepared to give me every co-operationg her interest was under- 
standably orientated towards a study of the adventitiously deafened only. 
My wish to sample comparatively was not taken up. 
(e) Royal Association for the Deaf and Dumb, Shepherds Bush Club* The Rev* 
Howard White offered me every help and facility. Although he offered to arr- 
ange a flow of 'helpers' to be on hand to help with 'translation' Q9 this 
offer was not taken up as my proficiency in sign language at that stage was 
far too rudimentary to enable me to interview signing deaf subjectsp even 
with any help which could be arranged* 
The City Literary Institute, Sample refused owing to my wish to sample 
comparatively, my I lack of credibility' , and preference for other researoh 
reque st s* 
(g) The National Union of the Deaf., Mre Ladd was happy to refer me to sub- 
jectsp but at that stagep the same arguments applied as with the Royal 
Association for the Deaf and Dumb. 
2o Data sources successfully negotiated 
Hillingdon Social Services Department: 9 respondents (1 refusall 1 
unable to use) 
(b) The Employment Rehabilitation Centre, Perivalel: 3 respondents. (14 
letters sent, plus 11 'ohasers' with no response). 
- 390 - 
(c) The Breakthrough Club: 9 respondentsl no refusals. Direct contact. 
(d) Lipreading and Literacy classes of the Boroughs of Houn low and 
Richmond: 7 respondents. Both direct and indirect contact. 
(e) The Royal National E. N. T. Clinic,, Grays Inn Road: 13 respondents, 
28 subjects were contacted, 3 letters were returned 'address unknown'. 
subject was unwilling to take part, no response came from the remainder 
who were all sent 'chasers'. 
(f) 'Snowballing Group: 9 respondents* Direct and indirect contact. 
No refusalis., 
(g) Hillingdon Hospital Audiology Department - suggested sample selected 
by Me* Jackie Hartley,, Chief Audiometrician, not used, 
Res, 
_ponse 
rate 
50: 78 
Sample comprised 
27 womenj 23 men 
Average Age 
Women: 40.1 
Men: 41*3 
- 391 - 
APPENDIX 5: SPECIMEN LETTERS 
ill Specimen letter to postlingually hearing impaired respondents* follov. &- 
ing permission to contact subjects by: 
(a Mrs. B. Langford, Hillingdon Social 
(b Mro Humphries, Perivale E. R. C. 
(c Dro Stephens, Royal National E. N. T. 
Services Department 
HoBpital 
Current address 
Phone number 
Dear o., 
I am carrying out a research project at Brunel University with -the 
help of eoeeoeo He/she has given me your name and address for me to con- 
tact you directly. We both very much hope that you will be willing to take 
part in the study* 
I am studying how people with hearing difficulties get on at work, 
and whether they have problems both in obtaining work and in getting satis- 
factory work. I am interested in any practical difficulties you yourself 
might have experiencedy as well as social difficulties, 
I should very much like to come and meet you and am happy to travel 
to your home address. Everything you say will be treated in oonfidenceo 
No names will be used in the projecto The actual interview should last 
about Ij hourso I should also like to do a small hearing 'test' at the 
end of the interview - you will probably have done something like it beforeo 
I hope we may be able to talk on our own for the sake of privacy* 
If you are willing to take partv I should be grateful if you could 
complete the tear-off slip which is enclosed and return it to me in the 
stamped addressed envelope which is also enclosed* If you are working in 
the day---timeg could you tick which evening you prefero If you would pre- 
fer a weekendl please let me knowe And if you work shifts, or are not at 
work at the moment ,I am free to come during the daytime any day of the 
week* Would you like to give me your second choice, so that I can avoid 
duplication? 
When I have received the return slip, I will either write -to you or 
phone you to arrange an exact date and time for us to meet* Please would 
you also kindly sign the declaration giving permission for me to talk with 
YOU& 
I look forward to hearing from you, 
Yours sincerely, 
* (a) and (b) also included some prelingually deaf subjects 
- 391 
NAME 
ADDRESS 
Phone nuraber (if poseible) 
I confirm that I am willing to take part in Mrs. Pinder's research 
project 
Signed ....................... 
MY MIDST CONVENIENT TIMES ARE (PLEASE TICK 3. ST AND SECOND CHOICE): 
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 
Morning 
Afternoon 
Evening 
I should like you to call at (PLEASE STATE A TIME) 
".......... s................. 
- 392 - 
10 Specimen letter to prelingually deaf respondents 
Current address 
Dear .. - 
I am doing research at Brunel University to look at the problems those 
with hearing loss meet at work - both in getting a job and in finding a 
good job* 
I have been to see ...... at . *9*4p* and he/she has asked if 
you would help me in this project? He/she has given me your name and 
address for me to contact you direct. Could you sign the enclosed slip 
if you would like to take part? 
I should like to come and meet you and could come to your home* No 
names will be used in the research, and everything you say will be private* 
I should like to talk with you for about 2 hoursl and then do a small 
hearing test, You will have done something like it at ... 
Could you fill in on the enclosed slip which times you would like me 
to call (morning/afternoon or evening) and what hour of the day or eve- 
ning* I have enclosed a stamped addressed envelope for you to post the 
slip back to me* 
When I get your reply I will write to you to arrange an exact date 
and time for us to meet* 
I look forward to meeting you, 
Yours sincerely, 
- 393 - 
APPENDIX 6: FIRST INTERVIEW 
SCHEDULE 
NAME Male Female 
ADDRESS . ****G*Oooo&*Ooooo 
SOURCE *oo*9*e*eoo*oo*ooe* 
Age 25-35 3,5--44 45-55 
1* YOUR HEARING LOSS 
1. How old were you when you first began to have serious trouble with 
your hearing? 
At birth Less than 2- 2-5 - 5-10 -- 10+ 
29 Is it middle ear loss? Inner ear loss? 
How would you describe the degree of your hearing loss? 
(a) With a hearing aid 
(b) Without a hearing aid 
SHOW CARD 1 
Mild Loss Moderate Wite Severe loss Severe Very severe 
Ro ear 
L. ear 
Does it stay the same - get better - get worse -? 
Do you know what caused it? 
Do you have any side effects 
Are you able to choose whether or not to wear a hearing aid? 
If you have to wear a hearing aid, what do you feel about it? 
He GENERAL 
1. Do you think it a disadvantage to have hearing difficulties? 
If sog would you like to say anything about the following SHOW CARD 2 
(a) It causes difficulties in communication 
(b) It is inconvenient 
(o) It is a social disadvantage 
(d) It is an educational disadvantage 
(e) It is a handicap at work 
Are there any instances where you've felt particularly handicapped in 
- 394 - 
any of these fields? Please oan you tell me about them... 
29 If you feel it is a disadvantage to have hearing difficulties, 
do you think of yourself as disabled or handioapped in any way? 
3* Most people tend to belong or identify with groups. Do you feel 
you belong most to 
(a) The hearing world 
(b) The 'hard of hearing' world 
(o) The deaf world 
(d) Somewhere in between 
Is -this a comfortable feeling? 
III COMMUNICATION 
Although we're using xx now to talk to eaoh other, how do you talk with 
your friends and family? 
(a) Mainly oral (Lipreading, speech) 
(b) Mainly manual (signt finger spellingg gestures) 
(c) Both oral and manual 
(d) 'Home-made' sign and gesture 
How do you talk with hearing people outside your family and olose friends? 
(For oral communicators): Have you met people who sign? 
What do you think about signing? 
IV EWCATION 
10 What kind of school did you go to? 
Ordinary school Day 
F* H. U e 
Special School Day 
Any combination of these 
Other 
2o What age did you (a) start school 
3o Did you pass any exams or certificates? 
If so, at what level: 
SHOW CARD 3 
Residential 
Residential 
(b) Finish sehool -? 
RSA 
City and Guilds 
GCE 10' level 
GCE 'A' level 
HNC/HND 
University /Polytechnic V College of F, E. 
Other 
4* If you went to a special school/PHU what was the kind of oommuni- 
cation used? 
- 395 - 
Was signing allowed? 
Do you think the use of xxx form of communication affected your schooling 
in any way? 
Did you find it difficult to go into the outside world later? 
Did you get a job straight from sohool? 
Did anyone help you? 
Did you have any advice about choosing a job? If so, what? 
5, Do you think education for the deaf could be improved? If so in 
wh at way? 
ve EKPLOYKENT 
Can we turn to your work situation: 
1* Are you working at the moment? Part time - Full time - 
(Or when was your last job if you are not working right now? ) 
2o 
3. 
What is your job called? 
What are your actual duties? 
How long have you been employed there? 
V (a) DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING EKPLOYMENT 
le 
2. 
3o 
4* 
5o 
6* 
Have you ever been unemployed? (after hearing loss/deafness) 
If sol what was the reason? 
Have you had more than one period of unemployment? 2/3 4/5 
How long has your present/last period of unemployment lasted? 
Weeks - Months 
Can you tell me roughly how many jobs you've had? 
(If several changes) can you tell me why you changed? 
(a) Has the type of job changed? 
(b) Has the level 
, 
of job changed? 
Are there any comments you'd like to make, or instances where you've 
found it particularly difficult to get work: 
What kind of job are you looking for? 
5+ 
Can you tell me how you got on at the last interview you went for? 
- 396 - 
go On the whole have you found job getting easy or difficult? 
(If the latter, why do you think this is? ) 
10* What do you think employers feel about taking on someone with your 
kind of hearing loss? Would you agree or disagree with these statements: 
SHOW CARD 
A, Rree Don't Know DisaRree * 
"Employers think it's too much bother".. to employ someone with a 
hearing loss 
"Communication difficulties" 
"Accident risks' 
"Prefer to employ InormalsItt 
"They cause difficulties 
with colleagues" 
"They're slow$# 
"We're not a oharitylt 
"They're good workers - 
they don't get distracted" 
"They're not trouble-makers" 
llo If you are out of work, do you go to the Job Centre/DRO for help? 
12* If so, what do you feel about him/her? 
13* Do you have a Green Card? Does it help? 
14* Do you think the government could do more in helping deaf people 
get jobs? How? (Prompt) 
SHOW-CARD 
Create new jobs 
Enforce the quota scheme 
Educate employers about deafness 
Provide more training and re-training opportunities 
Reduce noise levels 
V (b) DIFFICULTIES IN ACQ-qIRING SATISFACTORY EKPLOYMENT 
RETENTION 
(For those with acquired deafness): When you began to lose/lost your 
hearingg was there any question of not being able to continue with your 
old job? 
If you are still in the same job, has it been affected at all? 
If so, can you tell me how? 
(Others): Do you find it diffioult to stay in one job? Do you know why? 
UNDEREKPLOYKENT 
Do you feel you're doing a job which uses the skills, qualifications 
and experience you have to offer? 
*The use of 5-POint scales was largely abandoned. Where inserted on the 
schedullýý, d by 3-Point scales, org on occasions, not used 
- 397 - 
If notq why do you think this is? 
NATURE OF JOB 
Generally, do you find it satisfactory Not satisfactory 
Would you like to say anything about the conditions of work 
Satisfactory Unsatisf act ory 
Hours 
Shifts 
Travelling 
Dirt/noise 
Dangerous machinery 
C asual/perm anent 
PROMOTION PROSPECTS 
1. Do you think promotion prospects for someone with your kind of 
hearing loss are 
- the satne; - better; - worse, than for hearing people 
2. Have you ever had difficulty getting promotion yourself? 
Can you tell mej if sop what happened? 
Why do you think this was? 
34o Do you actually want, more, responsibility than you've got? 
4* Do any of the following comments that are sometimes made about 
hearing impaired people apply to you in any way? 
SHOW CARD 
Reluctance of employers to promote 'the disabled' 
Communication difficulties 
Difficulties supervising hearing people 
Inability to take part in meetings 
Inability to use the phone 
Preference for Inomals' 
Others. 
Have there been any instances where you've felt this happening to you? 
5- Are there any particular jobs you -think you actually couldn't do 
because of your hearing loss? 
RANGE OF EMPLOYMENT 
le Do you think there are enough kinds of jobs available for deaf 
people? 
If notp why do you think this is? 
What would you like to add? 
JOB SATISFACTION 
Do you like your job very much; quite like it; feel it's just CK; don't 
like it aiuQ4Aifi4ikO 411"ý\ 
ý 398 - 
What do you like/dislike about your present job? 
. 
§HOW CARD 7 
Which of the following features of work do You like/dislike and which 
are important to you 
Relationships with colleagues 
Relationships with your boss 
Pay 
Working conditions 
The actual job itself 
Securit 
Status7self-esteem 
Variety 
The opportunity to use your ideas 
Others 
If you didn't have this hearing loss, what kind of job do you think 
you would be doing? 
Do you want to keep your present job? 
V (c) SOCIAL WMCULTIES IN ACQUIRING SATISFACTORY EKPLOYMENT 
COMMOICATION 
How do you communicate with your workmates and boas at work? 
(a) Using mainly oral means 
(b) Using mainly manual means 
(c) Combined method 
(d) Gesture/writing 
Can you understand what they are saying? 
Can they understand what you are saying? 
How are instructions given to you? /Or how do you convey instructions 
to others? 
Dc) you think having communication skills are important in getting 
and keeping satisfactory work? 
Do you ever pretend you've heard and understood something when you 
haven't? If sol what generally happens? 
REIATIONSHIPS WITH COLLEAGUES AND EKPIA)YMS 
le DD you have a lot of contact -; a fair amount of contact -; 
only a little contact - with your workmates? 
2* Do you think your colleagues are very helpful -; rpoderately 
helpful -; not very helpful -; unhelpful - ; very unhelpful 
; about your hearing difficulties? 
3* Would you glo to your colleagues for help if there was something 
you hadn't heard and understood properly? 
- 399 - 
What about your boss? 
5e Do you have any olose hearing friends from work? 
Do you enjoy casual offioe/factory gossip with your colleagues? 
7* Do you try to mix with your hearing colleaguesp and they with you? 
Or do you find you tend to 'keep yourself to yourself'? 
GENERAL FEELINGS ABOUT SOCIAL RELATIONS AT WORK 
Can you tell me if any of the following statements represent how you 
feel/or have felt. If sop can you remember any things that have happened 
to you. 
SHOW CARD 
Agree 
I feel lonely at work 
I can't tdk to anyone 
I join in offioe/factory 
gossip 
I have a lot of friends at work 
People tend to avoid me 
People get irritated and 
impatient with me 
I feel different from others 
I feel confident about my work 
People at work don't under- 
stand what hearing loss means 
People are prejudiced about 
deafness 
I'm frightened I won't be able 
to hold on to my job 
I feel people treat me like 
everyone else 
Sometimes I think workmates are 
saying things about me behind my 
back 
I feel rejeoted at work by colleagues 
I worry that my voice sounds odd 
I feel the same as others 
People at work think I can't 
understand things as well as them 
Don't Know 
You have i= type of hearing diffioulty. Do you think 
with different types and degrees of severity of hearing 
of the same problems at work as you do? 
Disagree 
other people 
loss have some 
Do you think they feel the same as you? 
MY ASSESSMENT (along a 'good/bad' dimension, as would be judged by the 
1* Speeoh intelligibility 
average hearing person) 
2. Lipreading skills residual hearing capacity 
(rating on Competence 
Scale) 
3- Language comprehension 
4. Reading ability 
5* Ovsýrai! r-14. nS 999"g to ItEase of Communication withoe" Scale* 
- 400 - 
APPENDIX 7: MODIFIED 
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 
NAME 
ADDRESS eoooe*eeo*oooooooooooooooooo*ooooge 
SOURCE 
How old are you? 
1. YOUR HEARING IDSS 
10 How old were you when you became deaf? 
Are you deaf in the middle ear? 
39 Do you think your deafness is ... 
Mild Moderate Quite BaVSevere 
R Ear 
L Ear 
Female 
Or right inside? 
SHOW CARD 1 
Bad. /Severe VeEZ Bad/Severe 
(a) With a hearing aid if you wear one 
(b) Without a hearing aid 
Does it stay the same ---; get better -; got worse -.? 
5, Do you know what caused it? 
Do you have any dizzineass or strange noises in the ear? 
79 Do you wear a hearing aid? Do you have to wear one/two? 
What do you f eel about wearing an aid? 
GENERAL 
11 Do you think it makes extra probleaw being deaf - on top of/in 
addition to/juat not being able to hear? 
SHOW CARD 2 
(a) In talking to people? 
(b) In making friends? 
(C) Daily dif ficulties? 
(d) At school? 
(e) At work? 
Can you think of any times you have had difficulties? 
Do you think you are disabled because of your deafness? 
3o Who do you like to be with most: 
(a) Hearing people 
People 
Male 
- 401 - 
(c) Deaf people 
(d) Both 
Do you feel uncomfortable with any of these groups? 
COMMUNICATION 
is How do you talk to your family and friends 
(a) Mainly speeoh 
(b) Mainly sign 
(o) Both 
(d) Your own signs your family understands 
29 How do you talk with hearing people outside your family? 
(For oral oommunicators): Have you met people who sign? 
If yes,, what do you think about signing? 
(For manual communicators) what do you think hearing people feel about 
seeing you sign? 
SCHOOL 
le What school(s) did you go -to? SHOW CARD 
Ordinary- Day Residential 
PHIJ 
Speoial Day Residential 
Any mixture of these 
Other 
2* How old were you starting sohool Finishing sohool 
3e Did you pass any exams or certifioates? 
If sot what? 
Did you talk or sign (or both) at school? 
Do you think .. 
/talking/signing .* made sohool diffioult? 
Did you get a job straight from sohool? 
Did anyone help you? Did you have any advice about choosing a job? 
If you went to a special school, was it easy/diffioult to go outside? 
90 Do you think sohools f or the deaf are good or bad? Can you tell 
me what you thought of your school(s)? 
10* Did you go on to further schooling when you were older 
(like 
College? Or learning a trade? ) 
If so, did you pass examsp certifioates? 
- 402 - 
WORK 
le Are you working now? Part-t ime - Full. -, time --. 
(If not working now, when was your last jo1T) 
29 What is your job called? 
What do you do at work? 
How long have you worked there? 
(a) DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING EKPLO'YKENT 
1. Have you been unemployed/without a job/on the dole/'signing on'? 
2o If sop what happened? 
3o Have you been unemployed /without a job : one time 
2 times 
several times 
4e How many weeks/months were you without a job the most recent time? 
5e How many jobs have you had? 
If you've changedg why? 
Do you think it's diffioult, for you to get a job - can you give me an example? 
Is your present job what you really want to do? 
When you go for interviews, what happensp eg: 
(a) Do you go alone? 
(b) How do you talk to the interviewer? 
(c) Do you need help with application fozms? 
94, Do you think employers want to give jobs to deaf people ? Do you agree. 
or disagree with any of these statements a boss might make: 
SHOW CARD A 
Agree Don't Know Disagree 
Employers 'can' t be bothered" 
"They can't talk with you,, 
"Deaf people make accidents" 
"They want hearing people" 
"Deaf make trouble with other 
workers" 
"Deaf are slow" 
"Deaf are good workers. They 
don't gossipt, 
"They don't make troublett /join T. U. s 
- 403 - 
Has anything like this happened to you? 
10, Do you have a Green Card? 
lle Do you think it helps you get a job? 
12t, Do you go to the Job Centre/DRO for help finding a job? What do you 
think of them? 
13* Do you think the Government should help more in getting deaf people jobs? 
SHOW CARD 5 
If so, how? (Prompt) 
(a) Make new jobs 
(b) Make bosses obey the Green Card 
(c) Tell bcmses what deafness is (so they understand) 
(d) Make more opportunities to learn new trades- 
(b) DIFFICULTIES IN-GETTING SATISFACTORY WORK 
RETENTION 
Have you ever been asked -to leave jobs because your hearing has become worse? 
Have the things you can do in a job been restricted at all? 
Do you find it diffioult to stay in one job? If so, do you know why? 
UNDEREKPLOYMENT 
Does your job use all your skills/ability/schooling? 
Could you do a better job than the one yortfre doing now? 
NATURE OF JOB 
Generally is your present job CK not OIC 
Are you happy with: 
The hours of work 
Any shift work 
Travelling to and from work 
Any dirt or noise? 
Maohinery dangers? 
Casual/or can you work there until you are 60/65? 
PRCKOTION 
le Do you want to be promoted 
/go up the ladder/ be boSB? 
2* Have you tried? If sol what happened? 
3* Do you think employers want deaf people to be boss? 
- 404 - 
Do You think the following statementB are true or not true? 
SHOW CAM 
(a) Employers don't want anLy disabled person to be boss 
(b) They want people with speech to be boss 
(0) Th(Vthink deaf people might have problems being boss over hearing 
people 
(d) They think deaf people can't hear at meetings 
(e) They think deaf people can't use the 'phone. 
Have any of these things ever been said to you? 
What jobs do you think you actually cannot do because of your deafness? 
RANGE OF EMPLOYKENT 
1. Are there enough kinds of jobs for deaf people? 
2* Do you think deaf people oould do more jobs than they do? 
If so, what stops them? 
What jobs would you like to add? 
JOB SATISFACTION 
Do you like your job very muoh -, is it just CK -, do you dislike it?. 
What things do you like/dislike in your job; and which are important to you? 
SHOW CARD 
(a) Your workmates 
b Your boss 
0 The pay/money 
d The work you do 
e Seourity/saf ety 
f Pride in what you da 
(g Many different things to do 
(h) Other 
If you were not deaf p what job do you think you would 
be doing? 
Do you want to keep your present job? 
(0) SOCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING SATISFACTORY EMPLOYMENT 
CCKMICATION 
How do you talk to your wor1cmates and boss at work? 
(a) Using mainly speeoh/lipreading 
Using mainly signs 
Both 
- 405 - 
Can You understand what they are saying? 
Can they understand you? 
How does your boss tell you when he wants something done? 
Do you think being able to talk to hearing people at work is impartant? 
Do you ever 'lie' a little - say you've heard and understood when you haven't? 
If not, do you ask hearing people to say it again? 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COLLEAGUES AND EMPLOYERS 
1. Do you mix a lot -; a fair amount -; or very little - with 
your workmates? 
2., Do you ask them for help if you can't hear and understand? 
3* Are your workmates helpful and understanding about your hearing loss 
or not? 
4e What about your boss? 
Do yo-a have any olose hearing friends from work? 
6,6 Do you like to gossip with hearing workmates? 
7., Do you try to mix with your workmates? Do they try and mix with you? 
Or do you 'keep yourself to yourself' /stay on your own? 
GENERAL FEELINGS ABOUT SOCIAL RELATIONS AT WORK 
Have you felt any of the following things? Or have any of these things 
happened to you? 
SHOW CARD 
Yes No 
I feel lonely at work 
I can't talk to anyone 
I join in offioe/factory gossip 
I have a lot of friends at work 
People avoid/don't come near me 
People get cross and impatient with me 
I feel different from other people 
I feel oonfident/oan do my job well 
People at work don't understand about 
deafness 
People have bad ideas about deafness 
I'm frightened I'll lose my job 
I feel equal/the same as everyone else 
Sometimes people say unkind things be- 
hind my baok 
- 4o6 - 
Yes No 
I feel people don't want me there at work 
I worry that my voice/speech sounds strange/ 
funny 
People think I can't understand things at 
work 
MY ASSESSKENT rI (along a good/bad' dimension as would be judged by -the 
1.1 Speeoh intelligibility 
average hearing person) 
29 Lipreading skills; residual hearing capacity - rating on Competence 
Scale 
Language comprehension 
Reading ability. - 
59 Overall rating according to "Ease of Cxmunication with" . Soale 
- 407 - 
APPENDIX 8 (i)_: 
_ -ATTEMPTS 
AT CLASSIFICATION 
, 
THE GALLAUDET HEARING SCALE 
1.1 oan hear loud noises 
2.1 can uEmally tell one kind of noiBe from another 
I can usually tell the sound of speech from other Bounds 
4* 1 can usually hear and understand a few words without seeing the 
speaker' s face and lips 
5- 1 can usually hear and understand 
, 
most of the things a person says 
to me without seeing his face and lips. 
