TRANSFORMATIVE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The inclusion of the community members in the research and hearing their “voice” is the first step of axiological assumption. The ethical consideration of their wellbeing and benefits ensues. Viewing ethics from a transformative lens, Harris, Holmes and Mertens (2009) point out that both broad codes of ethics and specific cultural codes need addressing during research. They introduce the three dimensions of respect, beneficence, and justice in the broad sense of ethics in the U.S. They further define the specific application of ethics in research with the Deaf community. For example, they define ‘respect’ as ‘the cultural norms of interaction within the Sign Language community and through the hearing and deaf worlds’. Beneficence is seen by them as ‘the promotion of human rights and increased social justice’ (Harris, Holmes, & Mertens, 2009, p. 109).

The current research profoundly adheres to the general codes of ethics by the university and the specific cultural norms within the Deaf community in India. In principle, data collection took place until the ethical approval had been granted from the University. Ethics is highly considered for this research with consent, confidentiality, right to information and participants’ beneficence.

3.5.1 Consent, Confidentiality and Withdrawal

To ensure that Deaf participants understood the research they were engaged in, an information sheet and a consent form in English were provided. As most participants’ English level was limited, the consent form and information sheet were explained further to the participants in ISL in the field. Following Kusters’s (2012) practice in gaining consent in sign language, the participants can either sign the consent in ISL or give consent in writing. By ensuring access to the input and output of information through the language that they feel comfortable, the “respect” (Harris, Holmes, & Mertens, 2009) for the Deaf participants and the primacy of sign language (O'Brien, 2017) was realized.

All the participants were anonymized. The coding document was kept in a separate file with different password. A pseudonym was used when introducing crutial individual data. Their personal information and data collected from them (test performance, answer to questionnaire, etc.) were kept confidential. Their own information and performance were provided at their request. Whenever the participants were quoted or referred to, the corresponding code was used without exposure of participants’ real

67

identity. The code is a combination of the first letter of the name of the group that they belong to and a number, such as V_S1. It refers to the student, No.1 from the Vadodara Centre. Only I have access to the document recording the assigning of the code to each learner. Learners are not exposed when using the quotes of translation of their answers to the interview questions.

Participants were free to withdraw at any time and they did not have to give a reason. Due to their other engagements in life and the relatively long-term intervention, there were 14 participants who withdrew at the beginning of the intervention and they were excluded from the data.

3.5.2 Beneficence for Participants

Beneficence for participants is another concern of the current research under the transformative paradigm. The research assistants and peer tutors benefited from the research in terms of capacity building and paid academic work. Capacity building included both formal training, and informal training such as guidance provided during work. They continuously acquired knowledge and practiced skills in the areas of English Language, research methods, pedagogy and technology. What is equally important is that they were offered an academic position with a payment consistent with local salary levels. This was of great opportunity for them to gather academic work experience, boost their further academic career development and job application. For instance, one of the peer tutors managed to receive a job offer as an English tutor at school after the intervention.

As for the beneficence to the Deaf young adult learners, first, they had access to a free curated English literacy course to improve their English. Second, they received a certificate after completion of the course. It indicates their English learning outcomes benchmarked against an internationally recognised standard, the CEFR. This incentive motivated Deaf learners by benefiting their further education and future employment. Third, by taking the course, they engaged in a Deaf community to share their knowledge, information, problems, and to practice their Indian Sign Language and computer skills. Finally, each of them received a stipend as to compensate for their expenditures caused by joining the course.

More importantly, the ultimate beneficence for the Deaf participants is that they were given the equal rights to research, to work and to learn. They were entitled to be heard in the whole process of developmental evaluation of the SLEND built for their community. In this sense, the human rights and social justice for the Deaf community were addressed.

3.5.3 Specific Ethical Considerations for Work with Deaf Communities

Besides the aforementioned ethical considerations, the current study also takes specific ethics in relation to Deaf communities into account. Deaf ontologies (Deaf ways of being) and Deaf epistemologies (Deaf ways of knowing) are reflected in the methodological processes. According to Kusters, De Meulder and O’Brien (2017), the experience of being deaf is crucial to the ontologies of both research participants and researchers, which acknowledges the significance of the engagement of the Deaf participants and the reflection of Deaf ways of being and knowing. Similarly, Harris, Holmes, and Mertens (2009, p. 115) develop the ethical research of the Deaf community into an overarching theoretical framework, “transformative paradigm”, and propose a set of “Sign Language

68

Communities’ Terms of Reference Principles” (SLCTR). The ethical practice of the current research abides by some aspects of the SLCTR.

The recruitment of Deaf participants presented in 3.1.5, especially for the roles of research assistants and peer tutors resonates with SLCTR #1, “The authority for the construction of meanings and knowledge within the Sign Language community rests with the community’s members.” (ibid.: p.115).

The current study employed a variety of visual methods and techniques, such as facial expressions, ISL explanation in learner experience questionnaire, acceptance of signed consent (Section 3.3.4) and the circular layout of chairs (Section 3.6.2). These techniques reflect SLCTR # 2, “Investigators should acknowledge that Sign Language community members have the right to have those things that they value to be fully considered in all interactions”. (ibid.: p.115)

The developmental evaluation of the SLEND for Deaf young adult learners’ English literacy development proactively engaged the Deaf community in the whole process of the research, in terms of collecting their comments on the instruments before research, encouraging them expressing their viewpoints during evaluation and engaging them in data translation and clarification after evaluation. The full-process engagement follows SLCTR # 3, “Investigators should take into account the worldviews of the Sign Language community in all negotiations or dealings that impact on the community’s members”. (ibid.: p.115)

The evaluation of the SLEND centres around the perception of the design concept by the Deaf participants, the experience of Deaf learners and their learning achievements. That is to say, how a potential best-practice for Deaf young adults’ English literacy development in India is constructed should be acknowledged by the target users from India.This is in line with the SLCTR # 5, “Investigators should ensure that the views and perceptions of the critical reference group (the sign language group) is reflected in any process of validating and evaluating the extent to which Sign Language communities’ terms of reference have been taken into account. (ibid.: p.115)

In short, Deaf ways of being and knowing were considered at each procedure of the research, such as sampling, instrument design, data collection, data analysis and ethical considerations.