October 30, 2017 | Author: Anonymous | Category: N/A
Studies CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO raising a bilingual child fassett ......
ABSTRACT INTERSECTIONS WITHIN A LATINA DEAF DISCOURSE: A QUALITATIVE COMMUNICATION INTERVIEW STUDY Latina Deaf identity comes out of a complex discourse at the intersection of multiple cultural identifications. The purpose of this communication study was to explore the intersections of Latina Deaf discursive identity formations. Seven Latina Deaf women were individually interviewed using a qualitative interview method. Each interview transcription was coded for the discursive formations of rituals and relationships finding commonalities across participants’ answers. The results explore how Latina Deaf women situate their cultural identities based on rituals and relationships with others in Latino and Deaf communities. Common communication and language within communities use was a salient factor. When communication is more easily accessible within cultural communities, the women feel a more positive connection to the corresponding cultural identity. Also, cultural constructions of Latino and deafness are difficult to comprehend without exposure to the specific cultural context, which makes an intersectional identity hard to articulate and gain acceptance from others. To conclude, the intersectional Latina Deaf identity is one that cannot be easily defined; however, this difficult-todefine identity also permits critique of larger discourses surrounding these identities. Stephanie Renee Briones May 2012
INTERSECTIONS WITHIN A LATINA DEAF DISCOURSE: A QUALITATIVE COMMUNICATION INTERVIEW STUDY
by Stephanie Renee Briones
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication in the College of Arts and Humanities California State University, Fresno May 2012
© 2012 Stephanie Renee Briones
APPROVED For the Department of Communication: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.
Stephanie Renee Briones Thesis Author
Shane Moreman (Chair)
Communication
Marnel Niles Goins
Communication
Bryan Berrett
Communicative Disorders and Deaf Studies
Emily Nusbaum
Literacy, Early, Bilingual and Special Education
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
X
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS “We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures.” Thornton Wilder I am forever grateful to all of the wonderful people that I have met throughout my Master’s education and am blessed to have a multitude of love and support. Thank you to my parents Joel and Connie and my brothers Michael and Vincent, who have been there for me unconditionally. I love you with all my heart and I hope that I made you proud. Thank you to all of my interview participants and Susan at the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, California for their time and answers. Thanks to my colleagues and friends throughout my graduate career. I have so much respect for you all and I was blessed to meet you. To my professors, past and present, who taught me to be proud of myself through my education; your quality teaching has helped me believe in my educational strengths. Last but certainly not least, I thank my committee members for their wonderful support throughout this thesis process. Thank you to Marnel, Emily, and Bryan for your patience and care for this thesis. I hope to continue our good relationship. Thank you to my advisor Shane Moreman for your unconditional support these past two years and for never letting me lose faith in myself. Thank you for allowing me to pursue an area in which I had great passion, and guiding me to realize my true potential. Your humor, patience, honesty, intensity and integrity helped me to create something that I love, and I am so thankful for our relationship.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 Rationale/Justification for Study ....................................................................... 4 Key Issues of the Study ..................................................................................... 6 Statement of Purpose......................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 9 Discourse ........................................................................................................... 9 Intersectionality- Additional Perspectives of Identity and Belonging ............ 12 Latinidad ......................................................................................................... 14 Deaf Identities ................................................................................................. 18 Communication Studies and the Inclusion of Deaf Individuals ..................... 23 Closing Notes on Literature Review ............................................................... 26 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ..................................................................................... 27 Participants ...................................................................................................... 27 Procedure Construction ................................................................................... 31 Qualitative Interviews ..................................................................................... 32 Data Compilation ............................................................................................ 34 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 40 Language Use .................................................................................................. 40 Community Involvement ................................................................................ 41 Cultural Identity Through Ritual Formation ................................................... 41 Community and Rituals................................................................................... 44
vii Page Relationships ................................................................................................... 46 Culture ............................................................................................................. 49 Analysis Conclusions ...................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 59 Summary of Study........................................................................................... 59 Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................ 61 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 65 Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................................... 66 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 67 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 69 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 78 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .......................................................... 79 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT .............................................................. 81 APPENDIX C: IRB APPLICATION..................................................................... 84 APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL ......................................................................... 91
LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Participant Demographics ....................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION As individuals, our self-perceptions of identity are shaped through everyday interactions and communication patterns between the self and others. Through these interactions, as individuals we can comprehend how discourse helps form how the self thinks of others as well as how the individual is perceived by others. Our identity performance, therefore, is a representation of past interactions and because of the past our identity practices often feel like a ritual and not a choice. Through communication interactions, we are able to interpret how we perceive others as well as how others perceive us as individuals. Via these multiple interactions, an identity is formed. Like all identities, a cultural identity is created through cultural interactions and use of language; therefore, how an individual perceives cultural belonging and identity is situated in a reality created out of a discourse. Discourse is created through implicit understandings of reality that coincides with discursive formations through performance. For an individual, constructions of the self are formed through the interactions with others. However, discursive realities have the ability to shift and change based on time frames; therefore, an individual’s identity is an ongoing process and is never fully finalized. Due to the ever changing characteristic of identities, there are many representations of discourse that can reside within a dominant discursive formation. These additional formations that are outside of the dominant should also be recognized and used when understanding the interactions between society and community. One of these multiple identity formations is a Latina Deaf woman. Rexroat (1997) explained the difference between Deaf and deaf, in which “Deaf” implies a cultural identification with deafness and “deaf” as a medical
2 identification with deafness. The following communication study will seek an understanding of the benefits of discursive formation created through Latina Deaf individuals and how discussions about new perspectives of cultural identity expand culture for new voices to be recognized within intercultural communication discourse. When a woman identifies with both Latina and U.S. Deaf culture, she may have two distinct cultural identities that lie outside of the dominant understandings in the United States (i.e., White, male, hearing). From a Latina Deaf individual there can be combinations of cultural practices and norms that may not fit into either culture’s dominant understandings; but these discursive formations are still existent, even if not widely recognized. These additional discourse formations may not have been recognized by either Latina or Deaf culture; however the intersections of these formations offer a valuable re-understanding of the Latina Deaf woman and the larger dominant cultures in which she resides. Her intersections of culture may provide conflicts or collaborations, which offer important re-considerations of our daily dominant self-understandings. One theoretical concept that is based upon multiple cultural identifications is Crenshaw’s (1991) intersectionality. Intersectionality is an identity performance of belonging when two cultural identities are recognized and may be contemplated within an individual. Cultural intersections can develop when multiple cultural identifications coincide through an individual and the cultural intersections have not been recognized within everyday culture. While individuals with combined cultural identities might create an acceptance through their individual discursive formations, these intersectional discursive formations may not find acceptance from larger discursive spaces due to discourses that are already in place. Therefore, intersectionality is not only a
3 state of belonging but also a state of acceptance. One way for acceptance to occur is through discursive performances and discussions between individuals from dominant culture with those who are not. While individuals with intersectional identities may develop a sense of belonging, change in discursive reality shifts with interactions and acceptance from larger spaces and communities (see Amaya, 2007; hooks, 2009). Potential acceptance from dominant discourse can be achieved through close attention to discussions between individuals who lie outside of the dominant within intersectional identities. Intersectional identities offer a way for cultures and communities to better understand the diversity within all cultures to allow for more individuals to be recognized and appreciated within various cultural communities. For a Latina Deaf individual, intersectionality is an ideal concept to recognize and respect multiple cultural identifications within the larger dominant discursive reality. Latina Deaf identities have characteristics that lie outside of the dominant discourses of Latino and Deaf cultures, and the multiple cultural identifications may leave the intersectional identity of Latina Deaf women without a clear place of belonging within either culture. However, there may be a place of discursive formation for the Latina Deaf woman, which is prompted by the intersections of multiple cultures. This communication thesis research is an inquiry about a Latina Deaf intersectional identity discourse. Specifically, the research will answer the following question: How are the cultural (i.e. Latina/o and Deaf) discursivities of Latina Deaf women communicatively constructed and maintained through relationships and rituals in everyday life? This communication thesis will have five chapters. The remainder of the first chapter will consist of a justification of the study and a further discussion
4 about the key issues and ideas of the study and an overall statement of purpose. The second chapter will be a literature review on the main theories of intersectionality, latinidad, identity formation, and Martin and Nakayama’s (1999, 2010) dialectical approach. The third chapter will discuss the methods used. The fourth chapter will analyze the collected data and apply Martin and Nakayama’s (1999, 2010) dialectical approach to find patterns and themes. The final chapter will provide a conclusion that will finalize my argument and offer suggestions for future research endeavors. Rationale/Justification for Study A communication study that analyzes the intersections within Latina Deaf identity is significant because of the potential to offer additional perspectives for intercultural communication. Critical intercultural scholars (see Halualani & Nakayama, 2010; Martin & Nakayama, 2010; Moon, 2010) believe that critical intercultural research can be used to bring change by acknowledging and breaking down societal norms created by hegemonic forces. If intersectionality and cultural dialectics (see Martin & Nakayama, 2010) were applied, then communication and cultural studies can expand to include cultures that are based on community involvements and mindsets. A communication study focused on the intersections of Latina Deaf identity will also enhance Latina/o studies. For Latina/o communication studies, a study based upon deafness will bring a new perspective to Latina/o identification. Previous communication studies have looked at the intersections of gender and cultural identification (see Calafell, 2010; Delgado, 2000), representations of Latinas from larger discursive realities (see Báez, 2007) and the construction of the Latino immigrant body within a non-immigrant space (see Amaya, 2007).