"The items, in that order, have logical validityv in that a person who 
answered No to the first item would logically be expected to answer No to 
all subsequent items oe, Conversely, a person who answered Yes to item /5/ would be expected to answer Yes to all the preceding items* Knowing 
the point on the scale at which the individual reversed his responses 
(from Yes to No) it should be possible to reconstruct his answers to all 
other points on the scale" 
(From SCHEIN, J*l "The Deaf Community: Studies in -the Sooial Psyohology 
of Deafnessllq 1968) 
E-4 
U) 
8 
E-4 
go 
Co 
X 
/408 
E-4 0 
9 
CO 
1.4 
E- 
- 
-4 
0 
ý4 
+) 
m 
0 
114 
0H 
rd 
42 1 C- w C- 9 (110 
00 -P 4) -, 
E0k 
rq m ce . ri 40m0 $4 
r-q 
.6 
$4 Cd 0 P, 
IM4 0 4) rd 
to Cd A rd 4-4 9ý 
F4 00006 .4q :3A 0m si ED 00 
rd I rf 
1 -9 4) ri 0 79 Z>4 -ri Cl- 4) r: 
9 *0 14 9 si 4) rd 9 
M. Oý QMm0 si 00 
r10 -P J34 
F4 
0 4) m rcl rd 4) 
r4 C, tto 9ý 0 P4 00-, p 0k 
si 0 
00Hi 11% 80 .2F., m1 19 0; 0p eto 
93 
4) 144 4) 
p r--l 4) A 4) 
r. 4 ro- $4 :9 rd 0 4-1 cd 7g 
W 1.4 r4 0 
-81 000 51 r4 C- 4.4 -P 0 F4 M 
0m8m0 ri mm0 
Cd mk 0) 
0m lCd, 0 
P4 Al 
0,0) 
-P . 
010 0.0 
14 $4 43 .,. 4 
Cd Cd cd a) 0 (1) t: W4 0W 
0 (1) 
1A 
10 
A0 
-P 
m si 
ri P4 0 -P 4.4 Amm 4a ca si 
0 
m 4) -H 9i 0 $4 0 (D 
'N 000000 
-f-4 S 
4) -r4 -P 0 -r4 0 -r-I r4 
to .90 t>b -P 
-9 0 rAl W 0- m 
ca 02 ti;. 4 
4 
0 
4) 
4) 00 
144) 0 
V. 4 0 
0 cd MPk si -P >0C, 6- wP01: 
4 -P 
C- 
4-4 P (D Rct 0 4) 0A 4) r: ag 
;0 4) 4-4 
; 2--Il w00>>000. 
IE9;. 
4 Ild 4-1 
P4 Q0 $4 - 9: ýc a* ji 4) 4) r-4 4) 0 
Cd 0008mg0A0w0 0 
ý4 :1 -5 
cd NH 
cd 4-4 ; ic 
IxC: 
'd; 134 rn t1l, m 01-ý tý-4 S 
0 'd 4) rd m (a cd 0 . 114 m rd ca rd 
a CS 0 r4 
Cf) ý09 -A LIC ,I Om I'll-, V. 0 $ý4 -1p .0 00 r4 0 4-4 . 221 -P .9-g 0- 0 $4 4) S. 4 -P m m -P w04,0 10 0 P4 -r-4 M cd . 12 IL, $4 -W F4 0 .5 Cd tý e, IL, 
9 
m 4-4 0 4) 4) We cd W -ri 
rd %0 ce . 
01 Id rd 53 4) % 4-4 
00 -P 
ý 
4) k -P ID ce 
ý 
rq > qj 
a- 0ý 
.00 
-e 
0A50A. 
-N. 
00 cd 0) 
9 it 1-2 .0ý cd 14 . 1, 
00999 ce 
9 
%-. 10 
9 
t>D ýý Cd 
9m t'll 91 
Mjg t'll V: 
4-4 
FA H 
cz 
A 
-Z r! 0; Cý ul 
r-4 
/409 
0 
0 rd 
.W E-4 
rd 
I 
pq 
r 
40 
Id 
mý Erf ýý p liv 
0 
cd 
0ý1 0 S4 >ý, f. 4 -P t: -4 0k . r4 :90 
44 
_P14 1 -cd 10 
Cil V-1 V-.., P PS r-4 0 r-4 > 4) 0 (D C- 
4) Ul 4) 0 
Aw 
c"d 0 
0 q: % A ýO 
A 4) -P 4.3 P4 cd 4) rc: W 4) 04 Ei 0 44 0P :ja C- -P AAA 0m : 3C 0k6.0 -P 4.3 
0A bD A. C: Cd 00 54 -1 4 P4 r-I 0 si 1: 4 0 -5 0 ra 0H rq (11 94 P4 Cft . (D P4 ca rd *5 -P a cd 
4, A 
(D r= -P -13 0 (a w0 
rq 0 -r-I ;J0 Cd -g 4) $: 'q' 
. 
(D 4-1 %. -. e r= O; 
l 
(1) ri 4.4 '01 (D to 7g cd 4) cd si 0 (1) 
ra P, V-4 CH A > E! 
CO 
s (1) 0 m rd 
r49: 
09 
00 4-4 > rd 40) 
(D k0;. 4 P4 0 0" 0 r4 
0 0 -1 CH 4-4 0 10 Iýd r= (D rdl 0 
r4 
r-l cd Cd 0W 4) (D ri CH 
rd 4-4 
4) 94 ri 4-4 cd rd 
ý 15 00 (1) Pot 
1 113 F4 I li a) 0 %-OP rcf 40 Aj 4) 
.0 '00 
13) (D A0 Ole 
2 
si 0 
(1) 
;9 
Pý P4 P4 
.0 -F 
1ý4 si ýD 00 
(. D Wm C) m000A 
loc". W cd C4-1 Ea 
1 
P4 P4 rd 
P 4-4 cd (D cd (1) S. 4 bD 
'd 0 S-, 0 4) P4 si 0 '0 pf 00W, 4) c 4) 5 (1) 0 C\i "d C\j q00 -P CH m x: ED P4 -1 0 r-4 '-d ýý H Pi -1-a 
s:: -P (D (D 0000 m 01k F-I -P -r-I 4) M (D 
'0 
f: 4 o r-I 
P, 
k9o, 
.0A 
P4 Al 0) 
cd cis >z, F4 ;j rd 8 'd a rd *2 
a) 0 -H (D 0 090PH cd . 04 F4 0 0 SLI 0 4- ý'4 4-4 rd 4-4 Ul +2 02 4-1 S r: 0 t>4 
(D ýc 
4-4 4-4 0 
Uý C; Cý V-A V-1 r-4 M r-I V-4 r-4 R C\j 
e4 
Id 
;m 
E44 
«9 ý, cs 
rd 
ýo 
0 
,. -I rd F-I 
!Q 
P41 
0% 
02 
m 
0 
. ri 0. 
v02 
x 
-ri >Z> 
Q- 
(D 
Cd 
r--l 
4-4 
%-.. 0 
2F 
Cd 
A 
co 
0 
4) 
r2 
0 
0 
rd 
tý-z C- 
Cd 
00 
rVI Lrý -'0 
Cl, 
I-I 
0 
0 
ob 
0 
it x 20 
P -2 (0 
'cl e 
0 _H 
0 
, C2 
0 e- 
>* 
S 
A 
0 
. rq 
P4 
4) 0 4) 
9 
0 
C\l 
5 
4-4 
0 
4) Ch- 
0 
;9 
(D -H 
S 
/410 
- 411 - 
APPMIX 8-(iii): PURE TONE AIR CONDUCTION TESTING OF RESPONDENTS 
I elected to do some form of laudiometriol testing primarily as a means 
of classifying respondents fairly broadly into groups for the purposes of 
compariBon. It was felt at this early stage (August 1980) that some lobjeo- 
tivel criterion was a necessary antidote to reliance on subjective perceptions 
only. I was still influenced not only by the legacy Of positivismg but by 
the status pure -tone audiometry seemed to have acquired as the only standard- 
ised and internationally recognised means of testing hearing loss. As GREGORY 
(1964) notes: "Non-clinical assessment of the subject's hearing condition 
is ... a very hit-and-miss affair .. it is unlikely that two batches 
of interviewers would ever reach exactly the same conclusions about 
the same subject", 
(That my views underwent a fairly radical volte-face over the research period 
in no way invalidates the attempts I made. I oontend they have served a 
useful - if not salutary - purpose, as indicated in Chapter 2*) 
No audiometric data of any kind had been made available to me for the 
first three sub-samples of respondents I obtained from Hillingdon Sooial Ser- 
vices Department, Perivale Employment Rehabilitation Centre, and the Break- 
through Club. I therefore enlisted the help of a University psychologist 2 
Mro Harry Moore, The intention was not to use a proper audiometer., I have 
no car to transport heavy equipment v or to transport respondents 
to a centre 
for testing. And at the time, I had no knowledge of the small portable 
Peters diagnostic audiometer AP32 or AF 32S. 
(It is doubtful whether I should 
have been able to negotiate the loan of such an instrument over the inter- 
view period). Thusl such practical constraints dictated that whatever equip- 
ment was devised should be small and portable. Larger and more sophisticated 
instrumentation wouldp of course, have ensured more refined results* The 
question was one of optimising compromises* 
A cassette was made up, consisting of a series of pure tones, 
delivered 
at 10 second intervals, at 3 d3 levelsi 40,50 and 
60, and calibrated over 
a frequency range of 125 to 12,000 Hz 
(of. Test Sheet (a). Headphones to 
Oontrol for acoustic interference were worn by each respondent, who pressed 
-412 - 
a buzzer when a tone was identified. The tester was also equipped with a 
monitor, but the occurrence of tones could also be checked against the cali- 
brated numbers appearing on the tape recordero 
Two probleMB Boon appeared: The accepted way of determining a threshold 
of hearing is to average the pure tone loss in the better ear over the fre- 
quency range chosen, I quickly found that the 3 dB levels chosen were much 
too low, in that respondents I was testing could often only identify one or 
two tones, per test. This could have been resolved by taking the 'nil' points 
on respondents' scores as indicating a loss of more than 120 dB (STORER, 
1980). Over 120 dB it is immaterial whether a person hears 10 or 20 dB morel 
since a deficit of such magnitude indicates a total lack of useful residual 
hearinge (iee There would have been little point in finding a more acauxate 
averageq because it would, at that figure, have no useful indications for 
speech)e Howeverv this seemed an inadequate solution to the aim of assessing 
the hearing loss for the range of respondents I had in mind to test* 
The second problem was more intractable, Disparate results in testing 
soon emerged. One respondent, Mr. LeM., was therefore invited in to the 
University to take a full pure tone audiogram test (air conduction only)* 
The disparities were very marked in that I had been recording responses on 
the equipment at dB levels which were much better than the threshold at 
which respondents could, in fact, hear when tested on a proper audiometero 
I therefore tested the psychologist on the equipment and obtained an acaur- 
ate picture of his hearing capacity* The equipment was, therefore, both 
being administered and interpreted correctly but was deficient 
in some 
other, as yet unknowng respeot* 
The psychologist suggested that incorrect responses were arising 
for 
3 possible reasons: (a) the 10 dB intervals were not discriminating suffio- 
iently for subjects; (b) indications of slight sibilance at 
the beginning 
of each pure toneq and a pronounced 'click' at 
the end of some intervals 
would suggest that these were being picked up and 
identified as sensations 
- 413 - 
or vibrations by respondents rather than tones; (o) the dB levels were too 
low to cater for the range of hearing loss of my respondents. 
It was decided, thereforeg to prepare a further tape (of. Test Sheet 
(b), lengthening the signals to prevent attention wandering, taking higher 
dB levelsq and providing finer discrimination points within each level; and 
improving the purity of tone by eliminating the unintended intrusion of baok- 
ground 'clicks' and sibilance. A fader was used instead of a push button 
to feed in the signal from the signal generator to aohieve this* 
It was also decided to restrict the frequency range to 125 - 4,000 Hze 
This covers the range of most sensitivities and is the standard range for 
speech sounds (although some authors suggest the speech reception threshold 
can be identified well over an attenuated range of 500 - 2tOOO Hz (DAVIS 
and SILVERMAN, 1978). 1 have retained the use of the wider rangel referring 
to M"YKLEBUST's (1964) breakdown of the distribution of speech sounds: 
"Approximately 15 per cent of the speech sounds fall betweem 250 and 
500 cycles, 30 per, cent between 500 and 1,000 oyclest 40 per cent bet- 
ween-ljOOO and 29000 cycles, and 15 per cent between 2,000 and 
49000 cycles"* 
It is also a range used and validated by HAGGARD et. al. (1981)o 
Three levels of intensity at each frequency were devised, averaging 
54-57 dB; 61-63 dB; and 66-68 db; and three further levels within each av- 
erage dB range were established, the differences between Levels I, II and 
III representing an increase of 10 dB, Thus a respondent who could not hear 
at Level 1,11000 Hz (Low), might hear at Level 111,1,000 Hz 
(High). 
The newly devised equipment was then tested on myself and 
found to be 
consistent with the findings of air conduction- testing on the 
University 
audiometer. I then re-tested Mr. L. M. and the results showed 
broad compati- 
bility with his audiogram proper, It was possible to re-test only 
2 of the 
original respondents (Mr, FoJ. and Mro SoG. 
) and the data was found to have 
corrected for error in both caseso 
Further validation of the exercise was inferred 
from obtaining audio. 
grams for 3 of my original respondents 
from Hillingdon E. N, T, Clinic (the 
- 414 - 
only sub-sample for which I obtained audiograms and which, it will be re- 
called, I had no need to use)* Thus validity had been confirmed altogether in 
cases (including myself)o 
It is necessary to deal with the very valid criticism of LYSONS (1978): 
that audiometric measurements are for otologists to administer and interpret, 
not untrained, unqualified personnel. I am all too conversant with the 
dangers of lay researchers drawing incorrect inferences from such data, How- 
ever, to reiterate, the aim was to devise an heuristic instrument which 
could be fairly readily used to divide my population into broad groupsq 
whilstv at the same timep being sufficiently reliable to give me a rough app. 
roximation of respondentBI pure tone hearing loBso 
The subjective element in my own interpretation of the 'evidence' and 
the way in which I chose to classify it I make no pretensions to being other 
than amateur* The data is thus presented in the form of a series of pattp- 
erned matrices for a sample of respondents, so as to be readily accessible 
to the laymane 
Additionallyv rather than trying to embrace a corpus of technical lan- 
guage and concepts with which I was insufficiently conversantl I have based 
my classification of respondents along a simple 5-point "Competence" Scale, 
from "Competence Good" (I), to "Competence Very Severely Impaired" (V) (cf. 
Po 423 ). It is designed to correspond broadly-, as far as severity of im. 
pairment is concerned? with the gradations adopted on the "Ease ef Communi. 
cation with't Scale for severity of handic . 
(The problems this incurred 
will be indicated later, aand have already been dealt with 
in Chapter 2. ) 
It will be readily apparent that whilst the two polarities, 
Groups I 
and V caused little problem in classification - either 
the response was pos- 
itive over all frequencies., at the lowest average 
dB threshold, or there was 
nil response at the maximum average dB threshold - 
those in between pre- 
sented considerable difficulties* 
I havev therefore, endeavoured to establish and group together what 
- 415 - 
appear to be fairly consistent patterns of response: distinguishing the 
levels or thresholds at which hearing for pure tone still remains intact, 
the parts of the speech range still covered, and the symmetry or asymmetry of 
loss. It isp of ooursep a moot point whether, for examplep asymmetry of loss 
with preservation in the better ear over the whole speech range is 'better' 
or 'worse' than symmetrical lossl at perhaps a higher average dB threshold 
(eg. Level II), or covering only part of the speech range. It simply depends 
on the situation one is facing and the purpose for which acuity of auditory 
perception is required. It is similarly difficult to ascertain whether 
s. ymmetrical hearing at Level III only overl sayl two-thirds of the speech 
range is 'better' or 'worse' than asymetrical loss above Level II over a 
comparable part of the speech range, 
With these diffiaulties in mind, I refer 'the reader to the examples 
have given which guided my own steps in trying to devise a coherent means 
of classification. I have selected for demonstration 3 subjects from each 
"Competence Group" as representing f airly well-defined examples of a particular 
pattern (of. Graphs and accompanying data sheets at the end of this Appendix). 
The matrices of the remaining 23, respondents I included in the sample weret 
in some cases, slightly less well defined, but none-theless relevant to a 
discussion of the statements I feel able to make about the findingse 
Prior to a discussion of these, a few additional qualifications need 
to be made concerning the limitations of my equipment. Statistically re- 
spondents with asymmetric loss of 40 dB or over form a very small proportion 
of the hearing impaired population* It was therefore fortunate that I came 
across Miss P. L. in the early stages of testing. For this situation, masking 
is necessary, for which I was totally unequipped* It consists of 11*, keep- 
ing the unwanted .., ear busy listening to a 
laud noise entirely 
different in character from the pure tones we are using for the thMBh- 
old test" (NAUNTONj 1968)9 
In additionp bone conduction testing should ideally also 
have been per- 
formed, but I was similarly unequipped to do this, I have been unable 
to 
locate the exact degree of distortion - if any - incurred 
by such an mission. 
- 416 - 
However, I refer to STORER (1982) who comments that apart from very excep- 
tional circumstances, it is quite sufficient to test for air conduction 
only, a procedure he adopted in his own well-acclaimed research (1975)o 
Finally, it was still difficult to assess, in marginal cases, whether 
respondents were reacting to vibration or sensation rather than to the stim- 
ulus of a tone. In the oase of Mr. DoSo for examplev profoundly preling- 
ually deaf, he responded affirmatively to the lowest average dB threshold 
across all frequenoies. Yet he was unable to hear a bang or thump on the 
chair when I tried to attract his attention. Both Miss P,, L. and Mr, D*S* 
were omitted from the sample for these reasons* 
A further 10 respondents were omitted from the sample for other reas- 
ons: the request to terminate the test because of alleged pain and disoom- 
fort (Miss V. G. and Miss L. S. ); uncertainty of response (Mr* C, S. ); an in- 
ability to re-do the test situation with the revised equipment (Mr. HeHo 
and Mr. W. C. ); and a combination of fatigue, time constraints and irritab- 
ility on -the part of 5 respondents which precluded testing at every rele- 
vant level (Miss H. Q. , Mrs. I. Y. , Mr. A. E. I Mrs. S*B. and Mrs. A*B. 
) 
FINDINGS 
These have to be interpreted with some circumspection given the diffi- 
Culties inherent in juxtaposing two sets of data based on disparate criteria 
and, therefore, on incompatible levels of discourse, Nevertheless, the in- 
itial objective was the same: namely to achieve some measure of respondents' 
hearing capacity* It is with the above caveat that I present such findings 
as emerged. It is for future researchers to refine my endeavours. 
I refer the reader to Tables 8a and 8býat the end of this section where 
the discrepancies between my functional assessment of respondents according 
to an "Ease of Communication with" Scale and ranking according to the re- 
sults of pure tone testing will be readily apparent* 
Marked discrepancies (ie. where ranking differed by two or more groups) 
weremost noticeable in Communication Group I: Mrs. L. Lo, Mrs. D. H. 
- 417 - 
and Mr, B*T. are profoundly deaf, yet accomplished lipreaders in a one-to. 
one situation, as is Mr. C. R. with somewhat more residual hearing to aid him. 
Miss B*G. is not only profoundly deaf. She is profoundly prelingually 
deaf 9 arid by all accounts should not be able to function in Communication 
Group I at allw Yet on my several encounters with herl both at home and at 
the Club, easy interaction was readily achieved, as it was with the 3 other 
respondents* 
It must be notedq of coursep that testing in adulthood may bear little 
relation to the results of testing during childhood. How far hearing has de- 
teriorated since childhood is an unknown quanti-l-, y with all respondents in 
this sample. 
Respondents ranked laudiometricallyl in Group II generally reflected a 
pure tone loss pattern which was asymmetric, or symmetric but preserved, 
either over the lower or higher part of the speeoh range, or at Level II 
over the major part of the speeoh rangel allowing fairly free room for com- 
pensating devices to be employed in interaction with others. There were few- 
er marked discrepancies. Howeverg Mr. S. L. 9 and to a lesser extent Miss 
C, G. were important ewcept ions I both being prelingually deaf I the latter 
profoundly so. Againg both respondents communicated fairly easily in the 
one-to-one situation of an interviewo 
As one proceeded along the "Ease of Communication with" Scalep there 
was increasing congruence between my ranking of respondents' communicative 
competence as deficient 9 and their Competence rating as Severely or 
Very 
Severely Impaired in the testing situation (Mrs. F. S. excepted)e In 548 
Cowunication Group V cases, assessments on both Scales were exactly con- 
gruent. This may reflect the increasing 'efficiency' of pure tone testing 
when the variables which are so important in determining functional perfor- 
mance are increasingly absent a 
Howeverv it is the marked discrepancies (8: 38) where ranking between 
communicative and audiometric competence differs 
by 2 or more groups, and 
- 418 - 
to a lesser extent the smaller discrepancies (10: 38) where ranking differs 
by one groupq whioh oall into question relianoe on traditional methods of 
assessing hearing loss. As BENDERLY (1980) notes, it is what audiometric 
measurements fail 'to tell us which are of significance* What 3*IS plain from 
this small exercise is the failure of pure tone air conduction testing -to 
predict with any degree of successor accuracy how well or how badly an im. 
dividual will perform in his outside life domains, given : x% hearing loss. 
Yet in many if not most clinibs pare tone audiometry is still the only 
criterion used. Speeoh disoriminAion. testsp even of the simplest variety.. 
(ie. Phonetically Balanced Word Lists) usually have -to be speoially asked for. 
