- Job control both Deaf and hearing are satisfied with amount of job control - Job demands both Deaf and hearing find that they can meet the jobs demands - Job strain both Deaf and hearing experience stress from time pressure and work planning issues - Language use is not a strain factor - Access to information is felt to be sufficient, although the information streams are different for Deaf and hearing employees - Deaf employees receive much information from their deaf colleagues - Hearing employees receive much information from their hearing colleagues
The inclusive education debate is often framed as a choice between outmoded special schools and progressive inclusive general education schools. However, the rhetoric of ‘choice’ hides what is in reality a context of restricted resources, both in general education and in special congregated settings. We interview three deaf-parented families with a total of six deaf children enrolled in different educational settings in Belgium. We explore the educational choices parents made for their children and how these choices are influenced (1) by their own knowledge of and lived experience with the educational choices available and (2) actually existing resources. Our study shows a clear contrast between the capital parents bring to their children’s educational experiences and the choices available. Parents want to send their children to congregated settings to give them an education in sign language but are hindered from doing so because of the schools’ lack of adherence to educational standards. Instead they are pushed into a general education system that tasks their time and energy, as well as their child’s bodies. The paucity of options for these parents calls for a rethinking of the parameters of the inclusive education debate, moving beyond placement to a holistic focus on deaf children’s linguistic, educational, and social development.
Eight deaf scholars come together to reflect on their experiences with exclusionary practices in the academy that contribute to feelings of imposterism, otherness, and not-belonging. The combined powers of ableism, audism, and negative attitudes about signed languages generate tension as deaf academics affirm their place within higher education institutions and fields of research. Across individual and shared experiences, they narrate about hostility towards disability and sign languages, reflecting on how such hostilities work towards excluding signing deaf scholars. As disability rights legislation increased access for deaf academics, gaps exist in which ableism continues to function as an institutional barrier. In spite of exclusionary practices and negative attitudes, deaf academics have organized ways to be resilient as they argue they make valuable contributions to scholarly discourses.
LINK