5 However, there has yet to be a study about the intersections between Latina/o culture and deafness. Likewise, Deaf studies scholars have considered Latina Deaf individuals in educational settings (see Mapp & Hudson, 1997; Ramsey, 2000; Walker-Vann, 1998) or an examination of viewpoints of Latina culture and deafness (see Salas- Provance, Ericson & Reed, 2002). When Latina/o Deaf studies scholars recognize the significance of Latina/o Deaf narratives in identity formation, other areas of Deaf studies research will be enriched because there is a broader understanding of Latina/o Deaf identity and cultural practices. The use of United States Deaf culture as a distinct identity formation will also be useful for all areas of communication studies. With the exception of Rose (1992, 1994, 1995, 1997) the few communication studies that used deaf participants within the study have not included Deaf culture within studies (see Booth-Butterfield, Heare, Booth-Butterfield, 1991, Hurt & Cook, 1979); therefore, in general, the communication academic community has not acknowledged the influence that Deaf culture has on communication discussion. A communication study that includes Deaf culture as a significant factor in identity formation will potentially bring recognition to the Deaf community and Deaf culture. A Deaf culture communication study will also demonstrate the benefits of cultures derived from language and community, which will further the discussion of culture and cultural identity. Finally, a study on communication that has a focus on deafness will bring a new discourse on the construction of disability into academia. Communication studies on individuals with disabilities give multiple perspectives to an underexamined community within communication studies (see Fassett, 2010; Fassett & Morelia, 2008; Henderson, 2008; Lindemann, 2008, 2010) yet these studies do not consider the community of culture that is related to a disability. A communication
6 study that uses Deaf culture will give a further perspective of deafness to allow for a broader perspective to disability within identity and discourse. This thesis will aid in future academic discourse about individuals with disabilities and expand discussions on communication studies and disability. Key Issues of the Study Identity formation is larger than how individuals feel about themselves; identity is a communicative construction based upon interactions with others that has the potential to shape how the individual feels about the self. The power within discursive realities may seem permanent and that identities are unable to change; however, if scholars within the academic community can change the way they speak about communities that are not within the dominant space, then more individuals and broader identities are recognized. My communication study will demonstrate the value of narratives in discursive formations for intersectional identities. When narratives are analyzed, individuals may be able to recognize the potentials of intersectional identities and the benefit of representation of multiple discourses within the larger discursive reality. Culture and cultural identification have expanded beyond race and gender identification, and have a notion of self identification and representation. Collier and Thomas (1988) note that cultural identities should be situated within an interpretive paradigm. The authors explain that cultural identities are situated through language and frameworks, but also through interpersonal relationships with others. A cultural identity is therefore based upon several discursive identities and fluxuates depending on the particular environment or interaction. With the understandings of culture as being of representation of the body as well as selfperceptions, intercultural communication scholars can use cultural identification to
7 determine how non-dominant discursive formations affect larger discursive realities. Critical intercultural communication scholars believe that intercultural communication studies and discussions should be used for social change (see Halualani & Nakayama, 2010; Moon, 2010). There is also recognition for cultural communities that are self-selected through a characteristic trait, such as deafness. A discussion on self-identified cultures (such as U.S. Deaf culture) will enhance how intercultural communication scholars view culture and how culture is used in future intercultural communication inquiries. This communication study will aid intersectionality studies because of the application of different ways to view identity and culture to ultimately give another perspective of a cultural identity. Intersectionality and the dialectic perspective (Martin & Nakayama, 1999, 2010) encourage study from multiples research outlets to create new discussions of communication and an expansion of communication studies. Communication studies and Deaf studies will each benefit from an intersectional study that specifically focuses on identity formation in relation to cultural identifications and the creativity that may emerge from individuals with intersecting cultures. Overall, a communication study on Latino Deaf identity formations will be beneficial to represent and intersectional identity that has yet to be utilized within communication studies, Latino studies, and Deaf studies. This particular study focuses on one identity, a Latina Deaf identity, but there are many different types of Latino D/deaf identity formations that can be utilized for future studies. As an exploratory study, I hope that this study sparks interest to continue research studies and inquiries. Future research studies that include Latina/o Deaf identities are beneficial to represent intersectional identities and the complexities that arise within Latina/o Deaf identity formations.