As far as I am aware? Dro Stephens is one of the few audiologists actively 
working on the development of more sophisticated testing and questionnaire 
administration aimed at gauging just such functional capacity (BARCHAN and 
STEPHENS, 1981)o 
The finding that very nearly half the testing assessments made of res- 
pondents would, if judged in isolation, indicate a picture which was worse 
- and in 8 cases markedly worse - than actual fu=tional performancev has 
important ramifications: particularly for the role of audiologist as official 
labellers and subsequent oategqrisation processes for educational and occu- 
pational placemerrt. (In 15 cases, the rankings corresponded; and in only 5 
cases was the pure tone assessment actually better than functional perfor- 
mance, as rated on my 'Tase of Communication with" Scale)* 
This would suggest that severity of loss, even when taken in aonjunction 
with a 'knowledge' from respondents of age of onset of impairmentj and mono- 
/binaurality, is unable to tell us what a person can heare Most importantly, 
it fails to identify what a hearing impaired adult is able to do with what- 
ever residual hearing is left to him. A much worse diagnostic and prognostic 
label is in danger Of being applied to him than may be justified by the 
various compensatory mechanisms a person has at his disposale 
Final4v what is of note is that some respondents ranked 
I audiometri- 
- 419 - 
callY' in Competence Groups I and II were often those who articulated most 
strongly the sense of being handicapped by their impairment (Miss N. P., Mrs* 
C. O., Mrs* A. H., and Mr. J. R. being particularly vocal On this score). 
This is not to infer, however, that respondents in Competence Groups III- 
V were better 'adjusted' to their lot, as argued by COWEN and BOBROVE (1966), 
Articulation of their frustration was often situation-specific as I have 
shown, A more plausible explanation in line with the thrust of the argu. 
ment of this thesis may lie in the pervasiveness with which stereotypic 
images concerning 'deafness' tend to be incorporated by respondentaq perti- 
cularly those with acquired deafness, It is a case of confronting their 
own culturally inherited stereotypes* 
In conclusion I consider my efforts at pure tone air conduction test- 
ing) whilst failing to serve the purpose for which they were originally in- 
tended, have nevertheless added some substance to the findings of previous 
writers with more extensive experience of the subject than mine (HERBST 
and THOMIýS. 1980; STEPHENS9 1980; THOMAS and RING, 1981): namely the lizi. 
tations of such a measurement as a predictive tool for assessing functional 
capacity; and its negative concentration on what a person cannot, rather 
than can, hearo As STORER (1980) has commented on the latter point: "It is 
not really what a deaf person hears of pare tones that matters but 
rather how much use he or she makes of the hearing they have", 
More importantly, my findings have suggested a new and more insidious 
dimensions namely the possible distorting effects clinical labels may 
have on their owng divorced from other information relating to a subject's 
functional performancee It is after all clinical information which 
reaches employers by way of reference or testimonial. Yet the failure of 
audiOlOgiSt8 to relate pure tone ability to hear to functional capacity 
reflects the very dilemma in which I have found myself trapped& the pro- 
blem of transcodingi or relating one set of measures based on the inner 
logic of the scientist to the subjective assessments of his patients, 
I leave the problem of the possibly distorting effects of reliance on 
pure tone audiometry alone for future researchers 
to investigate. 
mw%- - -0-1 '1 .. -- ft-P 
+f'ý" 0 +A Rti "Er it% A &-t-mml i Alh whiat T hA A ha 
- 420 - 
self been of salutary importance, more than justifying the effort involvedo 
I could not have convirad myself v short of actually carrying cut the exer- 
ciseý and endeavouring to juxtapose two sets of data based on fundamentall3r 
different levels of discourse, that recourse to both qualitative and quanti- 
tative data does not necessarily work, Reliance on one or other method is 
necessary to avoid straining the data. Recourse to other means of valid- 
ation of qualitative datag such as respondent verification, is possibly one 
of the ways out of such a dilemma* 
FREQUENCY 
125 4o dB 
50 dB 
60 dB 
250 
1 
500 
19000 
29000 
31000 
41000 
5,000 
61000 
7vOOO 
81000 
91000 
10,000 
11,000 
12,000 
- 421 - 
Test Sheet 8 
TAPE COUNT L.. H. VOL. R. H. VOL. 
004, -M 1 
2 
11-15 3 
20-24 4 
27-31 1 2 
35-40 3 
45-49 4 
53-57 2 2 
61-65 3 
69-73 4 
77-81 2 2 
85-89 3 
93-96 4 
100-105 3 2 
108-112 3 
115ý-119 4 
123-127 3 2 
130-133 3 
137-141 4 
145-149 4 2 
154-158 3 
162-165 
170-173 4 2 
177-180 3 
183--186 4 
191-194 5 2 
197-199 3 
203-206 4 
209-212 5 2 
216-219 3 
221-224 4 
228-231 6 2 
234-236 3 
240-243 4 
246o-M 7 3 
253-255 4 
259-262 5 
265--M8 8 4 
27 1--27 4 5 6 276--2-79 
282--285 9 4 
288-291 5 
294P-296 6 
299-302 9 4 
305-307 5, 
R. E&R La EAR 
310-313 
- 422 - 
Test Sheet 8b 
Right hand vol: at 2 for lst session 
: at 3 for 2nd session 
: at 4 for 3rd session 
START AT B= 50 
Average dBo threshold 
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH 
in Hz 54 -T 61 --a 66 - 68 
LEVEL 
I 
125 11 
III 
250 
500 
19000 
21000 
3,000 
4,000 
Right Ear 
Left Ear 
_CWKENTS 
,, oor-- 
- 423 - 
PURE TONE AIR CO'I'TDUCTION TESTING 
Ca"I'Ph-TENCE SCALE 
le CXPEPUTCE " ROUP I: COMPETENCE GOOD 
Hearing for pure tones at Level I over the whole frequency range 
(125 Hz to 41000 Hz) and at lowest dB threshold (averagle 54-57) with 
both ears. 
2* CCUPETENCE GRCXJP II: CCMP=CE MODERATELY ADEqJATE 
For example: 
Asymmetric lossl but hearing in better ear wholly or largely pre- 
served over the speech range, at the lowest dB thresholdv or 
preserved over the whole speech range at Level II; 
Loss symmetric, but preserved over lower or higher part of the 
speech range at lowest average dB threshold (Level I); 
Loss symmetric but preserved at Level II over major part of 
the speech range; 
(iv) 'Cut off' at higher frequency ranges, at all levels. 
CCMPETENCE GROUP III: C(ITPETENCE FAIRLY SEVERELY IMPAIRED 
For example: 
Asymmetry of loss with hearing at Levels II and III preserved in 
better ear only, covering spee-ch range either wholly or partially; 
Symmetry of loss, residual hearing for pure tones covering only 
Level III over middle spectrum of speech range; 
(iii) Cut-off, points at low and/or high frequencies 
CCMP=CE GROUP IV: CCMPETENCE SEVERELY IMPAIRED 
For example: 
(i) Hearing at frequency Levels below speech range indicating little 
or no capacity to pick up or discriminate speech sounds; 
(ii) Hearing only at isolated frequencies and average dB thresholds; 
(iii) Marked 'cut-off' points over 500 Hz where response dropped below 
average dB threshold levels tested 
5o COMPETENCE GROUP V: COMMENCE VERY SEVERELY IMPAIRED 
Nil response to testing situation at any average 
dB threshold over 
any frequency 
- 424 - 
Table 8 (a) 
RESPONDENTS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE COMP=CE SCALE9 FRCM PURE TONE 
AIR CONDUCTION TESTING RESULTS 
CCMFETENCE GROUP I 
Miss N. P., 
Mr. PoEe 
Mrs. E. Io 
Mr. B. S. 
Mr. SeW., 
Mrs. C, O, 
Miss A. S* 
Mrs* AoH, 
Total - 
CaTPETENCE GROUP II 
Mr. L. M. 
Mr. N. M 9 
Mr. BoUo 
Mrs. G. L. 
Mro F*J. 
Mrs. B*C. 
Mr. J. R. 
Mr, S, G. 
Mr. C4, Pe 
Tot al - 
COMPETENCE GROUP III 
Mr, C*R* 
Mrs. F, S. 
Miss CoG. 
Mr. D. Oo 
Tot al - 
COMMENCE GROUP IV 
Mr9 S. L. 
Miss B. G. 
Mr. B, To 
Mrs. LoL. 
Mrs* D. H* 
Mr. M. R* 
Miss P*K. 
COMPETENCE GROUP V 
Mrs* N. F. 
Miss A. L., 
Miss M. A. 
Mr. E. B. 
Mr. M. C. 
Mr. G, C. 
Miss G. F. 
Miss R*C# 
Mrs. S. T. 
Mrs. B. L. 
Tot al - 
Total - 10 
Total respondents sampled: 38.12 respondents were unable to be inoluded 
I 
- 425 - 
Table 8_Lbl 
COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS RANKED ACCORDING TO THE "EASE OF CCMUNICATION 
WITH" SCALE, AND CLA. 3SIFICATION ALONG THE COMPETENCE SCALE F'OR PURE TONE 
AIR CONDUCTION TESTING 
RESPONDENT "EASE OF COKYUNI- CCMFFrENCE SCALE 
CATION WITH" PURE TONE TESTING 
Mr. L. M. I II 
Mrs. G. L. I II 
Mr. C. P. II 
Mrs. L*Lo IV 
Miss B, G, I IV 
Mr. DoO. I III 
Mrs. C. O, I 
Miss AeSe I 
Mro P*E9 I 
Mr. S*W* I 
Mrs. D. H. IV 
Mr., B. S. 
Miss N. P. 
Mrs. AeH. 
Mr. B. U. 
Mrs. B. C. 
Mr. B. T. IV 
Mr, C. Ro III 
Mr. S. G. 
Mr. N*M. 
Mro S. L. IV 
Mr. J. R. 
Mrs. E. I. 
Miss C. G. 
Mr. F. J. 
Mrs* B. L. IV V 
Mr. E. B. IV v 
Mrs. S. T. IV V 
Mr. M. C. IV v 
Mrs. N. F. IV v 
Miss A. L. v 
Mrs. F. S. V 
Mro G. C. V 
Miss M. A. V 
Miss G. F. V 
Miss P. K,, V IV 
Mr. M., R. V IV 
Mism R. C. V 
H 
Table 8 (c) 
COMPETENýt GROUP I 
dB 
Miss N. P. 
Le -f t Rt. 
ý'l li T. M -14 T 
125 xxxxxx 
C. P. S XXXxxx 
xxxxxx 
xxx 
250 xxx 
'Y 3r 
it 
xxx 
500 xxx 
XX X1 
xxx 
19000 xxx 
xxx 
xx 
xx 
xx xi 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
M. r . P, E. 
Left Rto 
Mrs. 
-F, 
L 
Le-f t Rt 
,-MHLMHLMH rL-_M li 
xxxxxxxNxx): 
ýx 
xxxxxxxxxxx 
IX X xi X_x xxxxxx 
x 
xxxxxxxx :xX, x x 
,xxx 
ý- 
XXXxxx 
-- 
x- X 
_X 
xxx 
ix 
xxxxMx 
-X 
xý 
--1 
xxX. xxxxx1 -x xx. 1 
xxxxxxxxxx xx 
1xxx-xxx 
ly le xx 
--- 
x-xA 
xxxxxxxxxxx Exx 
xxxxxxxx:, xxx 
xxxxxxxx X 
PC xxxxxxxx 
21 000 xxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxx 
xxx 
ý3 9000 xxx 
Kxx 
xx 31 
49 000 xxx 
xxX 
xxxxxx 
xxx X- xx 
xxxxxx 
xxxxxx 
xxxxx DC 
xxxxx ic 
x =affirmative response -to 
-= negative response to 
ure tone 
tone 
xxxxxAxxx 
xxxxxxxxx 
xx X1 xxxxxx 
I 
x 
x 
xxxx 39 
xxxxx 
xxxxx 
xxxx 39 
xNxx3 
K: X4xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx. 
i 
- ---- --4-- 
::.:.: 4:::: :: ji: 
It : L: t 
427 
Iviiss N. P. 
Ri gr KT- 'li ýi -n (I voI: 7, t L' f'o r* Ist Fý nssi (-, n 
"c, r 2nd 
for 
. 
3x-d session 
F1 IT P, NCY 
in liz 
25 
2O 
1) C) 
1 10 
0 C) 
oon 
12 
11 000 
looo 
I's vel 
, ýI, v. 
dB. threshold 
L OW m F" DI fim 
547-ý57 
*Ifv ý/ 
Jjr / 
ilf4f / 
4// / 
of', (, / 
V/ / 
vi 
./ 
IV/ 
W/ 
liv, 
1 
11/ 
4u\. / 
A/ v 
%QV/ 
IV, / 
/ 
ol 
t ýý i, I' ct-! 5 a 
dnc rcýa se 
Lefit Ear 
ij% IE, N'T 
Was toId she had got "a mark6d loss". Found tones in 
she was waiting for higher tones 
ivhich she thought -!! -, ýbe possibly wouldn't hear. I ýI 
- 428 - 
'Mr. P. E. 
ICC 
ht ha yi ýI vo'L t : )r I st resa- un 
'T B 50 f C)X- 
for 3rd stassio-ri 
Av, dB. t hreshold 
ill liz LOW NIEDILT-1 --cxii E1.1 
54-57 
Lev e1 
4e 
of vat mote 
500 
t1 000 
#*4 
.1 Zoe V/ floo / fk#/ VII, 000 11 
t11. 
I 
Vie 
/I 
I () () (), IL 
10 db. increase 
1, e fqt Ear 
i 
A. ENT 
Foi. ind test I'very easy" 
Ae 
429 
Mrs. E. I. 
Av. dl',. tlirestiold 
L OW 
-LUM 7-7 -0 -o, -- 
-6 -. ); 
T4 
- 
WV 
OV v 
1z. 4 
IOV 
1. A 
111 V/ 
Ov V/ 
II1 '0 V/ 
I/ 
v 
v 
Vol 
rv 
Ov 
A, 1/6 1ý 
OV 
II (I CU 0') S 1E, 
Found "bottbm easier thaan top". For speech disprimination tests, 
because the wor (is are so alike" sometlipea ýZýa 
COMPETENCE GROUP II 
', Nlr. L. M. * 
Left lit 
LMH 
125 xxx 
xxXxxx 
c"Ps Sxxxxxx 
xxx 
290 X' xx 
ix 
xx 
500 xxxxx 
xxxxxx 
xxxXXXi 
xxx 
19000 xxxxxx 
xxxxx xl 
/430 
Mr. N. M. Mr. B. U. 
Left Rt. Left Rte, 
L M- HLMHLM -H L. M0 
XX Xc x 3cr x 
xx xx-X X--X --i 
XXxxxxxxx 
x 
xxx xxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxx 
xxx 
xxxxxxx 
xxxxxxx 
xx 
xxxxx xi xxx 
Lxx X1 xxxIxxx 
2,000- xxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxx 
_x 
xxxxxx 
1. 
3,000 xx 
xx 
xx 
xx 
49000 xx 
xx 
* At 250 H., Level 
ceeded on the tape 
variously heard on 
to the pure tone a 
omitted any respon 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxxxx 
XXX 
-3ý x xx xf 11 -- --i Ixx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
(Low), the 
a 'click'. 
or both. Ih 
n affirmativ 
to the 'clicldl 
tone was pre- 
spondents 
taken a response 
esponse, and 
........ 
431 
1 JJ It W )N L' , -, I LZCC, '%i' I)I CT t ')I ' -I'!,, s lk 
Right hand v,, -)]. : at t f, Dr Ist sessiuri 
"n d ; ý, essi or 50 for 4- 
4 fo r3rdses st c- n 
Av, dB. threshold 
FREQUENCY 
i. n 11; -, 
Level * 
125 
20 
11000 
-9000 
L OW MEDIUM 
5 Tt --5 76 
1/' 
V 
VI 
VI- 
V 
ov 
- 
JVV' 
L/ 
I, - 
lov 
HIGN 
TC -:: -6 8 
dv 
VI 
/ 
loge 
j- represent! ý a 
it-) (lb. incrcase 
Ear 
c 1, ý, v,: rý, NT S 
Never hjd speech nudiometry. Wears B13 hearing aid. Says 
to hear without it". 
Met 
I1 .4 
,A 
43 2 
Mr .N. INI 
rl, 4114ý11, Alýz C(. _V)TJCTiO,,, \ sr (2 
I Ri ghv harid v c, i: pt 
'2 f or I st sessi on 
for -session F, \T B50 4 for. 3rd se. --Tsi,:; ri 
Av. dB. threshold 
F. ýJ'E NCY 
LOW MEDIUM HIGH in liz '0'8 167-- 73 
Level* 
jr 96- 
250 OPP 
xx 
r-()O 
IA 
I(Ov 
00() 
1 
40-1- alkl 4? 0$t/ 
1 9000 
AjX) 
, nOO 
ri, (-, -I i. ff'erwic v bt-twc an oakAi I eve I re-k)reserit sa 11 10 (it). incroase 
g We r 
Left. Far 
CC Pý IMEN 
Resjýondenf commented himself on loss at low frequencies. 
____"Hearing- 
silmild be fairly normal for higher tones". 
433 
12 
Right, hýmd vol. Nt ý. f(-)r 1ý.; t ._ 
3 for 2nd -; eaf: ion F NT B 
4 for Ard ! 7,. essi(, n 
AV. dB. threshol :i 
I F, (P ENCY 
LMI 
5V"-: 57 
MEDIUM 
61- 
A, 
IGI 
Levp-l* 
1.12- 5 
IV 
500 
I 
- 14P - Sýv W- It Geo 
I 
- of 00 t// -I 
0ý)O Ll L 
o 
GL 
PIodi P 0"'. w<'* Ike.; ' V. L re,, rpsetits 
dh, incrvnse 
Wight [,., )r 
V, Left Ear 
C(I IE NT S 
Generally' findbivomen difficult to hear 
11 
Mr. 
L eft 
COMMETENCE GROUP III 
dB 
C. R. 
xxx 
125 xxx 
cps. xxx 
xxx 
250 xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
500 xxx 
xxx 
19000 
I Rt. 
L 1,1 H 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
i 
ix xx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
ix XX 
xxx 
xxx 
"Mr s S. 
Left Rto 
LMHLMH 
xx--- 
xx--- 
xxxxxx 
xxx--- 
xxx 
xxxxxx 
xxx 
xxxxxx 
xxx--- 
xx -N xxx 
/434 
Ili ssC. G 
Left lqt 
LMHLMH 
xXX LxX 
-.; 
xxx- -- X. x 
xxxxxx 
xxx 
xx XI 
xxx 
xxx 
29000 xxx 
xxxxxx 
39000 xxx 
Ix xxxx xf 
4looo 
XXXxXx 
ii 
xx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xx :x 
II 
1-1 
.......... 
ý 435 
Mr. C IR 
1, tC 1) f'i,, 
. 
'-)T (2 
ght, hand vol: at '2 for ls-c s,; ýssiun 
'3'r"'T VP B 50 3 for 2nd session 
4 for 3rd session 
Av.,, dB, thi-eshold 
E ',, EN CY I 
-in liz 
LOW, 
5'4--57 
M ED IUM hI Gli 
Level* 
. 
111.1 0 P, / / lot# / 1&. 
41 -0 
.I 
V/ 
2-30 11 
-, 
I I 
At 
v 411,1/ 
&v 
I a 
Iv - 
A, - IV - 
0*01 - 190(10 11. - 
Al 
- 1.1-1 
400 -0 
000 1-1 
000 
/j 000 
IMP 
v s. )p i weon eaoh I. --, v, -41- -z evre sent sa 
10 c1b. increase 
436 
'. Irs. F. S. 
V ST (2 
Right hand v(jj t ýi for, ! st 
AI. 5 C, 3 for 2nd 
f Or Ird sess-ion 
Av. dB, thresh old 
P.! ý P, 1.1 ENCY 
- in 11Z L OW 
5T-5 7 
MEDI-UPI 
CS i 
H GF1 
Level* 
w V/ 
00 
060 
500 
Sir 
10: e are 
;ýt 000 11 w *-., % 
L1101 
or V/ 
Vve 
116 10 
OCO II 
006V 
000 
IIoýIit, ý(-jI", 4' 4' 114- f Wvell k t, v r. 50tit 
10 (A. 
lZight Kor 
Le-fft: Ear 
Wears no' hearing aid. Tones Painful" from 2,000 Hz onwards 
437 
Miss C. G. 
V I_ I C 'i', -. IjT (2) 
Right fland ; ý--t "? -$"or "ossion. 
B 50, 3 for 2nd se. -a-si(in 4 for 
. 
3rd session 
Av, dB. thresh old, 
, -ý R F. (41, j E 
i-n_ 
LOW 
511- 5 
ME 1) 1 ITM HIGH 
LE v 6.1 
OC, V, 
*eve I/ U060 V, - 
r 
9 
1.0 00 
I 
z- 
brop- 8(0-. 
"I GOO 
AO: r 
cwo 
bp tw e *. n, ejýc ve.,,, reserits a 
lo (it). -in,. -rp,,. se 
V, Left Ear 
No si, eeth discrimin, -, ition tests done which she c an remember 
OF 
GlIcup IV 
H 
Mr. S. L. 
Lef t Rt 
LMH. L 
125 
c-p-sxxxxxx 
250 
,xxx 
500 
x DC 
11000 
xxx 
xxx 
29000 
39000 
4,000 
dB 
Mis- B. G. 
Left ýkto 
LMHL Ivi 
XX 
xx 
xx 
XX 
X Xi 
xx 
-- 
-I I- - 
-XX-x 
---IF--- 
/438 
Mr. B. T. 
LeCt Rt *ý 
L !, -, I HL IN, H 
--X 
xx X- xx 
xxxxx3 
xxX 
xxxxxx 
xxxxxx 
x 
XX 
xxxx 
xxX--- 
xxxxxx 
xxxxxx 
[EEE 1EEE 
EEE EE 
EE 
X- X- X-1 
I- 
X- 
Xý II 
I 
439 
Ir 
I C' fI 
-it [I ST 2- 
Vol: Pt 'ý for stZ, eS Sit) rl 
50 3 1. L) r -' I 2nd , essiun 4fr 3rd 
Av,, dB. threshold 
E ji bl! il 
14 y 
L OWI MEDIUM HIGN 
in ilz 
5 5'7 
Level 
jr 
bow V, IOLV v 
1 116 - s- 1116 - 
50 
lov v 
X 
5G0 a- 
KOOV Awl 
I IV - U. - 
1 000 a 
S 
MW go 
to(-A) 
1000 
40b 
. 
10 db. i-ricra. -ise 
Alf 
v' Left Ear 
F, NT S 
440 - 
B. G1. 
CCN pf 
R- : zl-, T- h on dvoI: -, t ") Cor -1 sts es s -i (-) n 3 i'or 2n(I ý, essit-, n 
4 for 3-rd ie-. zjsj. ('m 
Avo dB. tilr e. shold 
FPE'ýITENCY 
in Ilz il Ow. ' 
M FD I UM 
54 .r 
PI 
Z7 ý1- 
Lev e. I 
125 
1-50 11 3w - wa 4w - 
t11. V000 
V11- 400 V D 
Soo 
jr 
V 
le 
V/ 
a 
L 00t 
2 ')0() Ilb - 
ON - 
wok 
L J. I 
A- 
000 
do* 
dOb 
41W 39 
z 
li-e oetweer skart, ici, *-li repre. Fogrits a 
dt). 
:, light F; 'r 
L eft Ea. 
C E-N 
- 441 - 
B. T. 
ST (2) 
II(A. ' FIt '2, fer Ist sess: Lon 
3 for 2nd gessio -n 
4 for. 3rd session 
A%, * dBe threshold 
NY 
in liz 
LOW ME, bI Tim HIGH 
54-57 3 68 
Level 
I 43L - 
II'. WCOV W(,, /- 
Ovul/ 
icon/ 
AL 
29 Cl 
V/ 
AL 
10 Ci LI 
01 
d- 0()() 
it 
000 
w- -is 
semi$ 
It 000 Ob 
0"' 
low 
4011, 
*. x- 
1)( eon 
. 
