Research of, for, by the deaf - a model for community driven action

[Meena Vaidyanathan]

niiti consulting has been catalysing work in the social sector for more than a decade. Its sister organisation Questera Foundation was created with the specific purpose of enabling social change, through a ‘build-operate-transfer’ model of implementation. The intent is that people from diverse cultures are able to define their own development paradigm and fulfill their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual aspirations.

In the past 18 months last year, the team at Questera Foundation was on-boarded for a landmark, two year project (named ‘Hear a Million’) for the empowerment of deaf in India. (Most do not want to be referred to as ‘hearing impaired’ and we wish to honour their preference in this article too!). A significant mandate in the assignment was building actionable insights through action research.

The most interesting aspect of this action research is the close and immediate intertwining of on-ground initiatives by teams that handle operations and insights gleaned from robust research study. Hypotheses and ideas generated by the synthesis of data are quickly translated to experiments or pilots. Observations of these experiments feed into refinement of the approach. The figure captures the various steps and interplays in action research.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-action-research-cycle_fig1_3...;

This year, we decided that action research at ‘Hear a Million’ could evolve a step further, and include deaf individuals in the research process. Not just for one research project, but for two!

Ruchi, Co-founder, Questera Foundation and Ramya, Consultant and Researcher, niiti consulting, converse about this unique experience of theirs.

Ruchi: What do you think was the most visible difference in research studies conducted by members of the community?

Ramya: Definitely the ease and comfort of the participants. For one research study, we had focus group discussions as part of the study (on the theme - Experiences of deaf at workplaces). Even on Zoom, we the ‘hearing’ observers could see and sense how open and forthcoming the deaf participants were, with the deaf facilitators. It went beyond the fact that both the facilitator and the participants were using the same language (sign language). It was the underlying fact that the lived experiences were shared, and by the same extension, the facilitators could ‘get’ what the participants were narrating.

In fact, most of the discussions went on more than an hour beyond scheduled time. Nobody was restless or reluctant, they were eager to share.

Ruchi: It was an eye-opener for me to see the subtle differences the involvement of the deaf made to the research instruments.

Ramya: Yes, Ruchi. We noticed this difference while creating discussion guides for the focus group discussions. No matter how much one tries to walk in another’s shoes, there is a limitation. The members of the team who are hearing have not experienced language deprivation (an outcome of deaf children not being exposed to sign language in their formative years). Hence, when the deaf members of the research team suggested simplification of the language, it was a learning experience indeed - “Why use a difficult word when a simpler one would be enough?”

Ruchi: Another remarkable thing that I noticed was how the deaf team members drove inclusivity for the hearing team members!

Ramya: Oh yes! The situation was truly unique. For the second research project, we had focus group discussions with hearing parents of deaf children, to understand their lived experiences. The parents hailed from rural Karnataka and were familiar only with Kannada. The deaf facilitator was not satisfied that there were sign language interpreters who could speak Kannada. Some of the hearing team members did not understand Kannada. So how would they make sense of what was transpiring? She went the extra mile to deploy a volunteer who could voice in English what parents were saying in Kannada (while the sign language interpreter signed). This tangible demonstration of the importance of being inclusive was so heart-warming.

Ruchi: Needless to say, research when done by the community, is bound to be valued better, don’t you think?

Ramya: Certainly. For one, the deaf members of the team who were part of the research team would go on to anchor the ‘action’ elements of this action research. What better way will ownership come about?

Furthermore, the findings of these research studies, when shared with the larger deaf community in India at events, will ring true and strike a chord - certainly much more than if the research had not involved the deaf.

Ruchi: To sum up, truly, a case has been made for inclusive research, has it not?

Ramya: Yes, happy to say so!

[Rituu B Nanda]

Hi Meena, thanks for sharing your team's excellent work. Who do you think owned the action research? 

Here is a blog which may be of interest https://aea365.org/blog/aken-affiliate-week-on-inclusion-of-individ...