8 Statement of Purpose This communication study highlights the cultural intricacies of women who self identify as both a Latina and Deaf through conversations created by qualitative interviews. Qualitative open-ended questions that are asked specifically to relate how Latina Deaf identity has been established and maintained. Identity theories such as intersectionality, latinidad, and Deaf culture are used to explain identity representations. Participant’s answers are transcribed and coded to analyze how structural, political, and representational intersections conflict or combined to establish an additional perspective of identification and intercultural discourse. This study is significant because there are multiple ways to enact discourse and a cultural identity. Communication scholars understand that communication is a performed practice created through interactions with others in a ritual practice throughout time (see Carey, 1989; Rothenbuhler, 1998). Individuals who identify with more than one marginalized identity from the dominant discursive reality are considered to have cross cultural identification and these individuals can be explored through intersectionality. Ultimately, persons with intersections in identity wish to find a place of belonging (see Anzaldúa, 2007) and acceptance from the larger discourse (see Amaya, 2007; Calafell, 2010). Critical intercultural scholars (see Halualani & Nakayama, 2010; Moon 2010) hope that by acknowledging multiple identities there will be a change in cultural discussions that create potential for positive change for all of society.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Discourse Discourse is a communication practice that situates language and responses based a discursive reality that is created through communication interactions. Discourse is not an ideology, but a personal construction of language based on the social realities in which in resides. Hall (2007) stated, “discourse is about the production of knowledge through language” (p. 56). Individuals create knowledge and perceive the self and others based upon the created discursive reality and communication interactions. Discursive formations are the results of discourse and are enacted by individuals as representations of the self and of others. The following section of the literature review discusses how discourse constructs communication practices and represents how individuals perceive themselves and are perceived by others. Patterned Identities- Ritual Communication Carey (1989) explained ritual communication as an ongoing process based upon societal standards to maintain balance and stability within a discursive reality. He stated, “The ritual view of communication is not directed toward the extension of messages in space but towards the maintenance of society in time; not an act of imparting information with the representation of shared beliefs” (p. 18). Carey believes communication significance is found through an examination of how discursive practices are performed and maintained through the larger dominant discourses. Likewise, Rothenbuhler (1998) understood that discursive practices are situated in language choice and language performance. Ritual communication is situated within discursive realities and are created and
10 maintained through everyday interactions. A ritual practice is also the way to form a new way of belonging within larger discursive reality. Ritual communication is an essential element to discourse because everyday discursive practices and choices help shape identity formation and selfawareness. Individuals need to realize the significance of everyday practices on discursive reality construction in order to make language choices that benefit selfidentity and find a place of belonging within discursive reality. The following section will discuss the powers that are created through ritual communication and discursive reality and how individuals must recognize larger powers in order to find a place of belonging. Power and Discursive Spaces Power created through discursive realities comes from hierarchies (ex. government) or majority societal influence. While many individuals within a discursive reality believe that discursive power is permanent and unable to change, influence of power is made by individuals. As Foucault (1977) stated, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (p. 93). Hall (2007) explained that discourse is purposeful and once power is established it is hard to remove power from a discursive reality. Power within discourse does not have complete control over individuals, yet past discursive practices lead individuals to believe that power cannot be changed or broken. An individual’s identity is therefore a co-construction between power within hegemonic discourse and an individual’s self perception. Strozier (2002) explained that discourse creates Subject-subject relationships within discursive realities in which individuals (subjects) must have dialogues and interactions with
11 larger discursive realities (Subjects) to function. Discursive formations are a relationship between individuals and the discourse produced to demonstrate fluidity and power negotiations that occur within identity formation. Discursive formations and power within discursive formations within individuals in society create a social identity. Mendoza, Halualani, and Drzewieka (2002) explained that identity as more than difference labels. The authors state identity is created through “historical, social, and political contexts” (p. 313). Through a social identity, individuals belong within a certain discursive space through socialization (see Allen, 2010). A social identity is plural and individuals can have multiple social identities and personalities based upon different spaces and feelings of belonging. Allen (2010) states social identities can shift and change through discursive practices. Like a social identity, a cultural identity is created through interactions with society, but focuses on macro contextual levels and critical interpretation (see Mendoza et al., 2002). A social, cultural, and personal identity is fluid and based upon past and present discursive spaces and interpretations. When identities do not fit within an established identity created by larger discursive realities, new communication practices and rituals may form. The theory of intersectionality occurs as a personality trait that emerges from individuals that have multiple cultural identifications outside of the dominant discourse and wish to find a place of belonging. However, although discursive practices for intersectional identities are created there is not immediate acceptance from dominant discursive powers of the past; therefore cultural conflictions may occur. The following section will further analyze intersectionality and explain the benefits of acceptance of intersectional spaces for communication studies and for society.