10, (lb. incr.,, Fse 
VV= i? iglrit ý, or 
L, c fit Ear 
CO', Nllll,,, 
-FENCE 
GROUP V -IC 
dB 
H 
z 
Miss M. A. 
Left Rt . 
', %l, HL 1ý1 H 
125 
C. s 
250 
500 
19000 
29000 
39000 
9000 
WT: -- 
Mrs. N. F. 
Left Rt. 
L IM HL IM H 
EEEEE 
EE 
--a 
--- 
::: 1 
/442 
Miss A. L. 
Left Rt. 
L Y, HL IN-1 H 
443 
I Niq 
_q 
--% m0 Ae 
'P"": TONF, All' .C ON 1) 1 'C 
-S. - 
(2) 
Ri, gi,;, t han,, f vol at '2 f or Isse. 3 n 
50 
7) for 9-nd sessico-z 
4 for 
. 
3rd session 
Av. dB. t hresh6ld 
I 'I OT, - I ýTJ ENCY 
Ln 11Z LOW ' 
M ED I UM IfICIII 
5 V: ý 57 PP, 
Level' 
125 
A- 
250 
300 it 
IL 
000 
2 Occ) 
1v OC Al 
00() 
fi; ýý, i, ve re -pro- 3ent. s a 
-1 
Ab 
1, e f4t Ear 
C, 0 iN P _r-' 
NT S 
444 
Mr s 
"T T 
Zight hand vol a, t '2 for Is,: se, 4olun 
50 3 for 2. irid scssion 
4 fcr-. 3ro- ý--eseqion 
Ave. dB, thre. nhold 
in 11z LUW PIED I UM -TIT 3 
HEAH 
66 
Level 
1 at - 
-125 
.. x IL 
Owl 
z- 
im W. - 
500 
I ON) 
0 
'i Occ) 
TI MIL - a 
V, ur - 
Vi d f' erenc-bI we ei I N, el r ti res on .9 a 
1, -. 1 dh. i nc rea se 
iv, htEar 
Lefit, Ear, 
:1 c (11114111 14 1N I' 
Suf -, -ers from tinnitus 
445 - 
NAss A-h- 
(2) 
Rig Yj t ý. - a ri dvo1 '2 f st 
ýi; T, MIT AT B 50 
for -2. rd 
for 3r0. si ori 
A-v, dB. t hreshold 
FR F, N CY 
in liz Low M ED A. UM HIGH q 5" 
--, 
5 
Level 
awl, wo 
low 
- 
4W :w Aw 
10 
000 
glo- dm 
(-)Oo 
11000 
I IL 
rel, ovesents a 
lo db. incroinse 
"ig1, ,. t , 
*., -i r 
La r 
C C', %. 2ý; EIN TS 
- 446 - 
APPETDIX 9: "EASE OF COM':; MCATION WITH SCALE 
1. Easy two-way communication which can be ranged over a wide spectrum 
with little difficulty. Repetition is seldom necessary-geliance on Lip- 
reading, amplification, or residual hearing, ensures virtual 'normality, 
of interaction 7* 
II. Communication is neither easy nor difficult. Some repetition is neo- 
esSary, and the range Of topics able -to be covered is somewhat less diverse* Z6ocasional vocabulary modifications may be necessary* There are sometimes 
difficulties in sustaining lipreading for more than short periods at a time* 
Very occasional I slips' with words may be made 
. 
7* 
III. Communication is rather confined and there are considerable gaps when 
the two-way conversation temporarily breaks down. Llooabular7 needs to be 
modified and simplified quite often. Frequent repetitions are necessary 
and lipreading skills are haphazard. Some misprominoiation and slurring of 
words is apparentp with difficulty over sibilants and fricativese Syntax 
may be jumbled* The tonal quality of speech is affeoteS79 
IV. Communication is difficult. Z5peeoh is bizarre and distorted - in rhythm, 
tonality, intensity - although sometimes jnst intelligible given sufficient 
time and familiarity. Lipreading skills are poor Frequent recourse has 
to be made to gesture and/or writingy and this delays communication * 
[Voc- 
abulary has -to be continuously modified and simplified, There are many miEP- 
pronunciations, sentences are t-uncated, and their syntax is of en reverted 3 ý,, 7 
Sentence construction is generally poorg consisting mainly of substantiveso 
Ifiterao. v skills, however# may still be well developed, but obscured by poor 
verbal articulationt. Jo 
ve Communication is extremely diffioulto There is frequent miEnind standing 
on both sides. CQuestions have to be constantly checked and re-oheokeg. 
Question and answer do not often correspond. Reoourse has to be made to 
signing and gesturee /Reading and writing are rarely suffioiently developed 
to compensate even partially7o Sentence construction is virtually absent, 
and consists of isolated words, mainly substantives, with a few very common 
words. [Speech is either minimal, so distorted as to be totally unintelligible, 
or non-existent, rendering interaction impossible even if lipreading skills 
are minimally presento Where literacy is retainedl conversation is again 
,7 
impossible owing to a total inability to lipread:.., 
This is based on a combination of scales developed by R*D*K, STORER, No Ed* 
(1975), and I gratefully acknowledge his permission to use them. I havep 
however, found the individual scales which he developed - for speech, lipreading 
and oommunication generally, too complex for the contingencies met with in 
interviewing respondents with varying degrees of hearing impaiment. I 
have thus amended the individual Scales as indicated by the notation 
Z 
0J 
withoutv I hopeg destroying the internal consistency and logic of the origi. 
nal Scales. * 
* Subsequent communication with Mr* Storer elicited the following comment: 
"I have looked very carefully at your scales and believe that they are ad- 
mirable. In many ways I believe that they will give a better ranking than 
c1id mine. On reflection my scales were too cumbersome" 
(1982) 
- 447 - 
APPENDIX 9 contd.: EASE OF COMMOICATION WITH .. 11 SCALE - RATIONALE FOR 
The Scale was devised in response to the following factors: 
ill The necessity of classifying respondents in a way which would permit 
comparisons readily to be drawn; 
2, The inadequacies of rq attempts at audiometric measurem*nt, coupled 
with a recognition that severity of pure tone lose, however 'scientifically' 
measured, is not only a very poor predictor of functional hearing capacity 
- which I was trying to assess. Thus respondents with the same degree of 
pure tone loss averaged out over the better ear over the frequencies 125 
to 4,000 Hz often functioned quite differently. More importantlyp they 
bore little if'sny relation to the processes I was trying to investigate. 
The inability of speech discrimination tests to cater for those whose 
main mcAality was sign language; 
The inadequacies of the Gallaudet Hearing Scale - it being insuffic- 
iently refined to cater for subjects with lesser degrees of impairment; 
The lack of an adequate scale with which to assess functional capacity; 
Classification in terms of respondents' perceived severity of loss 
with the use of a hearing aidj where appropriate, was considered as a 
means of approximating a measure of functional ability. Howevers as it 
is indicative of perception based on only one amongst a complex 
battery of factors, it was considered insufficiently comprehensive on its 
own and the idea was abandoned* 
Thus I devised a simple scale of 17. Ase of Communication with .. " 
raLnking respondents along a scale from J-V according to the ease or dif f 
i- 
culty with which interaction and conversation, on a one-to-one 
basis 
with subjects, was possible* My assessment Was based on 
the kinds of ex- 
pectations and presuppositions the 'average' hearing person might 
have 
of an encounter which was sustained over a couple of 
hours or more. 
Hearing norms were used as refer- 
- 448 - 
ents as it was hearing norms with which respondents had to contend at work. 
In the absence of any other suitable classificatory measure I contend 
that as an heuristic device it served its purpose well. Its usefulness 
may be judged primarily by -the fact that my ranking produced a coherent set 
of results& ie., subjects harder to converse with showed correspondingly 
greater social problems at work. 
"-the range of impairment I covered was so diversel classification was 
much less likely to be distorted than if I had concentrated on a narrow speo- 
trum of the hearing impaired populationg where much finer distinctions would 
have had to be drawn* 
A not dissimilar scale was successfully used by CONRAD (1979) in attem- 
pting to assess how people unfamiliar with deaf speech 3ated its intelligi- 
bilityo The Soale he used was: 
(i) Wholly intelligible 
(ii) Fairly easy to understand 
(iii) About half understood 
(iv) Very hard to understand 
(v) Effectively unintelligible 
(He found an absolute correlation with severity of hearing loss)e 
Additionally, what can be aid in favour of the validity of the Scale 
relates to the circumstances under which the interviews were conducted,. On 
average, interviews lasted between 2j- and 3 hours. This was more than suffi. 
cient time for an adequate and consistent evaluation to be made. Often 
sessions lasted whole days (and a weekend in one case) j and in many easesp 
more than one session was spent with respondents* 
Every effort was made to ensure that the physical setting wasy as 
far 
as possible, to the respondent's advantage., 
I sat squarely in the light; 
avoided wearing striped or brightly coloured clothing; altered 
the pitch 
and speed of my voice at the request of respondents; and sat, 
where necessary, 
turning towards a respondent's better ear. This is indeed atypical of nor. 
- 449 - 
mal social encounters. But it ensured not only was I able to obtain a pio- 
ture of a respondent functioning in optimal conditions: it also placed me 
in an optimal position to evaluate as accurately and consistently as possible. 
Thus my ranking errs in favour of the optimistiol but this is oo=-terbalanced 
to a certain extentl by other factorB which might, be argued to detract from 
its usefulness* 
As far as oonsistency of ranking over time is oonoerned, it is quite 
unrealistic to give the exercise a degree of precision which it does not war. 
rant. However, there was simply no benefit -to be gained in cheatingo Aver- 
aging out my rankings ohronologically (of. Table 9 (b) and Graph) the pro- 
portions will be seen to have remained fairly constantg up until the -time of 
my policy changet and there are no significant anomalies which cannot be 
acoounted fore 
A different person doing the Bame exeroise would not, I contendp have 
made radically different rankingse At most, I suggestp there would have been 
an overall shift either upwards or downwards rather than individual varia. - 
tionso The relativity of assessment is not at issue here. Moreover, to 
have had an observer observing my observations would have been both impracti- 
cal and intrusive, and in any event sufferB from its own problems of infinite 
regreBB* Finallyl a tape recorder with which to check my rankings with 
those of an independent observer retrospectively was obviously out of the 
question with respondents in Groups IV and V without speeoho 
Finally, despite the limitations inherent in respondents' perceptions 
of the severity of their loss with a hearing aidg where appropriatel uuoh 
perceptions correlate fairly well with my own rankings 
(cf. Table 9 (a)* 
However, it would be idle to pretend thatthe Scale was innocent of de- 
feotso It was impoBsible to oontrol 
for all the extraneous variables whioh 
arose: such as my initial lack of 
familiarity with the hearing impaired and 
what a 'deaf voice' sounded likee 
Increasing familiarity, and the corresp- 
onding ease with which I found cilassification 
could be made may well have 
- 450 - 
introduced some marginal discrepancies (although with usagel arw ranking 
process becomes easier). The initial pressure to increase the ranking be- 
cause Of my wish to identify respondents with low functional ability was, 
howeverl a factor I recognised and resisted to the best of my ability. Other 
faetorsq such as variations in background noise; the minor distortions which 
could have arisen wi-th ei-ther respondent or interviewer having a cold or 
being over-tired; and 'the variable length of time I spent with respondents, 
could not be controlled for. 
Overall, I oontend that -the advantages of suoh a soale far outweighed 
any obvious disadvantages, and that in the final analysis errors simpLy 
tended to cancel oute 
The way the Scale was used in practice was as follows: The relatively 
large number of respondents I ranked in Commmication Group I is a funotion 
of two factors,: the mild degree of impairment and handicap of some respond- 
ents (cf* my audimetric measurements of subjects in Competence Group I); 
and, most importantly, the success with which smoothneBS of interaction was 
achieved, despite the fact that this group included some severely deaf res- 
pondents. It reflects the positive use which can be made of little or no 
residual hearingg by means of lipreading, amplification, speech training, 
personality, and other factors. 
In the cases of Miss B. G., Mr, B, U. t Miss NoP., Mr., CeR.. and Miss P. L., 
onset of hearing loss occurred on, or very soon after, birth; and in the 
cases of Mr, C. P. , Mrs. I. Y. and Miss 
A,, S. I early enough - at the ages of 
7/89 5 and 6j respectively - to purportedly cause problems in the acquisition 
of language, and to disrupt ease - of interaction. WhilBt I would not 
wish to deny the well-documented effects on speech and language development 
of the early onset of profound hearing lossl there were sufficient 
border- 
line cases here to at least call into question 
the traditional dichotomy 
between the pre- and postlingually deafenedo 
Classification into Groups II and III reflected increasing difficulty 
ý 451 - 
on the part of respondents to master or sustain the art of lipreadingt to 
control the intelligibility of their speech (volume, intonation, rhythm) and 
ensure that its content was not marred by the loss of sibilants and frica. 
tivesp 'jumbled' vocabulary, and errors in syntaxe Nevertheless, again it 
should be noted that in Group III Miss "G. is profoundl prelingually deaf, 
Mr. S. L. partially prelingually deaf, Mrs. E. I* was deafened prior to 
commenoing schoolingq and Mr. W. C. said he had been deaf "since childhood". 
In Group III, Miss L. S. and Mr. F. J. were also deafened at, or soon af- 
ter birth, but have been trained in and retained some oral competenoe; whilst 
Mr. H. H., similarly partially deafened at birthp straddles both oral and 
manual worlds. 
In Group IV I classified those respondents whose expressive skills were 
extremely limitedl if not verging on the unintelligible (Mrs. S. T. ) 9 with 
haphazard or minimal lipreading skills rendering interaction thoroughly pro- 
blematic yet whose language development and literacy were far from impaired 
(Mr. E. B. and Mrs. N*F. - 'prelingual impairment notwithstanding), 
Following my policy change in May 1981 to include signing deaf respond- 
ents in my samplej I decided to rank all signing on respondents in Group 
V, b As the average hearing person does not sign, expectations of an encounter 
are not geared to conversing in an unknown visual modality, Fluency in 
sign within the framework of this thesis, was not regarded as 
'relevant' for 
the purposes of interaction at work. 
(This is not for one moment to deny its 
very crucial relevance to its users socially within their own circle), 
As stressed, the normative reference point, was 
taken -to be that of a, hearing 
world which had to be confronted* 
It is probably far from satisfactory to classify 
those signing deaf with 
no speech but who were literate, or partially 
literate, along with those 
orally deaf respondents with no vehicle of communication 
than gesture and 
home-made signp and -who were 
functionally illiterate. However, as I am oon. 
- 452 - 
cerned with social interaction in a hearing worldl and the consequences of 
breached encounters, writing 'talk' is guaranteed to kill any spontaneitv of 
di al ogue 9 
Thusl also ranked in Group V were those orally literate deaf, generally 
with acquired deafness, whose speech was so grossly distortedv and Whose liP- 
reading skills were minimal, as to thoroughly disrupt interaction (Miss G. F* 
and Miss A*L. ) - Although the abilitY to read and write often facilitated an 
otherwise impossible interview it hardly facilitated dialoguee 
My concern is primarily with the way hearing others evaluate verbal per- 
formance. As such, I contend that such a scale as I have devised served this 
purpose vex-j adequately* 
- 453 - 
Table 9 (a)-: CONSISTENCY OF USAGE CHECKS 
RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE SVERITY OF THEIR HEARING LOSS WITH THE USE 
OF A HEARING AID9 WHERE APPROPRIATE9 MATCHED WITH THE AUTHOR'S RANKING ALONG 
THE "EASE OF CC1011UNICATION WITH .. " SCALE 
MILD 
Miss AsS. (I) 
Mrs. LY I) 
Miss VoG. (I 
Mrso G. L. (I 
Mrs C-Po (I) 
Mrs. S oB 
Miss P, L I 
Mr. PoE Iý 
Mrs SoW: 
ýI 
Miss N*P* I 
Mrso AoB. 
ýI 
Mrs* AoHo (I 
Mrse BeCo (Il 
MODERATE 
Miss BG. (I) 
Mr. D. O. (I) 
MrSo cooo W 
Mr. C. R. W 
Mrso DPH, (I) 
Mr. BSo (I 
Mr. B,, U. (I 
Mro BT,, I ý 
Mr. N X. I 
Mr, J. R. (II 
Mrs. E. I II ý 
Miss CoG: II 
Mro FoJ. (III 
I 
Mro HoH* III 
Mr. GeC. V)* 
QUITE SEVERE SEVERE V. SEvEn 
Mr. LoM. (I)* 
Mr. A. Eo (I)* 
Mr. S, Go (II) 
Mr., WoC. (II) 
Miss LoS. (III) 
Mrs. F*S. ýV * 
Miss M*A* (Vý* 
Mr. M. R. (V)* 
I have used this measure as one fairly crude 
Mrs. L. L. (I)* Mrs. S T. (IV 
Mr. S. L. (II)* Mr. X; 
ý 
IV 
Mrs, BoLo (IV) Xro G: S: 
ýV) 
Mr. EoB. (IV) Miss AoL. V 
Mrso NoPo ýV Miss GoF. V 
Miss HoQ, 
ý 
V Miss P. K. V 
MiS8 R. C. M 
Mr. D. S. ( V) 
oheck on the validity 
of my own subjective assessments. Perfect congruence could not be expected. 
The use/non-use of a hearing aid is only one of the many variables affect- 
ing self-assessment* Nevertheless, it is one of the more important variables. 
As such assessment differed quite markedly from self-assessment of loss with- 
out the use of hearing aid(s) (of. Table 2 (a) 9 Appendix 2), 1 suggest it 
provides a useful guide to a measure of subjective feelings of functional 
handicape 
Any discrepancies of one ranked Group were ignored* There were 
8 cases, 
(marked by an asterisk) where discrepancies ocourred involving differences 
in ranking and self-assessment of two or more Groups* These can be explained 
as follows: 
1. All signing respondents with minimal or no speech were classified, as 
explained, in Group V: hence Mr. GC, g Miss M*A. and 
Mrs. FoS, 
2e The residual hearing of Mrs* L. L. and Mr* S. 
L. was perceived to render 
a hearing aid virtually useless. Yet 
Mrs. L. Le was a lipreading tutor and 
her skills were excellent! Mr. S. 
L. 's skills were only slightly more diffi- 
cult to sustain over time. 
For future reference, a more fruitful means of ensuring 
respondents had 
adequately a, recj thetthrust of the question would 
have been to ask "How 
handicapped iFe rying everyday activities do you 
feel by your deafness? " 92 X 
- 4.54 - 
Both Mr, A. E. and Mr. L. M. underrated the extent to which they were 
able to achieve near normal comprehension and smooth interaction during 
the interview situation. Both were fluent lipreaders, 
It was evidently impossible for Mr. M. R. to grasp the significance 
of the gradations presented to him. The inclusion of him in the 14juite 
Severe" group reflected something of a compromise reached between Mr. M. R.,, 
his mother, and my understanding of their 'negotiations'. 
It will be seen that a broad correspondence between my own ranking 
according to "FAA3e of Commuld cation" and respondents' perceptions of the 
severity of their hearing 108S with the use of an aid or aids where appro. 
priate didl nonetheless, emergel despite my reservations. Subjective 
assessments of severity of loss (aided, where appropriate) did appear to 
provide one quite useful index of functional performances even on the 
basis of this one criterion* 
- 455 - 
Table 2 (b) 
In order to assess oonsistency of ranking over a period of time other, 
necessarily crudej cheeks consisted of ordering the respondents I interviewed 
chronologically, then aggregating and averaging their scores according-to 
points I-V along the "Ease of Communication with ... " Scale in groups of 5* It 
will be seen that the proportions are reasonably oonstant, other -than varia, 
tions which I would have anticipated on independent grounds following the 
inolusion of orally deaf subjects with minimal lipreading skills, the in- 
elusion of partially prelingually deaf subjects wi-th restricted speeoh 
skills, and my policy change of May 1981 to interview much Ideafer' subjects 
than hithertoo I then performed a similar exercise dividing respondents 
chronologically and by sex, and 'the results are again suggestive of oonsi&.. 
tency of evaluation. The average communication score pre-polioy change was 
2.0 for women and 1*88 for men. Finally, plotted graphically, the picture 
is one of consistency of observation over time, any variations being explio- 
able on independent grounds., 
CHRONOLOGICAL INTERVIEWING OF ALL RESPONDENTS 
AVERAGE "COMMUNICATION" SCORES 
Miss BeG. 9.80 1 
(a) Mr. 
M r, 
WX. 
H. H. 
l7e9* 80 
2o. q., 8o 
11 
III included 1 partially 
Mr* S G, 24*9.80 11 prelingually deaf sub- 
M rb L: W., 26-. 9., 8o I ject attached to the 
deaf community from schooldays 
Miss L*S. 1.10.80 111 
Miss A*L, 15-10.80 v including 1 orally deaf 
(b) Mrs. I. Y. 16.10.80 1 subject with no lipreading skills 
Mrs. FeS. 23.10.80 v &1 signing deaf subject; plus 1 
Mro C*P.. 24.1o,, 8o prelingually deaf subject forced 
to learn speech 
Mrs. L. L. 5ell*80 
Mro NA. 11.11.80 8- includes 1 partially pre- 
(C) Miss P. L. 15,11.8o I lingually deaf subject opting -to 
Mro F. J. 18.11*80 learn speech 
Mrs* C*O* 20.11.80 
Groups (a), (b) and (c) included respondents from 
Hillingdon Social Services 
Department - an interesting and varied sample, 
-two contacts from lipreading 
classes and 4 contacts from 
the Breakthrough Club* 
456 
Mr. E,, B. 3-12.8o IV 
Miss V. G. 7.12., 80 
(d) Mrs. S. B. 12-12.80 
Mrs. G. L. 13.12.80 
Mr. C. S., 18ol2.80 v 
Mr. D. O. 20-12o8o I 
(e) Mrs. D. H. 6.1o8l 
Mro A, Eo 16.1*81 
Mro C. R 19ol. 81 I 
Mro J. R: 22.1*81. 11 
Mr. S-. Wo 23.1*81 
Mr. P. E. 28.1*81 
Miss A. S, 4o2*81 
Miss E. I, 31*1*81 11 
Dlro S. L, 5e2*81 II 
Miss N. Po 11*2,81 
Mr. BoS. 18-2.81 
Mr. B, U. 2Oo2,81 
Mrs. BoC. 26*2,81 
Mrs. B. Lo 4o3*81 IV 
12 - included 1 orally deaf 
subject with very poor L, R. a-kills, am 
1 functionally illiterate preling- 
ually orally deaf subject 
I 
Groups (d), (e), (f) and (g) included the sub-sample from the E. N. T. Clinic 
Grays Inn Road, many of whom were only peripherally impaired, interspersed 
with Breakthrough Club contacts, and E. ReC., respondents 
(h) Mrse AoBo l2o3o8l I 
Mrs* S. T. 19*3*81 IV 
Mrs, A. H. 17*4.81 1 
Miss C. G. 7-5-81 11 
Miss P. K. 15*5.81 v 
11 - includes 1 subject join. 
ing the deaf community in adol. 
escence, but with minimal speech, 
and 1 orally deafq functionally 
illiterate respondent 
At this juncturel I made a policy change in order to try and interview 
Ideafer' subjects, ie. those profoundly prelingually orally deafq and 
signing respondents, 
Miss G, F. 
Mrs. N*F. 
Mr. B. T., 
Miss H. Q40 
M r. G. C. 
Mr. M*C. 
Miss M,, A- 
Mro D, S., 
Mr, M. R. 
Miss R*C- 
17-5.81 
23*5*81 
ý7-5-81 
16*7081 
18,7081 
13,8o8l 
Sept *- 181 6.11*81 
12-12*81 
Deoo 181 
V 
IV 
I* 
V 
v 
IV 
v 
v 
v 
v 
20 
A 
I had been with Mr., B. T. at sign language classes for several weeks, 
during which time he had not uttered a single word. I assumed, therefore, 
that he would be a suitable respondent to recruit. He waaq however, per- 
fectly articulate and adept at lipreading. 
- 457 ý 
WOMEN RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED C"l-aO!,; OLOGICALLY 
Miss B. G. 9,80 1 
Miss L. S. lolO. 80 III 
Miss A. L. 15-10.80 V 15 
Mrs. I. Y. 16,10.80 1 
Mrs. F. S. 25,10*80 V 
Mrs. LoLo 5*11*80 
Miss P. L. 15*11*80 
Mrs. C. O. 20*11*80 
miss V. G. 7.12.8o 
Mrs. SoB. 12*12.80 
Mrs* G. L. 13*12.80 
Mrs. D. H. 6,1*81 6 
Mrs. E*I. 31-1*81 
Miss A, So 44,2*81 
Miss N. P. 11*2*81 
Mrs. B. C. 26.2,81 
Mrs. B. L. 4*3,81 IV 
Mrs. A, B. 12*3981 1 11 
Mrs, S#T, 19*3,81 IV 
Mrs. A. H. 174,81 1 
Miss CoG. 7o5*81 Ii 
Miss PX. 14*5*81 V 
Poli2, y Change 
Miss G. F. 17*5,81 V 
Mrs, N. F. 23o5o8l IV 
Miss HoQ. 16o7.81 V 24 
Miss M. A. Septo 181 V 
Miss R. Co Deco 181 V 
(The average score for the pre-policy change group is 2*0) 
MALE RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED CHRONOLOGICALLY 
Mr. W. C. 17.9*80 11 
Mr. H. H. 2o. 9,8o III 
Mr. S. G. 24.9.8o I 
Mr, L. M. 26,9.8o 
Mr. C. P. 24,10,80 
Mr. N. M. 11.11.80 
Mr. F. J. 18.11*80 
Mr. E*Bo 3*12o8O IV 
Mr. C. S. l8ol2.80 v 
Mre DoO. 20*12.80 
Mr. A. E. 16.1.81 
Mr. C. R. 19.1.81 
Mr. J. Ro 22.1-81 
Mr. S. W. 23*1*81 
Mr. P*E, 28.1.81 
2 
15 
6 
ý 458 - 
Mr. S. L. 5.2*81 
Mr. B. S. 18*2*81 
Mr. 'U. B. 20o2o8i 
Policy change 
Mro B. T. 27*5,81 1 
Mro G. Co 1897*81 V 
Mr. M. C. 13*8*81 IV 20 
Mro D. S, 6*11*81 V 
Mr. M., R. 12ol2o8l V 
(The average score for the pre-policy change group is 1.88) 
The difference of *12 can probably be explained by the greater 
number of signing female respondents (Mrs. S. T. 9 Mrs. F. S. 
). adventit- 
iously deafened respondents (Miss A. L. ) and profoundly prelingually 
orally deaf respondents (Miss P. K. ) interviewed pre-policy change; 
as opposed to the smaller number of male respondents in these categories: 
one profoundly prelingually orally deaf subject (Mr. C. S. ), one post- 
lingually deafened respondent with minimal lipreadin skills (Mr. E*B. ), 
and Mr. H. H. whose first language was sign, but who was sufficiently 
orally competent not to be classified as a Group V respondent. 
- 459 - 
* 
H 
r-ý 
P: 
ry 
PC 
p 
M 
c 
oc 
p: 9 CO 9 
09 cr 
0 
Lr\ 
-t rfN C\j r-4 
* , HIII*i XOIIVDINfM400 ao as, -f a,, 
A 
4) 
43 
r-i 
Cd 
41 
0 
(D 
cö 
) 
0 
-I 
-A DEAF ASSOCIATION APPENDIX 10 1460 
PAAANIFEST(: ) 
This Manifesto Is published by The British Deaf Association on 4 October, 1982. The Manifesto 
marks the opening of British Deaf Awareness Week; draws public aftention to the discrimination 
suffered by deaf people; and makes known their need for equal access to education and 
employment opportunities, public facilities and the nation's communications services. 
We ask to be heard. 
ý 50,000 people, born deaf or made 
early childhood, use British Sign 
3ge - BSL - as their main form of 
inication. BSL is recognised by 
ts as a language in its own right. 
A the Government also to 
iise BSI, to reflect this in its 
Jon, and to acknowledge that the 
deaf community is a linguistic 
ty of British people. 
ýr a hundred years and more, the deaf 
ommunity has campaigned against the 
eming of sign language in the 
kation of deaf children. The campaign 
ontinues and the BDA asks the 
Oxation authorities finally to recognise 
btal Communication and make it 
Nailable in the classroom. Total 
: Mmunication involves the flexible use, 
Omthe earliest possible age, of all means 
(communication: BSL, finger-spelling, 
P-reading, sound amplification, speech, 
eading, writing, mime and gesture. 
Ila 
htrictive regulations seriously inhibit 
k3t PeoPle from becoming teachers. 
bough many deaf people have the 
lecessary entry qualifications and the 
10tential ability to teach children, they 
"211 too often actively discouraged from 
IWying for teacher training. The B. DA 
W& the education authorities and 
DINes to end these restrictive practices 
Ind so giýr deaf children the opportunity 
D benefft from the presence of deaf 
KlUlts in the classroom. 
Deaf children require special educational 
facilities to meet their special language 
needs. Yet the 1981 Education Act has 
encouraged local authorities to close the 
schools that provide these facilities and to 
place some deaf children into ordinary 
schools. The BDA asks the education 
authorities to keep schools for deaf 
children open and to expand their 
services. In particular, the BDA proposes 
that schools for deaf children should be 
enabled to provide even better academic 
education and social and vocational 
training. The BDA also proposes that 
such schools should be developed as 
resource centres, offering facilities for 
parents of deaf children and for 
professional people working with the 
deaf community. 
Physically disabled people have fought 
for the right of easy access to theatres, 
meeting halls and other public 
gatherings. Deaf people have this 
physical access but, unable to hear, they 
can neither understand what is being said 
nor fully participate. The presence of BSL 
Interpreters at public, educational, social, 
political and cultural events would enable 
deaf people to be more involved in the 
world around them. The BDA asks the 
Government to finance further training 
and to implement a national programme 
to train many more BSL interpreters. 
ME- 
Deaf people pay the same TV licence fee 
as the rest of the community, even 
though few programmes can be 
appreciated without sound. Firstly, the 
BDA asks the television broadcasting 
authorities and companies to provide the 
deaf community with regular 
programmes in sign language and many 
more BSL interpreters for their normal 
transmissions. Secondly, the BDA asks 
the Government to allocate two 
Cablevision channels for use by the deaf 
community. 
Improve Employment 
Opportunities for Deaf People 
Most deaf people at work are placed in 
jobs below their capacity and potential, 
and they are often denied opportunities 
for training and promotion. Whilst 
recognising that deaf and hearing people 
alike are affected by present-day 
unemployment, the B. DA asks the 
Government, trade unions and 
employers to work together to improve 
employment opportunities for deaf 
people and to end the discrimination that 
bars their promotion. 
Give Deaf People Access to the 
Telephone 
Hearing people can take the telephone 
for granted. Hard-of-hearing people can 
have amplifiers and other relatively cheap 
equipment fitted to their phones. But 
profoundly deaf people have to rely on 
the recently developed Deaf 
Communicating Terminal (DCT), a visual 
keyboard telephone linked to the 
national telephone network. Because the 
DCT costs E400 and because the typed 
messages take more time and lead to 
higher charges than ordinary calls, very 
few deaf people can now afford to buy or 
use one. The B. DA asks BritishIelecom to 
reduce its charges so that deaf people can 
have the same access as hearing people 
to the national telephone service. 
4 October 1982. 
The Rritish 
Deaf AssocLottion 
38, VKtoria P6m Cadisle CAI IHU. 
--461 - 
APPENDIX 11: BIBLIOGRAPHY 
ADLER, Eo P. (1963) "A Study of the Communication Patterns Of Unemployed 
Deaf Men", Unpubo M. A. Dissertation, 
Wayne State University 
ADLER, E, P. (ed) (1970) "Research Trends in Deafness: State of the Art" 
Dept., of Health, Education and Welfarep Washington D*C. 
AFASIC (1981) "A Paper on the Problems of and the Prospects for 
the Speech Impaired"l I. Y, D, P. 
tv (1981) Personal Communication 
AKERS, R. Le. (1968) "Problems in the Sociology of Deviance: Social Defi- 
nitions and Behavior. "l Soco Forcee4 46 (June), 
455-465 
ALLSOP9 L, and KYLE, J, (1982) 
"Deaf Peo, le and the Community", Brite Deaf News, la 
(9), MZ719 331-334 
ALTSHULERj K., Ze and BAROFF, Go (1963) 
"Educational Background and Vocational Adjustment" 
in RAINER, J*D, l ALTSHULERt K*Z. j KALIXANNI F. J. and 
DWINGf W. E, q "Family and Mental Health Problems in a 
Deaf Population", New York State Psychiatric Institu-teg 
Columbia Unive Pressl N., Y. 
ALTKANg B. 9 
(1981) "Studies of Attitudes towards the Handicapped: The 
Need for a New Direction", Boo* Probso,. &, (3) 
(Feb) 
9 321-337 
ANDERSON, G. B. and BOWE, F*G*v (1972) 
"Raoism within the Deaf Community", Am* Annals of 
Deaf, 117 (Dec), 617-619 
ANDERSSON9 Y., (1981) Personal Communication 
ANNANDqR*W`* (1974) "Getting a Job", Aural News, (Winter), 126,6.7 
(1975a) "Getting a Job, Part II: How oan employers be persuAded 
to off er jobs to the hard of hearing? " Aural News 
(Spring), 12-7-9 4-5 
(1975b) "How the employee can help the employer and vioe-verea" 
Aural News (Sumner), 128,8-9 
ANTHONYp Po Do (1977) "The Ideology of Work", Tavistook Pubs*, London 
ARGYLEj No and KENDON, A. (1967) 
'VThe Experimental Analysis of Social Performance" in 
LAVER9 J. and HUTCHESON, So (eds), "Communication in 
Paoe-to-Face Interactiontf, Penguin Modern Linguistics 
Readingsp 1972, Penguin, Harmondsworth 
(1969) ItSocial Interaction", Tavistock Pubs. 9 London 
(1972) wrhe Social Psychology of Work", Penguin, Harmondsworth 
- 462 ý 
ARTfLEj M. 9 
(ed) (1973)"Social Encounters: Readings in Social Interaction" 
Penguinp Harmondsworth 
ARISTOTLE "Historia Animalium'19 quoted in HODGSONjK. W. (1953) 
"The Deaf and Their Problems: A Study in Special Ed- 
ucation", Watts and Co. f London 
ARMISTEAD, N. (ed) (1974) 
"Reconstructing Social PBYChOlOgy"l Penguin EducatioN 
Harmondsworth 
ASHLEYs Je, (1973) "Journey into Silence", Bodley Headq London 
BAM9 C, and BATTISON, R, (eds) (1980) 
"Sign Language and the Deaf Community: Essays in 
Honoirof William Ce Stokoet', Nato Assoc* of Deaf, 
Silver Spring, Mde 
BALLANTYNEj Jo (1977) I'Deafness"t 3rd edo, Churchill Livingstone, London 
BALLINq A, (18-) "The Deaf Mute Howls" in BATSON, T. Wo and BERaKANq E., (1976) (eds), "The Deaf Experience: An Anthology of 
Literature by and about the Deaf"t 2nd edog Merriam- 
Eddy, South Waterfordt Maine 
BARNESp Jo A. (1979) "Who Should Know What? Social Sciencep Privaoy and 
Rthics"l Penguing Harmondsworth 
BATSON9 ToW. and BERUKAN, E. (eds) (19T3) 
"The Deaf Experience: An Anthology of literature by 
and about the Deaf", 2nd edo, Merriam-Eddy, Maine 
BATTISON9 R. (1980) "Signs Have Parts: A Simple Ideal' in BAKERV Cj and 
BATTISON, R. (eds)j "Sign Language and the Deaf Commu- 
nity: Essays in Honor of William C, Stokoe"q N. A*D, I, 
Silver Springg Mdo 
BAUGHN9 W. (1961) "How Well do you think you hear? ", Jo of 13th. Inter- 
national Congress on 0ocupational Healthl N. Y. 9 668-672 
BEATTIE,, J. (1981) "Social Aspects of Acquired Hearing Loss in Adults: 
A Study of Familyj Employment and Leisure Problems, 
experiences of handicap, with special reference to the 
use of hearing aids", Unpub. PhD*, Unive of Bradford 
BECKER, Go (1980) "Growing Old in Silence", Univ, of California Press, 
Berkley, Cao 
(1981) "Coping with Stigma: Lifelong Adaptation of Deaf 
21 People"y Soo* Scio and Med. 9 -24 
BECKER9 HoSe (1963) "Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance" 
Free Press of Glencoev NeYe 
(ed) (1964) '*The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance", Free Press 
of Glencoe, N. Y* 
(1967) "Whose Side Are we On? "t Soo* Probs, j IýA (3) 239-47 
- 463 - 
BECKER9 H. S. (ed) (1967) 
"Social Problems: A Modern Approaoh"v John Wiley, N. Y* 
(1970) "Sociological Work: Method and Substance", Aldine 
Pub* Cool Chicago 
(1970) 9'Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Obser- 
vation" in BECKER, H. S., "Sociological Work: Method 
and Substance", Aldine Pub* Coo, Chicago 
(1974) "Labelling Theory Reconsidered" in ROCK, P. and XcINTOSH 
No (eds), "Deviance and Social Control"t Tavistookt 
Londoni 41-66. 
BELL, C* and NEWBY, H, (eds) (1977) 
"Doing Sooiological Researoh"l George Allen and Unwin, 
London 
BELUJGI, Uo, (1976) "Attitudes Towards Sign Language: Is there need for a 
changelly Reprinted from Brit* Deaf News (October) 
BELLUGI, Us and KLIKAj E. (1979) 
"The Signs of Language"q Harvard Univo Pressp Camb- 
rid, geq Massop London 
BEfMLY, B, (1980) "Dancing Without Music: Deafness in Amerioa"t Anchor 
PresB/Doubledayl NeY., 
BENNEY9 Me and HUGHES, EoC- (1977) 
"of Sociology and the Interview"t in BIJIM3EL, No (ed) 
"Sociological Research Methods: An Introduction", 
Maomillans, London 
BERGER, PeL. (1963) "Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective" 
Penguin, Harmondsworth 
BERGER, P*L. and LUCKMANN, T. (1967) 
"The Sooial Construotion of Reality: A Treatise in the 
Sooiology of Knowledge " Penguin Press, Harmondsworth 
BEST9 He (1943) "Deafness and the Deaf in the United States", Mao- 
millan, N*Y, 
BIRD, E. and TREVAINS9 So (1978) 
"The Study of the Communication Patterns and Problems 
of Hearing-Impaired People at Work"l Communication 
Studies and Planning Ltd. 9 London 
(MSS/77 202/TR) 
BLAXTER, M. (1975) "Disability and rehabilitation: some questions of def- 
inition" in COX, C. and MEAD9 Al (eds)j "A Sociology 
of Medical Praotioe", Collier-Kaomillang London 
(1976) "The Meaning of Disability: A Sociologioal Study of 
Impairment", Heinemann, London 
BLEACKLEY, R, (ed) (1974) 
t'Despite Disability: career achievement by handicapped 
people", Educational Explorers Ltd,, Reading 
- 464 - 
BLOCK9 S. A. (1968) "Problems of Deaf Professional Persons" 9 Am., Annals 
of Deaf , 113,6o-69 
BOATNER, E, B. 9 STUCKLESS9 Mop and MOORE9 D*F- 
(1964) 
"The Occupational Status of the Young Deaf Adult of 
New England and Demand for a Regional Technical-Vocational 
Training Centre", Am. School for the Deaf, West Hart- 
fordv Conn* 
BOGDAN, R, and BIKLTNj Do, (1977) 
"Handicapism", Soco Policy, 1,14-19 
BOLDERSON, H. (1980) "The Origins of the Disabled Person's Employment Quota 
and Its Symbolic Significance", J, Soo, Policy,. 2 
(2), 169.1&6 
BOSWELL, D. M. and WINGROVE, J. M, (eds) (1974) 
"The Handicapped Person in the Community: A Reader 
and Sourcebook", Tavistodkq Open Univ, Press 
BOTTCKOREI To Be (1971)"Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature", George 
Allen and Unwin, London 
BOWEv F. G, j DELK9 M. T., and SCHMNI J., D- 
(1973) 
"Barriers -to the Full Employment of Deaf People in 
Federal Goverment"t J. Rehab. Deaf, 161 (6), 4-15 
(April) 
BRAGG, Bo (1973) "Amelish - Our American Heritage. A Tes-timony'19 Am. 
Annals of Deaf, 118, (Dec), 672--! 674 
BRAnROOKE, Do (ed) (1965) 
'Thilosophical Problems of the Social Sciences", 
Macmillan,., London 
BRENNAN, M. (1975) "Can Deaf Children Acquire Language? An Evaluation of 
Linguistio Principles in Deaf Education"l Am. Annals 
of Deaf 1 120, 
(Oct) 
9 463-479 
BRIEN9 Do (1981) "Is There a Deaf Culture Available to the Young Deaf 
Person? '19 Paper delivered to the Nato Council of Sooo 
Workers for the Deaf Conferencel Loughborough 
(1982) Personal Communication 
BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS OF THE DEAF (1981) 
flAudiological Definitions and Forms for Recording 
Audiometric Information", J. Brit. Assoc. Teachers of 
Deaf 1 .1 
(5) 
q 83-87 
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1981) 
ttVoices from Silent Handst', BBC2 (23-3-1981) 
BRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION-, (1974) 
ItTraining Facilities and Employment Opportunities 
for Deaf School-Leaverstly Working Party Report 
BROOKE-HUGHES9 C-i (1973) 
The Social Needs of Deaf and Hard of Hearing People" 
cial Work Service Bulletin, No. 2 
- 465 - 
BROOKE-HUGHES9 C., (1977) 
"The Employment of Deaf People", Hearing, 32 (4) 
(August) 
v 128-34 
BROWN9 C*H. (1979) "Understanding Society: An Introduction to Sociological 
Theory'19 John Murray, London 
BROWN9 S., (1982) Personal Conununication 
BROWNING9 E. v 
(1981) "Speeohless", Reprinted from IYDP News (Oo-tober) 
BUIXER, M. (ed) (1977) "Sociological Research Methods: An Introduction" 
Macmillans, London 
BUNTING9 C. (1981) "Public Attitudes to Deafness: A Survey Carried Out on 
behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security" 
(O, P. C. S. ) 
BURNS, W. and ROBINSON, DoW. (1970) 
"Hearing and Noise in Industry", H. M. S. O. j London 
BURTON, D. K, (1973) "Practical Aspects of Employment of Hearing Impaired 
School Leavers", 'Unpub. paper read at Conference of 
Heads of Schools for the Deaf and Partially Hearing, 
Manchester (Sept)* 
CAHNNAN9 W. J. (1968) '#The Stigma of Obesity", Sooiolo Quarterlyl. 2. (3) 
(Summer), 283-299 
CAMPLING, J. (ed) (1981) 
ItImages of Ourselves: Women with Disabilities Talking", 
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 
CARROLL 7 T. 9 
(1965) "The Ideology of Jork"l Je Rehabe., -j1- Mv Pa26 
CHAIKLINj Ho and WARFMLD9 Mop (1977) 
"Stigma Management and Amputee Rehabilitation'# in 
STUBBINS9, J., (ed), "Social and Psychological Aspects 
of Disability: A Handbook for Practitioners", Univ, 
Park Press, Baltimore 
CHRISTIANSENV J. Bo (1982) 
"The Socioeconomic Status of the Deaf Population: A 
Review of the Literature", Working Paper 49 Confer- 
ence on Sooiologyq Gallaudet Collegeq Washington D. C. 
CICOURELI A. V., (1964) ItMethod and Measurement in Sociology", Free Press of 
Glencoe, N, Y. 
CICOUREL, A* V. and BOESEt Ro Jo 
(1972) 
"Sign Language Acquisition and the teaching of deaf 
children" in HYNES, D., CAZIEN, C. B. and JOHNS, V*Pe 
(eds) 
I "The Function of Language: An Anthropological 
and Psychological Approach", Teachers' College Press, N. Y 
(1973) "Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social 
Interaction", Penguin, Harmondsworth 
- 466 - 
CLMKI M. L. and CROWDEN9 G. Po (1939) 
"The Employment of the Deaf in the United Kingdom", 
Jt. Report of the Natl. Institute for the Deaf and the 
Dept. of Industrial Physiology$ School of Hygiene and 
Tropical Medicine, London 
COGSWELL, Bo E, (1967) "Self-Socialization: Readjustment of Paraplegics in-the 
Community", Sociolo Inquiry, U (Winter), 11-26 
COHEN, S. and TAYLOR, Lev (1981) 
"Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term 
Imprisonement", 2nd ed. p Penolin, Harmondsworth 
COKELY9 D. (1980) "Sign Language: Teaohingg Interpretingg and Educational 
Policy" in BAKER, C. and BATTISON9 R. (eds), "Sign 
Language and the Deaf Cowunity: Essays in Honor of 
William Ce Stokoe! t Silver Spring, Mdol 137-158 
CCKERj Ro J. and PLLIAVINj J, A. (1972) 
"The Effects of Physical Deviance Upon Face-to-Face 
Interaction: The Other Side"g J* Personality and Soo- 
ial Psychol. 9.91 
(1), 33-39 
CONNOR, Lo, and ROSENSTEIN, J9 (1963) 
"Vocational Status and Adjustment of Deaf Women", 
Volta Reviewp Lo 585-591 
CONRAD, Pei (1975) "The Discovery of Hyperkinesis: Notes on the Nedioali- 
zation of Deviant Behaviour"t Soo* Probseq. Up (1)9 12-21 
CONRAD, R, (1979) "The Deaf School Child: Language and Cognitive Function" 
Harper and Rowl London 
CORNER9 J. and HAWHORNj J. (eds) (1980) 
"Communication Studies: An introductory reader", 
Edward Arnold, London 
COWEN9 E. Le and BOBROVE, Po H. (1966) 
"Karginalityl Disability and Adjustment", Perceptual 
.b 
869-870 and Motor Skillsp I 
CRAIGT Ho Be (1965) "A sociometrio investigation of the Self-Concept of the 
deaf ohild'19 Am* Annals of Deaf, 1109 456-478 
CRAIG, Wo. No and SILVER, No H. (1966) 
OlExamination of Selected Employment Problems of the 
Deaf 119 Am. Annals of Deaf , . 