12 Intersectionality- Additional Perspectives of Identity and Belonging Intersectionality arises from individuals that do not fit an established identity created within the larger discursive space. A foundational article about intersectionality is Crenshaw’s (1991) piece about Black women within law discourse. Crenshaw used Black women to explain how some identities fall between hegemonic spaces of belonging (i.e. White, male) and must now try to establish an additional identity to belong within the Black and woman communities. Throughout her essay Crenshaw explained the intricacies of cultural identities that represent multiple marginalized groups, and encourages respect from larger hegemonic forces to the marginalized group in order for new personalities to be formed and acknowledged. Although Crenshaw cited a specific community group, intersectionality can be used on all individuals with two distinct marginalized group identifications. Crenshaw (1991) noted that identity intersections within individuals occur through crossings of multiple cultures within an individual. If an individual selfidentifies with more than one culture, the individual does not belong exclusively in either cultural community; the in-between feeling creates a new identity within discursive reality. Intersectionality is essential in cross-cultural studies because many individuals have multiple identities based on historical or societal contexts. Intersectionality is noticeable when multiple identities do not belong within the larger dominant discourse. For example, intersections occur with academic scholars that do not fit within the larger White academic community (see Alexander, 1999; Calafell, 2010; Moreman & P. Non Grata, 2011; Ono, 1997). There are also conflictions between past and tranformative intersectional identities (see Allen, Orbe, & Olivas, 1999). Gender and cultural identity differences may also create conflicts within multiple cultural spaces (see Hill Collins, 2000;
13 Hasain, 2004). Hill Collins’ (2000) examination of Black female identity markers demonstrates confliction that Black females have trying to establish a self identity. As more identities and discursive spaces are created, the expansion of an individual’s role within a community occurs and change can be acknowledged. Intersectional identities begin to establish a place of belonging through ritual performances. Performances signify difference by creating additional rituals or practices within larger discursive space (see Amaya, 2007; Moreman & McIntosh 2010). For example, Moreman and McIntosh (2010) demonstrated through Latina drag queen performance how crossings and blending of established and new cultural spaces allow for multiple individuals to be recognized within a larger cultural community. Amaya (2007) and Moreman and McIntosh (2010) both examined the importance of discursive performances and need for acknowledgment from others within the larger discursive space to create new spaces and cultural expansion. Multiple cultures create unclear boundaries or places of belonging, which provide a challenge for an individual to understand a self-identification. Individuals with multiple cultural identifications may feel constant crossings or inbetween identities and borders. Anzaldúa (2007) stated the in-between feeling as border theory. Border theory and intersectionality share similar characteristics. Borders within identity are defined as “a constant state of transition” (Anzaldúa, 2007, p. 25) and can cross and re-align based on intrinsic identification. Borders are not separate entities and combine to create a new identification. Consistent crossings of cultures leave individuals in between cultures and must search for cultural identity and belonging within large discursive space. Border theory and intersectionality are key theories to use in studies that represent multiple cultural identifications within a larger discursive space. For
14 critical intercultural communication scholars, intersectionality and border theory are essential to expand intercultural communication studies and discussions of culture (see Cooks, 2010; Moon, 2010). However, border theory and intersectionality have not been utilized in a cultural study that examines an individual’s role of belonging with two distinct cultures to find parallels and contradictions. While there have been studies focused on gender, (see Calafell, 2010; Hasain, 2004; Hill Collins, 2000), and sexuality (see Moreman and McIntosh, 2010), there has not been a communication study that focuses on intercultural differences in relation to deafness. Pearson (2010) explained her autoethnographic experience as a hard of hearing Korean woman, but there was minimal mention of her intersectional identity construction from a discourse perspective. Even more so, there has not been an intercultural communication study on intersections of a person of color who is also a part of United States Deaf culture. Latinidad Crenshaw (1991) and Anzaldúa (2007) noted how intersections and borders can be used to expand the negotiations of culture and cultural identity within a discursive space. However, while individual cultural borders may be recognized, there is also a need to find parallels between past and present cultural identities. Individuals use their discursive space to attempt to find a place of belonging. The following section is a further analysis of the Latina/o identity search through the concept of latinidad. A search of Latina/o identity begins with a black/white binary used in intercultural communication studies of the past. Alcoff (2003) explained the black/white binary was previously established by White society and resulted in