11-19 544-549 
CRAMMATTEt A4, (1968) ItDeaf Persons in Professional EmplOYment"t Charles 
Ce Thomasq Springfield, Illinois 
CRUICKSHANK9 We M* (ed) (1956) 
if "The Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth 
Staples Press, London 
CUMMING9 E. and CUMMING, Jog (1957) 
ItClosed Ranks: An Experiment in Mental Health 
Edao- 
ation", Harvard Univ. PreBsq 
N. Y. 
ý 467 - 
CUWTINGHAY, j D. 
(1977) "Stigma and Social Isolation: Self-Perceived Pro- 
blems of a Group of Multiple Sclerosis SufferersIty 
Health Services Research Unit, Report nos. 279 Univo 
of Kent 
DE CARCI J. 9 EVANS9 L., and DOWALIBY9, F*J. 
(1980) 
"Advising Deaf Youth to Train for Various Occupations: 
Attitudes of Significant Others", Nato Technical In- 
stitute for the Deaf, Working Paper 
DE CARO, J. and BRIEN, Do, (1981) 
"Determining the Special Educational Needs of Young 
Deaf People Regarding Careers: A Response to the War- 
nook Commission Report", N. T. I. D. j Working Paper 
DIS(XJZAj M-, F. j IRWIGI LM, l TREVELYANt HT., g SWAN, A4. V*q SHANNONj Deg TUCKKAN, E 
and WOODALL, J*D* (1975) 
"Deafness in Middle Age - How Big is the Problem? " Je 
Royal College Gen. Practitioners, 
. 
951 47Z-478 
DARLING9 R*Jw (1979) "Families Against Society: A Study of Reactions to 
Children with Birth Defects", Sage Pubs,, Beverly 
Hills, Ca. /London 
DAVIS9 AeCe (1983) "Incidence of Hearing Loss", Paper given at the Brit* 
Soo* Audiologists' Conferencep "Hearing Disorders: 
Detection, Incidence and Prevention"l (Jan)j London 
DAVIS, C. (1975) "The Profoundly Deaf Adolescent and the Young Deaf 
Adult" in Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of 
the World Federation of the Deaft 401-4069 Washington 
DAYIS9 F. (1961) ItDeviance Disavowal: The Management of Strained Inter- 
action by the Visibly Handioapped"l Soo., Probs., 
(2)9 120-1-32 
(1963) "Passage Through Crisis: Polio Victims aad their 
Families'll Bobba-Merrilll NeYe 
DAVIS9 Ho and SILVERMANt S*R. (eds) (1978) 
"Hearing and Deafness", 4th ed. 9 Holt, Rinehart and 
Winston Inco, N*Y. 
DAVIS9 NýJe (1972) "Labeling Theory in Deviance Research: A Critique 
and Reconsideration", Sociol* Quarterly, 11 (Fall) 
447-474 
DELAMATER9 Jo (1968) tIOn the Nature of Deviance", Soo* Forces, _46 
(4) 
Junet 445-455 
DENMARKt J*C. (1966) "Mental illness and Early Profound Deafness", Brit. 
JO. Med. Psychol , 2l 117 - 124 
(1973) "The Education of Deaf Children" in BOSWELL, D. and 
WINGROVE9 T., (1974), "The Handicapped Person in the 
Community: A Reader and Sourcebook", Tavistook, Open 
Univo Press 
(1978) 'Tarly Profound Deafness and Mental Retardation", Re- 
printed Br, J. Mental Subnormality, MV 
(II), No* 47 
'December) 
N\ý 
- 468 - 
DLNTONj D. (1976) t'The Philosophy of Total Communication", Brit. Deaf 
News Supplement (August), Brit* Deaf Assoc. 
DENZINI NeKo (1970) "Rules of Conduct and the Study of Deviant Behaviour: 
Some Notes on the Social Relationship" in DOUGLAS9 J*D* 
(ed) "Deviance and Respectability: The Social Con- 
struction of Moral Meanings", Basic Books, N. Y. 
MUCHARt M. (1978) "Diglossia in British Sign Language", Unpub. doctoral 
dissertation, Stanford Univ. 
MUTSCIMR qIj 
(1973) "What we say/what we do: Sentiments and Acts", Scott, 
Foresman and Cool Glenviewq Illinois 
(1977) "Asking Questions (and listening to answers): A Re- 
view of Some Sociological Precedents and Problems, ' in 
BUIXER, M. (ed)p "Sociological Research Methods: 
Introduction", Macmillans, London 
DXKTERq L*A, (1964) "On the Politics and Sociology of Stupidity in our Soo- 
iety" in BECKER, H. So (ed)j "The Other Side: Perspeo- 
tives; on Deviance'19 Free Press of Glencoe, N. Y. 
DICKSONj R*C* (1968) "The Normal Hearing of Bantu and Bushmen: A Pilot 
Study"l J. Laryno Otol-I 82,1-6,505-522 
DODD9 Jo. E. (1977) "Overcoming Occupational Stereotypes Related to Sex 
and Deafness'19 Am* Annals of Deafv ýL29 
(5), 489-491 
DOUGLASt J. D*, (ed) (1970) 
"Deviance and Respectability: The Sooial Construction 
of Moral Meanings'19 Basic Books Inc., NY* 
(ed) (1971) 
Minderstanding Everyday Life: Towards the Reconstruction 
of Social Knowledge"q ReK*P. q London 
DREWRY, R,, R* (1958) "The Deaf School Leaver in Northern England", Nuffield 
Foundation, London 
EAGER, JeAe (1974) "Marginality: A Measure of Sociability Among the Deaf" 
M. Edo thesisq Westminsterv Mde 
E--RTONq ReB. (1967) '"he Cloak of Competenoe: Stigma in the Lives of the 
Mentally Retarded", Univ. of California Press, Berk- 
eley and L, Ao/London 
EDMONDSONj W* (1982) Personal Communication 
EGOLF, D. B. and CHESTERf S. L. 
(1973) 
"Nonverbal Communication and the Disorders of Speech 
and Language", ASHAj !: ý, 511-518 
EICHOLZj Ae (1932) "A Study of the Deaf in England and Wales", H. M. S. O. 
Londont Cmnd* 27229 
EKERSON9 Re M. and MESSINGER9 S. L. 
(1977) 
"The Micro-Politics of Trouble", Soo* Probs., g. ý 
(2) 
121-133 
- 469 - 
EKERTONj R*G. and ROTHKLNI G. (1978) 
flAttitudes Towards Deafness: Hearing Students at a 
Hearing and Deaf College", Am. Annals of Deaf, 121 
588-593 
EMPLOYMM, DEPARTKENT OF (1972) 
"Code of Practice for Reducing the Exposure of Bm- 
ployed Persons to Noisellq H-M-S, O. l London 
ERIKSON, K*T* (1962) "Notes on -the Sociology of Deviance" in BECKER, HoSe 
(ed), (1964), "The Other Side: Perspectives on Dev- 
iance", Free Press of Glencoe, N, Y. 
(1966) "Wayward Puritans: A Study in -the Sociology of Devi- 
ancellp John Wiley, N. T. 
EWERTSEN, H. Wo and BIRK-NIELSEN, H, (1973) 
"Social Hearing Handicap Index", Audiologyq ýL21 
180-187 
FABREGA, Ho and MANNING, P*K* (1972) 
"Disease, Illness and Deviant Careers" in SCOTT, R, A. D., 
and DOUGLAS, JoD, (eds) "Theoretical Perspectives on 
Deviance", Basic Books, NoY, 
FAIERS, M*C. (1978) "Noise Deafness and -the Bmployer's Liability". J. Soo. 
Occupe Med. 9 28,20-24 
FARINA9 A. and RING9 K. 1p 
(1965) 
11The Influence of Perceived Mental Illness on Irrter- 
personal Relations", J. Ab. Psychol. t 70 
(1)v 47-51 
FIELD9 F, (ed) (1977) "The Conscript Army: A Study of Britain's Unemployed" 
R. K. P. I London 
FILKER9 P., PHILLIPSON, No, SILVERMAN, Dog and WALSH, D., (1972) 
"New Directions in Sociological Theory", Collier- 
Macmillan, London 
FILSTEAD, Wo J. (ed) (1972) 
#'An Introduction to Deviance: Readings in the Pro- 
cess of Making Deviants", Markham Pub* Co,, Chicago 
FINKELSTEIN, V. (1980) "Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion" 
Monograph no* 59 World Rehab. Fund Inc., N. Y, 
FINNEY, J. X1977) "Progressive Hearing Loss in Adulthood: Implications 
for the Family", Unpubý X. Phil., Univ. of York 
FRANCO, F. A. 9 ABRAMSONj A. 
L. and STEIN, T- (1978) 
"High-speed Drill Noise and Hearing: audiometric 
survey of 70 dentists"y Jo Am* Dental Assoc., 21 
(Sept)v 479-482 
MEMAN, M*D*Ao. (1974) I'The Legal Structure", Longman, London 
FREEKANj R*Dop CARBIN, C. Fo I and BO=j 
R. @J,., 
(1981) 
"Can't Your Child Hear? A Guide for Those Who Care 
about Deaf Children'll Croom Helm, London 
- 470 - 
FRIEIIKANj Marvin (1967)"The Changing Profile of the Labor Force", AFIr--CIO 
Amer. FederationiBt q' . 
L4ý9 7-14 
FRIEDSON, E. (1965) "Disability as Social Deviance" in SUBSKAN, M*B. (ed) 
"Sociology and Rehabilitation"I Am. Sociol-o Assoc., 
and U*S*-Dept* of Heklth, Education and Welfaret 71-99 
FURFEY, P* Ho and HARTE, T. J. (1964) 
"Interaction of Deaf and Hearing in Frederick County, 
Maryland", Catholic Unive of America PreSBf Washington 
AJRTHq He G. (1966) "Thinking Without Language: Psychological Implications 
of Deafness", Free Pressl N*Y& 
GARBMt R@A* and GARDNER9 Be To (1969) 
"Teaohing Sign Language to a Chimpaazee", p Science, la (h4ust), Noe 3894l 664-672 
GARFINKEL, Ho (1956) "Conditions of Suocessful Degradation Cercsmonies"g 
Am *Jo So0i ol o., 61 
(Maroh) 
9 42D-424 
(1964) "Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities", 
Soo* Probs., Vol. Jjj (Winter)t 22-5-250 
GARRETT, C, '*W* (1964) "Quo Vadis? A Pilot Study of Employment Opportunities 
for the Hearing Impaired"l Volta Reviewq 66p 669-6,77 
GARRISON9 W* M. and TESCHt Sol (1978) 
"Self-Concept and Deafness: A Review of Research 
Literature'll Volta Review, LO Mv 457-466 
GPIRRISON, W. M. 9 TESCH, S., and IZ CARO, Pot 
(1978) 
"An Assessment of Self-Concept Levels among Post-se(>- 
ondary Deaf Adolescents", Am. Annals of Deafl 
(December), 968-975 
GELMAN, Wo (1959) "Roots of Prejudice against -the Handicapped", Je Rehab*, 
Iýq (1), (Jan/Feb), 4-6 
GELIXAN, W. (1965) tVocational Adjustment and Guidance of Deaf People" 
in "Research on Behavioral Aspects of Deafness", U. S. 
Dept. of Healthl Education and Welfarej Washing-ton 
GIBBS, Jo (1966) "Conceptions of Deviant Behaviour: The Old and the New" 
Pacific Sociolo Reviewt. 2 (Spring), 9-14 
(1972) "Issues in Defining Deviant Behaviour", in SCOTT, R. A. 
and DOUGLASr J*D. (eds)l "Theoretical Perspectives on 
Deviance", Basic Booksg N*Yo 
GLASER9 B. and STRAUSSp A. L. 
(1964) 
"Awareness Contexts and Sooial Interaction", Am. Sociol. 
Reviewl, 29,669-679 
(1968) 
"The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for 
Qualitative Research", Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 
GOFFMANI Ee (1956) 1%nbarrassment and Social Organization", Am. J. Sooiol., 
§. 21 264-271 
- 471 - 
GOMIAN, E*, (1957) "Alienation from Interactiont, in LAVER, Je and 
HUTCHESON9 S. (eds), (1972), "Communication in Face.., to. 
Fare Interaction", Penguin, Harmondsworth 
(1961) "Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental 
Patients and Other Inmates", Anchor Bookst Doubleday, NY 
(1963) "Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organý- 
ization of Gatherings", Free Press, N, Y* 
(1968) "Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity" 
Pelican 9 Harmondsworth (original pub, 1963, Prentice- 
Hall) 
(1971) nhe Presentation of Self in Everyday Life", Penguin, 
Harmondsworth 
(19T4) "Stigma and Social Identity" in BOSWELL9, Jo. Do and 
WINGROVE, Je M. (eds)p "The Handicapped Person in the 
Community: A Reader and Sourcebooktil Tavistock, Open 
Unive Press 
(1981) "Forms of Talk", Basil Blackwellq Oxford 
GONOS9 Go (1977) "'Situation' versus 'Frame': The 'Interactionist' and 
the 'Stracturalist' Analysis of Everyday Life", Amo 
Sociole Reviewq 42 (Deoember) 9 854467 
GOODE9 Wo Jo (1967) "The Protection of the Inept", Am. Sociolo Rev-9 12 
(1)v 5-19 
GORKAN, P., Pe (1960) "Certain Social and Psychological Difficulties Facing 
the Deaf Person in the English Community'19 Unp7ab. PhD 
Univ. of Cambridge 
GOULDNER, A4, W. (1968) "The Sociologist as Partisan: Sociology and the Wel- 
fare State", Am. Sociologist, 
.1 
(May), 103-116 
GOVEj: Wo (1975) IfThe Labelling Perspective: An Overview", in GOVE, Wo 
(ed), "The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Per- 
spectivelly Sage Pubs., NoYo 
GOVE9 We (1975) (ed) "The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective", 
Sage Pubs*, N*Y* 
GOWKANI A*, (1956) '! Blindness and the Role of Companion'll Soo* Probs., 
_49 
68-75 
GREAVES ,M* and MASSIEg 
Be., (1977) 
"Work and Disability 1977", The Disabled Living Found. 
ationg London 
GREENBERG9 B. L. (1969) "Gallaudet College: Trends for the Puture", Je Rehab, 
Deaf, 
. 
1,21-27 
GREENBERG9 Jo. (1970) "In This Sign", Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc., N*Y,, 
GREGORY9 P. 9 
(1964) "Deafness and Public Responsibility: the provision of 
hearing aids'19 Occ. Papers in Soc. Admino, Noe 7, 
Codicote Press, Welwyn 
- 472 - 
GREENLEY, J. R. (1972) "The psychiatric patient's family and length of hojq- 
pitalization", J. Hlth. and Soco Behaviory (March) 
25-37 
GREENMUNj Re Me (1958) "Society's Attitudes and Popular Conceptions concern- 
ing the Deaf", Am. Annals of Deaf, 103 (2)? 372-377 
GROCE, No, (1980) "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language", Natural History, 
ý2 (June), 10-16 
GUIRE, 0.1 (1961) "Deaf Characters in Literature"t Silent Woexer, (bimlst) 
3-6 
GUSSOW9 Ze and TRACY, G. S. (1968) 
"Statusp Ideologyq and Adaptation to Stigmatized Ill. 
ness: A Study of Leprosy'# v Human Origanizo, 21 (4) (Winter) 
, 3,16-325 
HABER, L. D. and SMITH, Ro T. (1971) 
"Disability and Deviance: Normative Adaptations of 
Role Behavior'll Am* Sociole Revol. 36 -97 . _j 
87 
HAGGARD, Wo, GATEHOUSE9 Sop and DAVISt A,, (1981) 
"The High Prevalence of Hearing Disorders and Its Im- 
plications for Services in the U*Ko" Br* Je Audiol., 
1ýjj 241-251 
HAGGARD, M&I (1982) Personal Communication 
HAINES9 Co. M. (1927) "The Effects of Defective Hearing Upon the Individual 
asct Member of the Social Order", Jo Abe Psychol., 22, 
3-51-1-56- 
HAMMOND, P. E. (ed) (1964) 
"Essa, vs on Sociologists at Work: The Craft of Social 
Research", Basic Books Inc*, N. Y. 
HANDEL9 A*, Fe (1960) toCommunity Attitudes Influencing Psychosocial Adjust- 
ment to Blindness", Jo Rehab*, gwý (6)9 23-25 
HANSARD (1980) "Industrial Deafness" (Questions in Parliament)t Vol* 
986: 9 No* 188, 
col4k 263,9th June 
HARRIS9 A. 6 1.9 COX9 Eel and SMITH, C*R*Wo 
(1971) 
"Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain'll Part I, 
H*M. S*O. l London 
HARRISON, Ro, (1978) t'Noise and -the Worker: A Historical Review", Noise 
and Vibration Bulletin, (December)l 350-3154 
HASTORP9 A* Ho, WILDFOGELI J. and CASSKANj T. 9 
(1979) 
"Acknowledgement of Handicap as a Taotic in Social 
Interaction'll J, Personality and Social Psychol., 
(10), 1790-1797 
HASTORF, A. H. 9 SCHNEIDER9 
D. J., and POLEFKAq J., (1980) 
wrhe perceptual process" in CORNER, Je and HAWITORN, J. 
(eds) 
9 "Communication Studies: 
An introductory reader". 
43-499 Edward Arnold, London 
- 473 - 
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE (1978) 
"Noise and the Worker" (Health and Safety at Work)q 
No* 25 
HEALTH AND SAFETY CCW4ISSION (1980) 
"Health and Safety at Work etc Act: The Act Outlined"' 
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF (1978) 
"Oeoupational Deafness", Report by the Industrial 
Injuries Advisory Counoill H. M. S. O., Londong Cmndo 7266 
(1979) "The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed 
Diseases) Amendment (No* 4) Regulations"* Statutory 
Instrument noo 992 
HEARING (1980) 'Jýj (Sept/October) 
HEARING (1981) "Public attitudes to deafness" (editorial), L6v (2) 
50-51 
HEIDER9 Fo and HEIDER,, Go M. (1941) 
"Studies in the Psychology of the Deafllp Psychole 
Monographsj U, (5) 
HERBST, K&Ge (1978) "'Thou shalt not curse the deafl"v New Age, (Winter) 
(1979) "Deaf and Lonely", Working Paperl North London Poly- 
technic, Dept* of Applied Studies 
(1980) "The Social Consequences of Acquired Hearing Loss", 
Hearing, ). ýy (2)v 54-57 
and THCKAS I, A* 1 
(1980) 
t'Social and Psychological Implications of Acquired 
Hearing Loss for Adults of Bmployment Age'll Bro Je 
Audiol*i RP 76-85 
(1981) "Some Social Implications of Acquired Deafness in Age- 
ing", in TAYLOR9 Re and GILKORE, J69 (eds)j "Current 
Trends in British Gerontology", in press 
and HUMPHREY9 Ce Mo 
(1981) 
t#The prevalence of hearing impairment in the elderly 
living at home", Je Royal Coll* Gen* Practitioners, 
(March), 155ý-16o 
HIGGINS9, Pe C. (1980) ttoutsiders in a Hearing World: A Sociology of Deafness", 
Sage Pubs.? Beverly Hills, California/London 
HIGGINS, Pe C. and NASH, J. E* 
(1982) 
t'Introduction: Understanding Deafness Through a Socio- 
logical Imagination", in "The Deaf Community and the 
Deaf Population'll Working Paper 39 Conference on Socio- 
logy, Gallaudet Collegeq Washington 
HIGH, W. S., FAIRBANKS, G-sj and GLORIG9 Aot 
(1964) 
"Scale for self-aSsessment of hearing handicap"t Jo 
Speech Hearing Diset 29,215-230 
- 474 - 
HILBOURNE, J. 1 
(1973) lion Disabling the Normal: The Implications of Physical 
Disability for Other People"q Brit* Je Soo. Work, 
. 
It 49T-507 
HINCHCLI M9D., and HINCHCLI M, Re (1974) 
t'Administrative and Legal Control of Noise and Its 
Effects"p Parts I and II, j Br. Jo Audiol*, 8,69-78 
and 101-108 
HINCHCLIFFEI Ro (1961) "Prevalence of the Commoner Earg Nose and Throat Con. 
ditions in the Adult Rural Population of Great Britain: 
A Study by Direct Examination of Two Random Samples", 
Brit. Je Prev. Soc. Med. j.. Uq 128-139 
HJORTj W. Lo (1972) "Comparison of Deaf and Hearing Workers in an Aero- 
Space Industry in Southern California" Unpube doctoral 
disse, Unive of California 
HODGSONq K, W., (1953) Orhe Deaf and their Problems: A Study in Special Ed- 
ucation'*, Watts and Co. 9 London 
HOPKINS9 Ael and SCAMBLER, G., (1976) 
"The Social Implications of Epilepsy" in PETERS9 D* K., 
(ed), "Twelfth Symposium on Advanced Medicine'19 Pro- 
ceedings of a Conference held at Royal College of 
Physicians of London, 16-20th Feb., Pitman Medical 
Pub* Co., Tunbridge Wells 
HOROWITZ, I* L. and LIEBOWITZ, M., (1968) 
"Social Deviance and Political Marginality: TowardLa 
Redefinition of the Relation between Sociology and 
Politics", Soo* Probs,, (Winter)q 280-296 
HOROWITZ, L. S. 9 REES9 N* S., and HOROWITZ, M. W. 
(1975) 
"Attitudes towards Deafness as a Function of Increasing 
Maturity'll Je Soo. Psychol., 66v 331-336 
HOWES9 He C., (1979) "Civilisation Takes its Toll on Eskimo Hearing",, 
Audecibel, ?. 8- (3), (Summer)v 139-142 
HUNT, P-i (ed) (1966) "Stigma: The Experience of Disability", Geoffrey 
Chapmang London 
HYKANI Hq STOKESj Jov and STRAUSS, H., (1973) 
110coupational aspirations among the Totally Blind", 
Soo. Foroes, ýl (June) 403-416 
IGNATIEFF9 M-9 (1983) "Life at degree zero", New Sooiety, §j, 95-979 20th Jan. 
IRWIN, Ao, (1980) "S-ta=ering: Practical Help for all Ages"l Penguin, 
Harmondsworth 
ITARD9. Jo Mo Go (of. LANE) 
JACKSON9 P. Lo (1979) "Special Problems of the Hard of Hearing", Jo Rehab. 
Deaf, 12, (4)q 13-26 
JACOBS, L. M. (1980) "A deaf adult speaks out"t 2nd ede, Gallaudet College 
Pressq Washington 
ý 475 - 
JAHODA, M. (1979) "The Psychological Meaning of Unemployment"v New Soo- 
iety, 6th Septot 492-495 
(1982) "Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psycholooical 
Analysis'19 Cambridge Univ, Press 
JORDAN9 D., (1979) "A New Employment Programme Wanted for Disabled People", 
Low Pay Unit I London 
KEMPER, T. D. (1966) "Self-Conceptions and -the zxpectations of Others"l 
Sociolo Quarterlyp 
. 
1y (Summer), 323-343 
KEMDYI A, E. C. (1973) "The Effects of Deafness on Personality: A Discussion 
based on the Theoretical model of Erik Erikson's Eight 
Ages of Man", J9 Rehab* Deaft 679 (6)9 22-33 
KERR, Cog (1981) "The Play's The Thing" -a Review of "Children of a 
Lesser GodItj Hearing, L6 (5)9 208-210 
KERSE, Co S, (1975) "The Law Relating to Noise'19 Oyez Pub, Coo, London 
KETTLE9 Mog (1977) ItThe Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Pro- 
fessional People", Unpub. PhD thesis, Unive of Bradford 
KIERNAN9 C. (1982) Address given at Brit,, Psyohol. Society Conference, 
"Language", Brunel University 
KITSUSEj J, 1, (1962) "Societal Reaction to Deviant Behaviour: Problems of 
Theory and Method'19 Soo* Probs. 9 2, 
(3), 247--256 
(1975) "The 'New Conception of Deviance' and its Critics" 
in GOVE9 W. (ed), "The Labelling of Deviance: Eval- 
uating a Perspective", Sage Pubs., N, Y, 
KITTO9. J., (1848) "The Lost Senses", in BATSON, T. W. and BERGMAN, E*j 
(eds), (1976), "The Deaf Experience: An Anthology of 
Literature by and about the Deaftf, 2nd ed. j Merriam- 
Eddy, South Waterford, Maine 
KLAPP, Oe E* (1958) "Social Types: Process and Structure", Am. Sociolo Rev., 
.U 
(December), 674-678 
KLECK, R. 2 ONO, H., and HASTORF, 
A, H. (1966) 
"The Effects of Physical Deviance upon Face. -to-Faoe 
Interaction", Human Relations, 19,47-5-436 
KLECK, Re E, (1968) "Self-Disclosure Patterns of the Non-Obviously Stigma- 
tised", Psychol* Reports, 1239-1248 
(1969) "Physical Stigma and Task Oriented Interactions", Hu. 
man Aelationsl 22, Mv 53-60 
KNAPPq Pe He (1948) "Eimotional Aspects of Hearing Loss'll Psychosomo Ned,, 
10,203-222ý 
KRONMERG9 H. H. and BLAKE, Go Do 
(1966) 
t'Young Deaf Adults: An Occupational Survey: A Study 
of the Occupational Status of the Young Adult Deaf of 
the Southwest and their need for Specialized Vocational 
Rehabilitation Facilities", Dept. Health, Education 
and Welf are, Washington 
- 476 - 
KYLE, Jo and WOLL, B., (1980) 
"Sign Language of Deaf People: The Other English 
Language", Working Paper, Univ. of Bristol 
LADD, P. (1978) "Communication or Dummification: A Consumer View- 
point" in MONTGOMERY9 G. W. G. (ed), I'Deafnesst Person- 
ality and Mental Health", Scottish Workshop Publs., 
Edinburgh 
LANE7 H. (1977) "The Wild Boy of Aveyron", George Allen and Unwin, 
London 
LANGER9 E. J., FTSKEj S., TAYLOR, S. E., and CHANOWITZ, B., (1976) 
"Stigma, Staring and Discomfort: A Novel-Stimulus 
Hypothesis", Je Exptl. Soc. Psychol., L2,451-463 
LARGE, P. (1982a) "Report by the Committee on Restrictions Against Dis- 
abled People" (C. O. R. A. D. ), H. M. S. O., London 
(1982b) "Improving Employment Prospects for the Disabled"y 
Paper given at Conferencel (§eptember)l by 
Risability Alliance and Industrial Societil London 
Improving Employment Prospects for Disab ed People 
LAURITSEN, R. R. (1972) "The Idiosyncratic Work Adjustment of the Deaf Wor- 
ker", J. Rehab. Deaf, ý (3)? 11-23 
LAWSON, L. (1980) "The Role of Sign in the Structure of the Deaf Commu- 
nity", Paper read at the British Sign Language Con- 
ference, Univ* of Lancaster, April 
LAVER, Jo and HUTCHESON, S., (eds) (1972) 
"Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction: Selected 
Readings", Penguins Harmondsworth 
LEES, D. and SHAW, S., (eds) (1974) 
"Impairment, Disability and Handicap", S. S. R. C., 
Heineman, London 
LEMEIRTj E* M. (1951) "Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory 
of Sociopathic Behaviour", McGraw-Hill, N. Y. 
(1967) "Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Controllf, 
Prentice-Hall, N. Y. 
LERKAN, A. and GUILFOYLEI G. R. (1970) 
"The Development of Pre-Vocational Behaviour in Deaf 
Adolescents'll Teachers' College Press, Columbia Univ., 
N. Y. 
LEVINE9 E. S. (1960) "The Psychology of Deafness: Techniques of Appraisal 
for Rehabilitation", Columbia Univ. Press, N. Y. 
LEVITIN, T. (1975) "Deviants as Active Participants in the Labelling 
Process: The Visibly Handicapped", Soc. Probs., 22 
(April) 9 548-557 
LEWIS, M. M. (1968) "The Education of Deaf Children: The Possible Place 
of Finger-Spelling and Signing", H. M. S. O., London 
LOACH, 1 (1976) "The Price of Deafness: A Review of the Financial 
and Employment Problems of the Deaf and Hard of Hear- 
ing", The Disability Alliance, London 
- 477 - 
LOFLAND, J. (1976) "Doing Social Life: The Qualitative Study of Human 
Interaction in Natural Settings", John Wiley, N. Y. 
(ed) (1978) "Interaction in Everyday Life: Social Strategies", 
Sage Pubs. 9 N. Y. 
LORBER, J., (1967) "Deviance as Performance: The Case of Illnessllv Soc- 
Probs., 14,302-310 
LOWELL9 E. L* (1971) "The New Economics and the Deaf", Am. Annals of 
Deaf, 116 (Oct-)v 469-473 
LUCKENBILL9 D. F. and BEST, J. (1981) 
"Careers in Deviance and Respectability: The Analo- 
gy's Limitations", Soo. Probs., 22, (2), 197-206 
LUNDE, A. (1956) "The Sociology of the Deaf", Paper presented at the 
meeting of the Am. Sociolo Soc., Detroit, (Sept. ) 
LUNDE, A. S. and BIGM, (1959) 
"Occupational Conditions Among the Deaf"l A Report 
on a National 5urvey Conducted by Gallaudet College 
and the Nato Assoc. of the Deaf, Gallaudet College 
Press, Wa-shington 
LYSONSI C. K. (1973) "The Development of Social Legislation for Blind and 
Deaf Persons in England 1834-1939", Unpubo Phd thesis, 
Brunel Univo 
(1977) "The Development of Training for Work with Adult Deaf 
Persons (1916-1977)"t Bro Deaf News,. Ll (4), 120-123 
(1978) "Your Hearing uoss and How to Cope With It", David 
and jharles, London 
(1980) "The Movement for a Deaf Person's Act", Br. Deaf 
News, 129 254-256 
MacINTYRE, 1 .., 
(1976) "Epilepsy and Employment'll Community Health, .1 
(4) 
195-204 
inacKENZIE, M .* 
(1978) "Upbringing, Rigidity and hYnployment Level: The Re- 
levance of Personality Pointers in the Occupational 
Aeld" in MONTGOMEkff, GoW. G. (ed), "Deafness, Per- 
sonality and Mental Health"t Scottish Workshop Pubs,., 
&Unburgh 
MACKIE2 Mo (1972) "Arriving at 'Truth' by Definition: The Case of 
Stereotype Inaccuracy'll 6oc. rrobso,, L02,431-437 
MALONE,, R., (1969) "Expressed At-uitudes of Families of Aphasics", J. 
-Fearing Dis., )A, 10-151 Speechl ý- 
MANKOFF, M., (1971) "Societal Reaction and tareer Deviance: A Critical 
Analysis", Sociolo Quarterly, L2, (! 3pring), 204P-218 
P. Ho MANN (197b) "Methods of 6ociological Enquiry", Basil Blackwell, , Oxford 
r%-- cOM14ISSION MANjrOW..; R SERVIC33 (ýýfU "Employing 
Lmeone 
Who is Deaf or Hard of Hearing" 
EPL 30 
- 478 - 
MANPOWER SERVICES COE. -ISSION (1981) 
"Review of the Quota Scheme for the Employment of DiB- 
abled People: A Report", 2252/481/153 (April) 
MARGOLIUS9 E. (1975) "Affirmative Action: Does This Mean More Job Oppor- 
tunities for Deaf Individuals? " Volta Review, 77 
(5), 318-322 
MARKIDES9 A. (1977) "Rehabilitation of People with Acquired Deafness in 
Adulthood", Bro Je Audiology, Supplement 1, (March) 
MARKIDES9 A., BROOKS, D. N. 9 HART9 F. G. and STEPHENS, S. D. G. 
(1979) 
"Aural Rehabilitation of Hearing-Impaired Adults", 
Br. Je Audiol-, U, 7"14 
MARSH, R. M. (1967) "Comparative Sociology: A Codification of Cross, -Soo- 
ietal Analysis'll Haroourtj Brace and World Inc*, N. T. 
MATARAZZ09 Jo D., (1965) "The Interview" in WOLMAN, B, B. (ed), "Handbook of 
Clinical Psychology", McGraw-Hill, N. T. /London 
MATTHW9 S. H. (1979) "The Sooial World of Old Women: Management of Self- 
Identity'll Sage Pubs*, Beverly Hills 
MAWER9 J,, We (1982) Personal Communication (Assistant Secretary, Social 
Insurance and Industrial Welfare Dept,, TU. C. ) 
KcCALLj Ro Fo (1967) "The Deafened"q Hearingg &29 324 
(1978) "Rehabilitation of the Deaf"9 The Practitioner, 221t 
(1325)v 686-692 
McCULLERSl C-9 (1961) "The Heart is a lonely Hunter", Penguing Harmondsworth 
XcCIJAIL, Do, (1975) "Communication: Aspects of Modern Sooiology'll Longw- 
mans, London 
MEAD2 Go H. (1934) I'Mindl Self and Society", Univo of Chicago Press, 
Chicago 
MEADOW9 K. P- (1968a) "Towards a Developmental Understanding of Deafness", 
J* Rehab * Deaf I Zý 1-18 
(1968b) "Early Manual Communication in Relation to the Deaf 
Child's Intellectual, Social and Communicative Fun- 
ctioning", Am. Annals of Deaf, . 
111,29-41 
(1968c) "Parental Response to the Medical Ambiguities of Con- 
genital Deafness", J, Hlth. and Soo. Behaviour, 
(Dec. ) 299-309 
MEADOW9 K. P. and NEMON, A,, (1976) 
flDeafness as Stigma", Amer* Rehab,, Z*, 7-9,19-22' 
MERCER, Jo (1965) "Social System Perspective and Clinical Perspective: 
Frames of Reference for Understanding Career Patterns 
of Persons Labelled as Mentally Retarded"l Soo* Probs., 
13 (Summer)v 18-34 
(1973) I'Labeling the Mentally Retarded: clinical and social 
system perspectives on mental retardation", Univ. 
of California Pressl Berkely, Cao 
ý 479 - 
MEYERSONg L, (1956) "A Psychology of Impaired Hearing" in CRUICKSHANK, 
W. M. (ed), "The Psychology of Exceptional Children 
and Youth", Staples Press, London 
MILES, Do, (1983) Personal Communication 
MINDEL, E. D. and VERNON, McCayt (1971) 
"They Grow In Silence: The Deaf Child and His Family" 
N, A, D., Silver Springg Mdo 
MITCHELL, G. S. (1979) "Career Education and Appropriate Job Placement for 
Young Deaf People", Paper preBented at the ENID Sem-- 
inar on Employment of Deaf People, High Wycombel Bucks. 
(1981) "Deafness, Language Acquisition and Bilingualism", 
Unpubo M*Sc. dissertationg Univ. of Newcastle 
MITCHELL, S. 9 
(1971) "An Examination of Selected ftetors Re 
, 
lated to the 
Economic Status of the Deaf PopulationfIl UnpubG. PhD 
thesis, American Univoo Washington 
MONTAGUE, H. j 
(1941) "Things I wish -they wouldn't do: A collection of 
faux pas committed by the normally hearing", Volta 
Rev*, 
-41, 
(Jan. ), Pe 42 
MONTGOMERY9 G, W*. G*j (1966) 
"The Relationship of Oral Skills to Manual Communi- 
catiomin Profoundly Deaf Adolesoents", Am. Ann ls 
of Deafv 1119 557-565 
(1967) "Vocational 0aidance for the Deaf: A Classified 
Gaide to the Basic Requirements for Occupations Open 
to the r-rofoundly Deaf", E, and S* Livingstoneg 
Edinburgh 
(1976) "Changing Attitudes to Communication: Some current 
trends in Scotland reviewed against recent inter- 
national research and practice", Bre Deaf News Supple- 
ment, (June) 
and MILLEHj Jol (1977) 
"Assessment and Preparation of Deaf Adolescents for 
Employment", J. af Brit, Assoc* of Teachers of Deaf, 
11 167-176 
MONTGOMERY, Go W, G. (ed) (1978) 
t'Deafness, Personality and Mental Health"s Scottish 
Workshop Publics. 9 Edinburgh 
(1980) "Effective Brains ve Defective Ears", Br. Deaf News 
Supplement, (July), Brit* Deaf Assoc. 
(1981) "Alien Communication: Sign Systems Extant in the 
U. K. ", Brit. Deaf News Supplement, (March/April), 
Brit. Deaf Assoc* 
(ed) (1981) 
"The Integration and Disintegration of the Deaf in 
Society", Scottish Workshop Pubs., Edinburgh 
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW (1? 
1; 
0) 
U he S. economy in 1980: a preview of Bureau of 
Labor Statistics Projections" (April), 3-34 
- 480 - 
MOORE, R. j 
(1977) "Becoming a Sociologist in Sparkbrook" in BELL9 C. 
and NEWBYj H., (eds), "Doing Sociological Research", 
87-107, George Allen and Unwin 
MOORES, Do Fo (1978) in FREEKANq Ro Do, CARBINj Co Fo. and BOESE, Rý Jo, 
T-1981), "Can't Your Child Hear? A Guide for Those 
Who Care about Deaf Children"', Croom Helm, London 
MORRIS2 A., and BUTLERt A-eq (1972) 
"No Feet to Drag"g Sidgwick and Jackson, London 
MORSE, Do, (1969) "The Peripheral Worker", Columbia Univo Presel NeY., 
MOWRER, D&E, j WAHLj Fog and DOOLAN9 So J-v 
(1978) 
"Effect of Lisping on Audience Evaluation of Male 
Speakers", J. Speech Hearing Diso, All (1-2), 140--148 
NURPHTj As T., MCKSTEIN, J9, and DRIPPS, Be, (1960) 
"Acceptancel Rejection and the Hearing Handicapped", 
Volta Review, 62 (Xay), 208-11 
MYKLEBEJST9 Hw Raj (1964) "The Psychology of Deafness: Sensory Deprivation, 
Learning and Adjustment", 2nd ed. t Grune and Strattong 
N. Y. 
NASH9 Je Eo and NASH, Ael (1978) 
"Distorted Communication Situations as a Function of 
Role Conceptions in Deaf-Hearing Communioation"9 
Sign Language Studies, 20l 219-50 
(1981) 
"Deafness in Society", Lexington Books, D. C. Heath 
and Co., Mass* 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF (1970) 
"The Young Adult Hearing Impaired Population of 
Ireland: A General Survey" 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND THE DFAF NEWSLETTERS 
(1979) "The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Six Years 
Later", Gallaudet College Pressl Washington (Nov*) 
(1981) "Cammisch Case Moot" (April)l Gallaudet College 
Press, Washington 
NATIONAL UNION OF THE MAF (1982) 
"Charter of Rights of the Deaf: Part One: The Rights 
of the Deaf Child" 
NAUNTONj R, F. (1968) "An Introduction to Audiometry"q Maico, Hearing In- 
strumentsl Minneapolis 
(1960) "The RelationshipB between Audiologioal Measures and 
Handicap'll A Project of the School of Medicine and the 
Office of Vocational Rehab. 9 Univ. of Pittsburgh 
NETRUS9 As Io, (1964) "The Social and Emotional Adjustment of Deaf Adults"' 
Volta Reviewl L6 (June)v 319-325 
NOBLE, Wo G. and ATHERLEY, Go R. C. 
(1970) 
"The Hearing Measurement Scale: A Question ire for 
the Assessment of Auditory Disability"*, J. Audi- 
tory Res. j 10,229-250 
- 481 ý 
NORRIS, M., (1981) "Problems in the Analysis of Soft D! Lta and Some 
Suggested Solutions", Sociology, 165 (3), 33? -351 
OLIVER, M. J. (1978) "Medicine and Disability: Some steps in the Wrong 
Direction'19 Jo Medo Engineering and Technol., 
(3)9 136-138 
(1979) "Epilepsy, Self and Society: A Study of Three Groups 
of Adolescent Epileptics", Unpubo PhD thesisl Unive 
of Kent 
ORRISSj Ho Do (1979) "Occupational Deafness'19 Hearing, U9 (5)v 228--230 
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1933) 
Clarendon Press 
PADDEK, C. 9 and MARKOWICZ, H., 
(1976) 
"Cultural Conflicts between Hearing and Deaf Commul- 
nities"'in Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of 
the World Federation of the Deaf, 407-4119 Silver 
SprimLg. , Mdo 
PADDENj C., (1980) "The Deaf Community and the Culture of Deaf People" 
in RAKER, C., and BATTISON, Re, (eds)t "Sign Lan- 
guage and the Deaf Cormminity: Essays in Honor of 
William C* Stokae", 80-10,39 Silver Spring , Nd. 
PANARA, R. F. (1972) "Deaf Characters in Fiction and Drama", Deaf Ameri- 
can, 3A, (9)t 3-8 
PARSONSt To, (1951) "The Social System'19 R*K., P., London 
PAYNE9 Go, DINGWALL9 R. 9 PAYNEj J., and CARTER9 Mog 
(1981) 
"Sociology and Social Research"l RoK-P-j London 
PELT09 P. J. and PELTO, Go H-ol (1978) 
"Anthropological Research: The Structure of In- 
quiry", 2nd edo, Cambridge Univo Press 
PENNINGTON,, Sol (1980) "Social Need and Perceived Needs of Young Deaf Ad- 
ults'll Interim Report of Research Project, Univ. 
of Dundee 
PHILLIPS9 Do Ley (1971) "Knowledge from What? Theories and Methods in Social 
Researoh"l Rand MoNallyj F. Y. 
PHILLIPSg Go Bo (1975a) fAn Exploration of Employer Attitudes Concerning 
NMplo. vMent opportunities for Deaf People'll J* Rehab* 
Deafl, 29 (2)l 1-9 
(1975b) "Specific Jobs for Deaf Workers Identified by Nm.. - 
ployers"'t J. Rehab* Deaf, 2, (2)9 10-23 
PHILLIPSON, X., (1980) "Sociological Practice and Language", Paper read at 
British Sociol* Assoc* Conference, Univ* of Lan- 
caster, (April) 
PIERCY REPORT (1956) "Report of the Committee of Nnquiz7 on Rehabilitation, 
Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons". 
H. M. S. O., London, Cmnd. 9883 
- 482 - 
PINDER, Re, (1982) "Hearing in a Deaf World", Br* Deaf News, 11, (8) 
306-309 
PLOT, Je, (1982) "The origin myth of 'participant observation'# 
Paper given at A,, SA. Annual Meeting 
PRINCE, Ro J-* (1967) "The Communication of Deaf Adults in a Work Setting" 
Unpub. PhD thesisl Univo of Pittsburgh 
RAINER9 Jo D, q ALTSHULERI K, Z. and KALIXAN, Fa J. 
( eds) (1963) 
"Family and mental health problems in a deaf pop. 
ulation'll Columbia Univo Press, N. Y. 
RAMSBELL9 Do Ae. (1978) "The Psychology of the Hard of Hearing and the Deaf- 
ened Adult" in DiVIS, He, and SILVERWg So Rep 
"Hearing and Deafness", 435-445,4th ad*, Holtt 
Rinehart and Winston, Incol NoTe 
RAWSON9 Ao (1973) "Deafness: A Report of a Departmental Maquiry into 
the Promotion of Researcht', HoM.. SoOo, London 
f 
REHAB BRIEF (1979) "Enhancing Employer Receptivity to Hiring Disabled 
Workers", Vol* 119 Noo 8, Septo 24 
REICH, j C*j 
(1974) "The Occupational History of Urban Deaf Adults", 
J* Rehab, Deafq ft (2), 1-10 
REICH, P. A* and REICH9 Col (1976) 
"Communication Patterns of adult deaf"ranadian J. 
Behavioural So. 9 ft, Part 1,56-67 
RMOLMS9 Go, (1978) "1 See What You Mean: A Study in Communication with 
the Meaf". Unpabo NeAo disso, Univo of Nottingban 
RICHARDSON, So A., GOOIMANj Nog BASTORP, k. H. and DOMEBUSCHl 3'*j (1961) 
"Oultural Uniformity in Fe! aotion to Ph. Tsioal Me- 
abilities"l Am* Booiolo Reveg 26, (April), 241-Z47 
RICKARD9 To Rog TRIANMSt H. C., and PATTERSON9 Co Ho (1963) 
"Indioes of Ikoployer Prejudioe toward disabled 
applicants"l Jo Applied Psyohol*j Al. 521-55 
RI30=9 G* (1974) "The Hard of Hearing in Britain: AI-e Their Needs 
Being Met? " in BOSWELL, Do X. and WINGROVE, J& No 
(eds), "The irandioapped Person in the Commnityt 
A Reader and Sourcebook"t Tavistookf Open Unive Press 
RODDkg Me (1970) "The Hearing Impaired School Leaver*, Univ, of 
London Press9 London 
ROGMS'l J. W. and BUFFAL09 M. D., 
(1974) 
n to a "Fighting Baok: Nine Modes of Adaptatio 
Deviant Label"l Soo* Probs,, 22, (Oot), 101-118 
ROSEHAN, D. Lo (1973) lion Being sane in insane places" 
Science, 
(Jan), 250-258 
ROSEN9 J. Ko (1979) "psychological and 
Social Aspects of the braluation 
of Acquired Hearing Impairment", Audiology, 
18 
238-252 
ROSENSTEIN9 J,. and LKRWI Ao, 
(1963) 
tiVocational Status and Adjustment of 
DOftf WOMM"t 
Lexington School for the Deafg NeYo 
- 483 - 
RROSE7 A. M. (ed). (1962)"Humari Behavior and Social Processes: An Inter- 
actionist Approach", R. K. P., j London 
ROUSSLY, C. L. (1971) "Psychological Reactions to Hearing Loss", Je 
Speech Hearing Disj 16., 382-389 
ROY, D. F. (1976) "Banana Time: Job Satisfaction and Informal Inter- 
action: A Situation of Monotony and Strategies of 
Variety" in LOFLAND9 J., (ed), "Doing Social Life: 
The Qualitative Study of Human Interaction in Nat- 
ural Settings", John Wiley, N. Y, 
ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE MR THE DEAF (1976) 
"Methods of Communication currently used in the 
Education of Deaf Children", Papers given at Gar- 
nett Collegeq Roehampton Seminar, 11-14th April, 
1975 
RUPP, R. R. 9 BANACHOWSKLI S, B. and KISELWICHI A. S. 