15 cultural divisions between individuals who are different. The black/white binary was created for Whites and persons who were not White, labeled other. The binary was established to elevate White culture and individuals as the dominant culture through comparisons that lead to good/bad cultural beliefs. The Black/White binary was a disservice to all individuals because of simple objective assumptions that lead to stereotypes for Black and White individuals. Alcoff also highlighted that the black/white binary did not create an identification place for Latinos or Asians, thereby leaving these cultures out of cultural conversations and race construction in the United States. Alcoff’s study encourages an elimination of the binary to allow cultures to create their own place of identification without the need to compare directly against one another. For Latina/o intercultural scholars, Brown identity is filled with multiple cultural implications and identifications. Conflicting pulls of cultural understandings leave Latinos without a concrete definition of a cultural identity. Latino individuals use performances to find a place of belonging within a larger discursive space and potentially create new spaces for social change. The fluidity of performative identities and desire to find a personal place of belonging creates latinidad. Through latinidad, Latina/o intercultural communication scholars take self-reflexive interpretation to develop personal recognition in a place of belonging within a larger societal discursive space. Holling (2008) did a retrospective analysis of Latina/o studies performative or media studies in communication. She observes different themes and representations of Latina/o identity based upon time eras. Holling concluded that each area of study has distinctions and parallels in present Latina/o studies. Her study implies Latina/o identifications and studies will constantly change and progress, but there will always be a connection to past discursive studies and time
16 eras to create connections and parallels. Likewise, González (2011) believes Latina/o voices are unique because identities are a compilation of diversity and individual experience. Valdivia (2004) introduced latinidad as “the state of being or performing a Latina/o identity” (p. 108). She further explains latindad as a societal and personal construction based on individual experience and symbolic representations from historical past and regional location. In a later piece (2008), she also states latinidad as subjective and based on an individual’s perception of self and interactions with others. Latinidad is a representation of Latino studies and Latino identification construction within an academic realm. Valdivia (2004, 2008) noted communication studies are ideal for Latino studies because communication utilizes multiple discursive spaces for cultural identification analysis. Dominant discourse is always used when Latino studies are performed (see Flores, 1996; Valdivia 2008). A White discursive space is always related to a Latino identity. Latinidad is an identity representation of something that is not White. Studies include social representation of the Latina/o individual constructed through White standards and assumptions for media use (see Báez, 2007; Delgado, 2000; Molina Guzmán, 2008; Moreman & Calafell, 2008). Holling and Calafell (2011) understand that labels given to represent Latinos are from both self and larger discursive spaces. Latinidad therefore recognizes that self performance arises from Latino individuals who wish to perform a cultural identity within a White dominant discourse. Latinidad is a creation of new and past discursive formations. Latino identities are representations of past discourses. For a Latino to fully comprehend an identity there needs to be correlation between past and present discursive formations. Discourses of the past influence present day understandings of identity
17 formation and representation (see Chávez, 2009; Rinderle, 2005). Exploration of historical past is necessary to comprehend how Latinos were represented in the past and the effect on their present day identity discourse. Latina/os may find their place of belonging, but their identity must also be accepted by the dominant White discourse. Feelings of difference and not belonging occur through the performance of a non-citizen’s role in a new country (see Amaya, 2007; Flores, 2003). Within Latina/o studies, Latina/o scholars felt out of place within larger White academic community (see Calafell, 2010; Delgado, 2000; Moreman & Calafell, 2009; Moreman & Non Grata, 2011). Latinidad is a performance of cultural identity to receive recognitions from larger discursive realities. Overall, acceptance of performance identities is an agreement between two discursive communities, the dominant and the latinidad identity. In closing, latinidad is performed through the Latino body to further create cultural identification. A cultural identity through latinidad is negotiated between Latina/o identities of the past and present that were created though White dominant discourse. Fluidity in roles is determined by personal interpretations and belonging within multiple spaces. Once Latina/o identities are interpreted, latinidad scholars should contribute and expand the space for Latino studies. With latinidad, Latina/o individuals should not search for a definite meaning of culture, but accept a fluid representation of spaces and changes for evolving Latino identity. A Latina/o identity is complex and hard to identify, which leaves many Latina/os struggling to find a place of acceptance and belonging to comprehend their identity.
18 Deaf Identities Intersectionality explains about creation of new spaces different from larger hegemonic spaces. Latinidad is an exploration of Latino identities and the search to belong and be accepted through a White dominant discourse. Deaf identities are also complex and are searching for a place of belonging within a larger hearing discursive formation. The following section will discuss Deaf identity formation, identity formation of Deaf individuals of color, and the benefits of understanding and representing a Latina Deaf identity within discourse of United States Deaf culture. U.S. Deaf Culture- Community Values U.S. Deaf culture differs from many cultural communities because involvement in Deaf culture is self-selected from a majority of community members. Although deaf individuals do not willing choose their hearing loss, the individual can self-identify their deafness through cultural or community involvement. As Rexroat (1997) defined, “Deaf people see themselves not as little d deaf, a usage associated with the medical pathology, but as big D Deaf, as members of a cultural group who have created their own language [ASL] and who actively shape their lives and identity” (p. 19). When a deaf individual identifies as Deaf (emphasis on capital big D), the individual has accepts deafness and wishes to be a part of a deaf community and Deaf. In comparison, deaf individuals (emphasis on the small d), have a hearing loss and views their condition as a medical or pathological problem that needs to be corrected, and therefore associates more with the mainstream (i.e. hearing) community and not with Deaf culture.