(1974) 
"Hard-Rock Music and Hearing Damage Risk"t Sound 
and Vibration, 1,24, -26 
RUSHING, W, A., (1971) "Individual resourcesq societal reaction, and hos. - 
pital commitment", Am, Je Sociole, U (Nov)p 511-526 
RUSIC9 H. A. and TAYLOR, E. J. (1948) 
"Employment for the Disabled", J, Soo. Issues, 
(4), 101-106 
RYAN, J. and THOMAS, F., (1980) 
"The Politics of Mental Handicap", PengWm, 
Harmondsworth 
RYAN, R., KEMFNER, K*, and EKLEN, A. C. (1980) 
"The Stigma of Epilepsy as a Self-Concept", 
Epilepsia, 1.1v 433-444 
SAFTLIOS-ROTHSCHILDI C., (1970) 
"The Sociology and Social Psychology of Disability 
and Rehabilitation", Random Houseq N. Y. 
SAGARIN, Eog (1975) "Deviants and Deviance: An Introduction to the Study 
of Disvalued People and Behavior", Praeger Pabs., N. Y. 
SAINSBURY, Sol (1973) "measuring Disability", Occo Papers on Soco Adminog 
Noo 54, G. Bell, London 
SCHEFF, To J- (1963) "The Role of the Mentally Ill and the Dynamics of 
Mental Disorder: A Research Framework". in TRAUB, 
So H. and LITTLE, C. B., (1980), "Theories-of Dev- 
iance", 2nd ede, F. E. Peacock, Illinois 
(1964) "The Societal Reaction to Deviance: Ascriptive Ele.. 
ments in the Psychiatric Screening of Mental Pat- 
ients in a Midwestern State", Soc. Probs., 1.1, 
(Spring), 401-413 
(1966) "Being Men-tally Ill: A Sociological Theory", 
Aldine Pub* Cool Chicago 
(1974) "The Labelling Theory of Xental Illness", Am. Sociol. 
Rev., 329 44*; -452 
- 484 - 
SCHEM, J. D. (1964) "Factors in the Definition of Deafness as they Re- 
late to Incidence and Prevalence", in Proceedings 
of Conference on the Collection of Statistics of 
Severe Hearing Impairment and Deafness in the U. S. A., 
Bethsedal Dept. Healthq Education and Welfare 
(1968) "The Deaf Community: Studies in the Social Psycholo- 
9Y of DeafneSB", Gallaudet College Presep Washington 
and DELK, X. T. (1974a) 
"The Deaf Population of the United States", N. A. D., 
Silver Spring, Mdo 
SCHEIN9 J. D. (1974b) "Economic Factors in Deafness", PRWAD Annualq 9-16 
(1975) "The Deaf Scientist", Jo Rehab. Deaf, (1), 17-21 
(1978) "Economic Status of Deaf Adults: 1972-1977", Pro- 
greBs Report 12, Deafness Research and Training 
Center, N. Y. Univ., N. Y. 
DELKI M. T., and HOOKER, S., (1980) 
"Overcoming Barriers to the Full Employment of 
Deaf Persons in Federal Government", J. Rehab, Deaf, 
13, NY 15-25 
SCHIFF, W. and SAXE, E. 9 
(1972) 
"Person perception in deaf and hearing observers 
viewing filmed interaction", Perceptual and Motor 
Skillss 219-234 
SCHIFF, W., (1973) "Social Perception in deaf and hearing adolescents", 
Exceptional Children, 289-297 
and THAYER, S. 9 
(1974) 
"An Eye for an Ear? Sooial Perceptionv Nonverbal 
Communication and Deafness", Rehab. Psychol., 21 
(2)9 50-70 
SCHL INGER9 I. M. and NAMIR, (eds) (1978) 
I'Sioi Language of the Deaf: Psychological, Lin- 
guistic, and Sociological Perspectives", Academic 
Press Inc. t N. Y. 
SCHOWEj B. M. (1944) "The Development of Post-War Employment", Am. Annals 
of Deaf, 89,35(ý-358 
(1979) "Identity Crisis in Deafness: A Humanistic Perspeo- 
tive", N. A. D, Silver Spring., Md., 
SCHROEDKLj J. G. and SCHIFF, W., (1972) 
"Attitudes towards Hearing and Deafness Among Sev- 
eral Deaf and Hearing Populations", Rebab. Psychol., 
12l (2), 59-70 
SCHROEDEL, J. G. (1976) "Social Mobility of the American Deaf Worker" in 
CRAMMATTE, F. B. and CRAMMATTE, A. B. (eds), Pro. 
ceedings of 7th World CongresE; of the World Fedez--. 
ation of the Deafq 8ilver Spring, Md. 
(1977) "Variables related to the attainizent of o0cupational 
status among deaf adults", Diss, Abstraots Intl,, 
38, (2) 
ý 485 - 
SCHROEDEL, J. G. and JACOBSEN, R. J. (1978) 
"Employer Attitudes Toward Hiring Persons with Dis-- 
abilities: A Labor Market Research Model", in 
REBAB BRIEF, (1979) "Enhancing Employer Receptivity 
to Hiring Disabled Workers", Vol IIj No* 81 (Sept) 
SCHROEDEL, J. G. (1982) "Surveys on 
1956-1981: 
SEN 9 J, and 
omic Status 
No 49 Confe: 
Washington 
the Socioeeonomic Status of Deaf Adults", 
Assessing Response Rates" in CHRISTIAN- 
EGLISTON-WDDj Jog (eds)t "Socioeoon- 
of the Deaf population"t Working Paper 
rence on Sociologyt Gallaudet Collegel 
SCMJRq E, X., (1969) "Reactions to Deviance: A Critical Assessment", 
Ame Je Sociolet Ut 309-322 
(1971) "lAbeling Deviant Behavior: Its Booiologioal im- 
plications", Harper and Row, N. T. 
(1979) "Interpreting Deviance: A Sociological Introd- 
uction"t Harper and Rowt N. To 
(1980) "The Politics of Deviance: Stigma Contests and the 
Uses of Power", Prentice-Hall Inc., 9 Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 
SCHUTZ., A "The Social World and the Theor7 of Social Action" 
in BRATBROOKE, D., (ed), (1965)9 "PhilosoPhical 
Problems of the Social Sciences", Macmillang N. Y. 
SCHUTZp A* (1932) "The Phenomenology of -the Sooial World"l (1972) 
Tranol. by WALSH9 Go and LEIUTM, F., Heinemann 
Eductl. Books, London 
SCOTT, Do (1978) "Stigma in and About the Deaf Community" in 
MONTWXEffj Go W. G. (ed), "Deafness, Personality 
and Mental Health", 21-29, Scottish Workshop Pubs,, 
Edinburgh 
SCOTT9 M. B. and LYMAN, So M., (1968) 
"Accounts", Am. Sooiol* Rev., U, 46-62 
SCOTT, R. A. (1969) "The Making of Blind Men" p Russell Sage Pbund. , N. Y. 
(1970) "The Construction of Conceptions of Stigm by pro. 
fessional Experts" in WUGLkS, J. D., (ed), "De- 
viance and Respectability: The Social Construction 
of Moral Meanings'll 255-290,, Basic Books, N. Y. 
and DOUGLAS, J, D. (eds) (1972) 
"Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance", Basic 
Books , N. Y. 
SEIDEL9 J. V. (1982) "The Points at Which Deaf and Hearing Worlds Inter. 
sect: A Dialectical Analysis" in HIGGINS, P. and 
NASH9 J. (eds), "The Deaf Community and the Doaf 
Population" , Working Paper No* 39 Conference on 
Sociology, Gallaudet College, Washington 
SELWYNq N-v (1973) "Why So Few Deafness Cases? ", Ocouptl. 
Healthl 
(August), 296-297 
- 486 - 
SELWY'N, N. (1973) "Deafness Litigation'19 Occuptlo Health, 2. a (Sept) 
339-341 
SHAKESPEARF, 
q R* 
(1975) "The psychology of Handicap"t Methuenj London 
SHEARER9 A. (1981) "Disability: Whose Handicap? "q Basil Blackwellq 
Oxford 
SHEARS,, L. M. and JENSEMA9 C. J. (1969) 
"Social Acceptability of Anomalous Persons", Ex- 
ceptional Children, 16, (2)9 91-96 
SHEEHAN, J. G. (1979) "Level of Aspiration in Female Stutterers: Changing 
Times? " , J. Speech Hearing Dis, , AzA, 3ý-4 
SHEIKH, J. and VERNEY, A.. R. (1972) 
"Report on the Survey of Hearing Impaired Persons 
in Blaby Rural District'll Leicestershire C, C- 
SHEPHERD, L., (1978) "The Availability of StatistioB Relating to Deaf- 
ness in the United Kingdom"p Br. J. Audiol*, 129 
3-8 
SHERWOOD9 R., (1980) "The PsYchOdymamics of Race: Vicious and Benign 
Spirals", Harvester Pressq Brighton 
SHOWLER9 B. and SINFIELD9 A. (eds), (1981) 
"The Workless State: Studies in Unemployment", 
Martin Robertson, Oxford 
SILVER9 N. H. (1974) "Considerations for Serving the Deaf Client", Re- 
hab* Lit*, 
. 
11 (2), 41-53 
SILVERMAN9 Dv (1971) "The Action Frame of Reference" in THOMPSON, iK. 
and TUNSTALL, J., (eds), "Sociological Perspectives", 
Penguint Harmondsworth 
SIMMONS, J. L. (1965) "Public Stereotypes of Deviants'll Soo. Probs., 
22"3-232 
SMITH9 M., (1979) "Socialization to the Mature Condition of Deafness" 
unpub. N. A., Univ. of Bradford 
SMITH, R. T. (1975) "Societal Reaction and Physical Disability: Con. 
trasting Perspectives" in GOVE, W. (ed) , "The Lab- 
elling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective", 
147-156, Sage Pubs,, N. Y. 
SMITH9 T. M. (1979) "Communication Needs of Deaf People in Industry". 
J. Rehab. Deaf, 11 (2), 6-10 
SONTAG9 S. (1979) "Illness as Metaphor", Vintage Booksl Random House, 
N. Y. 
SORRENTINO, C. 9 
(1981) "Unemployment in International Perspective" in 
SHOWLER, B* and SINFIELD, A. (eds)l "The Workless 
Sta-ce", Martin Robertson, Oxford 
SOTOMAYER9 M. 9 
(1977) "Languagel (; ulture and Ethnicity in Developing 
Self-Concept", Social Casework, 21 (April), 195ý-203 
STAHLER9 A. (1969) "Underemployment" 
in "The Deaf man and The World" 
- 487 - 
33-40, National Forum II, Council of Organizations 
Serving the Deaf, New Orleans 
STEPHENS, S. D. G. (1979) "Deaf as A Post", Hearing, 34, (4), 197-198 
(1980) "Evaluating the Problems of -the Hearing Impaired", 
Audiology, 19,205-220 
STORER9 R. D*K* (1975) "The Social and Vocational Adjustment uf Deaf and 
Partially Hearing Adolescentii and Young Adults". 
Unpub. No Ed. thesis, Univ. of Manchester 
(1977) "The Vocational Boundaries of ioeaf and Partially 
Hearing Adolescents and Young Adults in the West 
Midlands", Teacher of the Deaf, 
. 
1,134-136 
(1980,1981,1982) 
Personal Comimnications 
STUBBINS, J. (ed) (1977)"Social ana Psychological AspectB of Disability: 
A Handbook for Practitioners", Univ. Park Press, 
Baltimore 
z: )TUCKLESz5, E. x. and BIRCH9 J. W. (1966) 
"The Influence of Early Manual Communication on 
the Linguistic Development of Deaf Children", Am* 
Annals of Deaf, 111,452-462 
STUCKLESSl E. R., SINGER9 M. A. and WALTER, G. G. (1975) 
"Communication and Work: Implications for the Deaf 
Worker", J. Acad. of Rehab, Audiol., ýq 134m-143 
SUCHAR9 C. S. (1978) "Social Deviance: Perspectives and Prospects", 
Aolt, Rinehart and Winstonj N. Y. 
SULLIVANj J-, (1971) "Office Employment for Deaf Girb3ll, Talk, 62 
(Winter), 14-16 
SUSSMM, A. E. and BURKEp D. J, N., (1968) 
"Problems of Deaf Professional Persons with the 
Hearing Community"q Am. Ann ls of Deafg. 11.1 (1) 
77-87 
SUSSMAN, A. E. (1973) fun Investigation into the Relationship between 
Self-Concepts of Deaf Adults and their Peroeived 
Attitudes Towards DeafneBS", Unpub. Phd thesis, 
N. Y. Univ* 
(1975) t'Attitudes Towards Deafness: psychologyts Rolej 
past, Present and Future" in Proceedings of the 7th 
World Congress of the World Federation of the Deafq 
(1976), 254-257, Silver Spring, Md. 
SUSSMAN9 M. B. (1965) "Sociological Theory and Deafness: Problems - 
Pro- 
spects", in STUCKLESS, E. R. (ed), "Research on Be- 
havioral Aspects of Deafness". Dept. Healthq Eduo- 
ation and Welfare, Washington 
SUTCLIFFE, T. (1970) "Deafness: 
LetlB Face It", R. N. I. D. 
- 488 - 
SWITZER, M. E. and WILLIAMS9 B. R., (1967) 
"Life Problems of Deaf People: Prevention and Treat- 
ment'll Aroh. Envtl, Health, 1ý1 (Aug), 249-256 
SYKES, G. M. and MATU, Do, (1957) 
"Techniques of Neutralization", Am* Sociol. Rev., 
22,664470 
SZASZj T., (1970) "The Manufacture of Madness" , Harper and Row, N. Y. 
TAYLOR, I., WALTON9 P., and YOUNG, J. 9 
(1973) 
"The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Dev- 
iance", R. K. P., London 
TAYLOR, W., PEARSON, J. G., KELL, Ro, and MAIRj A. 9 
(1967) 
Ilk Pilot Study of Hearing Loss and Social Handicap 
in Female Jute Weavers", Proco Royo Soo. Medo, 
L0j (Nov), 1117-1121 
THOMAS9 A. J., (1980) "Acquired Hearing Loss - to what extent do people 
think of it as a handicap? ", Hearing, U, 20-23 
(1980) "Psychological Implications of Acquired Deafness 
for Adults of Employment Age", Unpub* PhD thesist 
North London Polytechnic 
and HM$Tq Ke G*q (1981) 
9IThe Effect of Type of Hearing Loss on Speech Dis- 
crimination Ability", I*R. C. S. 9 Medical Science, 29 233-234 
and RING, Jog (1981) 
"A Validation Study of the Hearing Measurement 
Scale", Br. J, Audiol,, 12,55-60 
LAMONT, M., and HARRIS, M., (1982) 
"Problems Encountered at Work by People with Ao- 
quired Hearing Loss". Br. J. Audiol., L6,39-43 
TIDEALL9 M. and SEAGRAVE, J. , 
(1973) 
"The Hearing Impaired in Hillingdon", 
of Hillingdon Social Services Research 
THE TIMES (1978) "Noise and Work" (June 15th) 
(1981) "The Disabled"l (5th Jan) 
London Borough 
TOMLINSON (1943) "Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on -the 
REPORT Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Per- 
sonst', H. M. S. O., London, (Cmnde 6415) 
TRAUB, So H. and LITTLE, C. B. 
(eds) (1980) 
"Theories of Deviance", 2nd ed., Fe E. Peacock 
Pubs* Inc*, Illinois 
TREVAINS9 S., j 
(1982) "Acquired Hearing Loss and Employment Prospects" 
B. J. M. Research Partners 
TRICE9 H. Me and ROUNj P, M-j 
(1970) 
"Delabeling, Relabeling, and Alooholics Anonymous". 
Soo. Probs., 11, (Spring), 538-546 
ý 489 - 
TUCKB? Tj D* and KAUFERTI J. M. (eds), (1978) 
"Basic ReadingB in Medical Sociologyff, Tavistock 
Pubs., London 
TURNERt R. H. (1972) "Deviance Avowal as Neutralization of Commitment", 
Soco ProbB. t 12,308-321 
TYSOEI M. 9 
(1981) "Isn't She Wonderful, my dear, considering"l New 
Society, 17th Dec., 468-480 
UDENj A. J. * van (1979) "How to Come into Conversation with a Still Speeoh- 
less and Languageless Child", Paper presented 22nd 
June, St, Louis, Missouri 
VERNON, McCay (1969) "Sociological and Psychological Factors Associated 
with Hearing Loss", Jo Speech Hearing Resol Ill 
(3), 541-563 
and MAKOWSKY, B. (1969) 
"Deafness and Minority Group Dynamics", Deaf Ameri- 
can, 21 (JulY/Aug), 3-6 
and ESTES9 C. C. (19T5) 
"Deaf leadership and Political ActiviEm", Deaf 
American,, 28 (Nov. ), 3-6 
VERNON, McCay (1981) "Public Law and Private Distress" in MONTCOMM, 
G. W. G. (ed), "The Integration and Disintegration 
of the Deaf in Society", 139-1529 Scottish Workshop 
Pubs,, Edinburgh 
WALKER9 A. and TOWNSEND, Pe, (eds) (1981) 
"Disability in Britain: A Manifesto of Rights",, 
Martin Robertson, Oxford 
WALKERg M., (1978) "Line Drawing Illustrations for the Revised Mak- 
aton Vocabulary"t 3rdo ed., Makaton Vooabulary 
Development Projectp Farnborough 
WALSHl Do, (1969) "The Social Adjustment of the Physically Handi- 
capped with Special Reference to their Crime and 
Deviance", Unpub., PhD,, Univ. of London 
W&RSHAW9 B., (1979) "Problems of Progressive and of Sudden Hearing Loss" 
Aural News, IL8 (Winter), 6-8 
WMNBERGI M. S. (1968) "The Problems of Midgets and Dwarfs and Organiz- 
ational Remedies: A Study of Little People of 
America"t J. Hlth. and Soo. Behavior, (Maroh) 
65-71 
WEINBERCER9 M. (1978) "labelling the Pbysically Disabled: The Hearing 
Impaired", Unpubo PhD thesis, Pardue Unive 
WEINBERaER9 M. and RADELET9 M-, (1982) 
"Differential Adaptive Capacity to Hearing Impair- 
ment" in BIGGINSq P. C. and NASH, J. (eds), "The 
Deaf Community and the Deaf Population", Working 
Paper No* 3v Conference on Sociology, (1allaudet 
Collegel Washington 
AQO 
4+17 
WEIMUCH, J. E., (1972) "Direct Economic Costs of Deafness in the United 
States", Am- AnnalB of Deaf i Mv 446-454 
into the Social Construction and WEST, P. (1979a) "An Investigation 
Unpube PhD Consequences of the Label Epilepsy", 
thesis, Univ- of Bristol 
(1979b) "An Investigation into the Social Construction and 
Consequences of the Label Epilepsy"i Sociol. Rev., 
279 (4), 719-741 
(1981) "From Bad to Worse: People's Experience and Stereo- 
types of Epilepsy", in S. McGOVERN, (ed), Epilepsy, 
198o-1981,3-12y Brit. Epilepsy Assocel Crowthorne 
(1981) "The labelling Perspective and Physical Disability"l 
Paper presented at Workshop 'Stress and Stigma: 
Explanation and the Use of Evidence in the Socio- 
logy of Crime and Illness"t (Sept*) Cambridge 
WEST, Poo (1969) "Words for a Deaf Daughter"t aollancz, London 
WIffTE9 Wo Po (1943) "Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of 
an-'Italian Slum'19 Univo of Chicago Pressl Chicago 
WIIJOTSKYj H. Lo, (1967) "Work as a Social Problem" in BECKER, H, So (ed) 
"Social Problems: A Modern Approach", 117-166, 
John Wiley, NoYo 
WILKINS9 Lo To (1949) "Social Survey of the Prevalence of Deafness in the 
Population of Englandq Scotland and Wales", C., O, I. l 
London 
WILLIAMS9 B. R. and SUSSMt A. E* (1971) 
"Social and Psychological Problems of Deaf People" 
in SUSSMAN9 A. E. and STEWART,, Le G. (eds), "Coun- 
selling with Deaf People"l 13-29, Deafness Research 
and Training Centerl N. Y. Univ, School of Education 
WILLIAMS. C. A. (1972) "Is Hiring the Handicapped Good Business?, Jo Re- 
bab,, 38 (March/April), 30-34 
WILLIMS, C. J. and WEINBERG, Me S. (1970) 
"Being Disoovered: A Study of Homosexuals in the 
Militarylt, Soo. Probs., 18,217-227 
WiLsoN commITTEE (1963) "Report on the Problem of Noise", H. M. S. O., loondon, 
(Cmd. 2056) 
WOLL9 Bo (1982) Personal Couummication 
WOODWLRDI Jot (1980) I'Sociolinguistic Research on American Sign Language" 
in BAKER9 C. and BLTIUSON, R. j 
(eds)j "Sign Lan- 
guage and the Deaf Community: Essays in Honor of 
William C, Stokoe", 117-136, NA, D., Silver Spring, 
Mde 
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (1980) 
"International Classification of ImpairmentlEj, 
abilities and Handicaps", Geneva 
- 491 - 
WRIGHT, B., (1960) "Physical Disability: A Psychological Approach" 
Harper and Row, N. Y. 
WRIGHT, D., (1969) "Deafness: a personal account'll Allen Lane$ 
The Penguin Press, Harmondsworth 
YAMAMOTO, K. 9 (1971) "To Be Different" in STUBBINS,, J., (ed), (1977) 
"Social and Psychological Aspects of Disability. 
A Handbook for Practitioners'll Univ, Park Pressq 
Baltimore 
zABELL, E, Me, (1962) "Communication Evaluation of the Deaf and its Im- 
plications for Job Placement",, The Silent Worker,, 
15 (4), 8.9 
ZAO, Met (1973) "Incapacity, Impotence and Invisible Impairment: 
Their Effects Upon Interpersonal Relations". Jo 
Hlth. and Soc. Behaviour, 14, (June), 115-123 
ZA . KAIREWSKY, G. T. (1982) 
ADDENDA 
"A Discussion of Deafness and Homosexuality" in 
HIGGINS, P. C. and NASH, J. (eds), '"Me Deaf 
Community and the Deaf Population",, Working Paper 
i3LO93, Conference on Sociology,, Gallaudet Collegeg 
Washington 
CHARROW, V. R. and WILBUR, R. B. (1975) 
"The Deaf Child as a Lin . guistic Minority", Theory 
Into Practice, 14, (5)9 353-359 
FISCH, L. 9 (1983) 'Tre and Immediate Post-Natal Period"l Paper given 
at Brit, Soc. of Audiology Conference, "Hearing 
Disorders: Detection, Incidence and Prevention". 
Wan),, London 
HURWITZ,, A,, (1983) t'Identification of Issues that Suggest a Need for 
a Coalition from the Standpoint of a Deaf Consumer" 
Deaf American, 22 (5), 33-35 
oLium, m. j., (1983) "Social Work with Disabled People". Brit, Assoc, 
of Social Workers, Macmillan Press, London 
OUKLLL=, j S. E. 9 
(1982) "An Investigation of Nonverbal Communicative 
Behaviors Exhibited by Deaf Adults in Dyadic Inter- 
action with Hearing Personstt, in HOEMAN, Ral and 
WILBUR9 R., 'Unterpersonal Communication and Deaf 
People'19 Working Paper no*59 Conference on Sociology, 
Gallaudet College, Washington 
PIMENTAL, A. T., (1983) "The Need for a Comprehensive Network That Would 
Allow Organizations of the Deaf to Work Together 
on Legislative Matters"s Deaf American, (4)j 
2.6 
CORRIGENDUM 
ROSMAN, D. L., (1973) "On being sane in insane places" should read 
ROSENHAN