19 Similar to ethnic cultures, United States Deaf culture is learned through interactions with others who are part of the community. Deaf culture is unique because cultural communities are usually formed within a residential school for the deaf environment (see McIlroy & Sorbeck, 2011). Ninety percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents (see Ogden, 1996) and in the deaf school environment cultural values are passed down from former community members to new members. School settings and Deaf role models allow deaf children to feel included and that they belong within a Deaf discursive space. However, intersections of cultures and communities occur when deaf students return to their hearing parents and a hearing cultural community (see Emerton, 1996). The performances create dissonance within cultural performance and deaf individuals may feel in-between cultural spaces and identities. A Deaf identity is an intersectional identity that has many ways to interpret and find identifications. Similar to latinidad, deaf identities are complex and there is not a concrete identification pattern for personal identity formation. Leigh (2009) stated that deaf experiences and identities cannot be clearly labeled because there is not a single culminating deaf experience. McIlroy and Storbeck (2011) further state that Deaf identity construction should extend beyond a traditional first wave identity marker of family and ethnicity to include community involved in Deaf identity formation. Within the larger space provided by U.S. Deaf culture, smaller discursive spaces and interpretations of deafness are created and used. Deaf Identity Theories and Explanations There have been several theories that have been used to examine a deaf identity. Bat-Chava (2000) emphasized that individual identity formation is created through interactions and groups to create a feeling of belonging. Ladd
20 (2008) used Deafhood to explain that personal identity comes from personal values and experience and through sharing values with others in the community. Deaf studies scholars have also used bilingual-bicultural identity (see Humphries, 2000; Padden, 1996) in which deaf individuals acknowledge both hearing and Deaf cultures yet have pride in their deafness and are involved within the Deaf community. McIllroy (2008) described DeaF identity theory, in which the F represents a fluid sense of identity that allows deaf individuals to cross between hearing and Deaf communities. Recently, McIlroy and Storbeck (2011) blended bilingual-bicultural theory and DeaF to create Dialogue theory. Dialogue theory emphasized identity significance through narratives of personal experiences within individuals that are a part of the community. These theories represent the fluidity of deaf identities and the emphasis on personal narratives and community interactions. Deaf individuals who are involved in the deaf community and Deaf culture may be torn between hearing and deaf communities. Individuals can perform fluid roles in between communities to potentially create multiple identities that can belong within Deaf and hearing communities. While there are intersections between all deaf individuals in identity formation, there more borders and intersects that are created for a deaf person that identifies within an ethnic culture. Deaf Individuals of Color- Between Cultures and Communities Leigh (2009) stated that tensions may arise between a Deaf and ethnic identity, and often family involvement and childhood environment determine the priority of ethnic cultural identity. Foster and Kinuitha (2003) noted that deaf college students of color felt able to transition and perform cultural roles when necessary in either culture, but there was not a way to blend Deaf culture and
21 racial culture together. Shifts in performance between Deaf and ethnic cultures leave individuals feeling in-between both cultures. An examination of the practices and ritual communicative practices is beneficial to understand fluidity in performative roles between ethnic and Deaf cultures. For Deaf individuals of color, more Deaf role models of similar ethnicity are needed to create a strong sense of ethnic and Deaf culture identification. Anderson and Miller (2004) explained that deaf identities are constructed through narratives and role models and more deaf individuals of color narratives are needed to extend the knowledge about Deaf culture and community. Brooks (1996) gave an auto-ethnographic account about her experiences as a young Deaf Black woman growing up in a hearing Black community. Robert Davila (in Lang, Cohen & Fischgrund 2007) explains his struggle as a young Deaf Latino growing up in a hearing Latino family. For many Deaf individuals of color, it is difficult to find a place of belonging between two distinct cultures, and it is also hard to find role models or persons to help teach both cultures in order to bridge the identity gap that may have formed. The Latino Deaf Individual For the Latino/o Deaf individual, there is a struggle to learn about cultures and cultural identification. Like their White Deaf community members, deaf individuals of color learn about Deaf culture and the local Deaf community from residential school settings and from their peers and teachers (see Gerner de Garcia, 2000; Mapp & Hudson, 1997; Struxness, 2000; Walker-Vann, 1998). For example, Ramsey (2000) explained that Mexican deaf elementary school students and parents often feel confused and conflicted through interactions with their White hearing instructors. The Mexican students were also searching for a Latino
22 role model to learn about Mexican culture and the correlation to Deaf culture, such as learning about Mexican Sign Language. Ramsey’s article was an example of Deaf individuals of color and their struggle to find a place or belonging within the cultural community that is provided through deaf school settings. Similar to United States Deaf culture, Mexican Deaf culture is an emerging concept that has many years of undiscovered history and relevance. New scholars and research projects will expand knowledge and awareness of Mexican Deaf culture will expand and have more persons involved. Adams (2003, 2004) collected narratives by Deaf Mexicans and explored the notions of the Deaf community in Mexico and begins to archive a Mexican deaf history to create a stronger concept of Mexican Deaf culture. Dannis and Lee (2006) displayed the lives of deaf persons in Mexico to reveal the inequalities that occur for deaf persons based upon socio-economic status. Both Adams (2003, 2004) and also Dannis and Lee (2006) noted that Deaf culture is prominent in large cities in Mexico, such as Mexico City, but Mexican Deaf culture and the use of Mexican Sign Language should be more apparent throughout the country to strengthen Deaf culture and Deaf history. As the above articles indicated, a Deaf identity is very complex and is often hard to capture and articulate meaning. Deaf cultural values and morals may have political conflictions with ethnic cultural values and create tension within identity formation. Similar to latinidad and Latina/o identities, Deaf identities may feel inbetween cultures and communities and must always interact within a hearing discourse, which makes identity formation a hard entity to identify. A Deaf identity is further complicated by ethnic cultural values and mindsets about deafness. Therefore, a Latino Deaf identity formation is a complicated yet
23 necessary area of study because Latino Deaf identities deserve to be recognized and studies. Communication Studies and the Inclusion of Deaf Individuals Communication studies have sparsely used studies related to deafness or Deaf studies within the larger construction of communication. When deaf individuals are participants, United States Deaf culture or the Deaf community is not mentioned within the studies. Often, deaf individuals are compared to hearing individuals and create stereotype generalizations. The following section will discuss how deaf individuals are used in communication studies and also how disability is constructed within communication studies. The section will also explain how intersects of ability within an individual create new discursive spaces and are useful for intersectional communication studies. Disability Studies- Definitions and Explanations Allen (2010) discussed the significance of acknowledging ability within communication discourse and communication studies. She defines disability as “socially constructed aspect of identity arising from a dominant ideology of normality in the United States” (p. 140). Allen explained individuals with a disability are perceived as different because these individuals have different ways of functioning within society. She also notes disability as a difference is not the same as other forms of difference because disability has the power to change within an individual throughout time. Unlike gender or race, ability may not be a fixed status and may have the power to change positions throughout a person’s life.
24 In communication studies, disability studies have been used to discuss ability issues such as mobility, mental, and learning restraints. Narratives were often written by a close family relative or friend (see Fassett 2010; Fassett & Morella, 2008; Lindemann, 2008, 2010; Ronai, 1996). Some communication publications were dedicated entirely to ability issues within the communication field (see Braithwaite & Thompson, 2000; Henderson 2008), but there is a need for more communication studies regarding persons with disabilities within all areas of communication research. Most especially, there is room for the person with disabilities to share their own personal voice through narratives or interviews. Communication and Deaf Studies Deaf individuals are a unique entity within studies about persons with disabilities because there is a distinct cultural identification. Unlike other individuals with ability differences (ex. blind or paraplegic), deaf individuals have created a culture based upon their deafness and the use of American Sign Language. Communication studies will benefit from viewing disability as an identity marker of difference that can be studied as a separate discursive space. In the past, the minimal studies that involved an analysis of communication patterns of deaf individuals are directly compared to hearing individuals (see BoothButterfield et al., 1991; Booth-Butterfield & Booth-Butterfield, 1994, 1995; Hurt & Cook, 1979). These studies portrayed deaf individuals as separate from and unable to interact with hearing individuals. The authors also made minimal (if any) reference to the Deaf community or Deaf culture. Also, these authors used terms to describe deaf individuals that would be deemed inappropriate to the Deaf community, such as hearing impaired. Deaf culture and community recognition within communication studies is needed to explain how deaf individual’s
25 discursive identities are created and utilized in communication practices and interactions. One prominent communication scholar, Heidi Rose, has utilized Deaf culture and ASL performance in communication analysis. Rose (1992, 1994, 1995, 1997) focuses her work on ASL performance and performance interpretations by deaf individuals. For instance, Rose (1997) explained the performance of Julianna Fjeld, a Deaf performer that uses her ASL performance to depict her life as a deaf person who grew up in an oral family and never learned sign language. Also, Rose (1992) demonstrated how ASL poetry and performance allows for deaf individuals to create their own narrative about identity formation within the realm of their cultural language of ASL. Rose has educated communication studies with ASL performance and analysis, and her work should be a starting point for future studies. Her work is admirable, yet there still needs to be an emphasis in cultural connections and interpersonal relationships. Also, there should be more of an emphasis in ethnic studies and the relation of Deaf culture. A study that examines the connections between ethnic culture and Deaf culture with the use of ASL will enhance communication studies and Deaf studies. Disability within communication studies offers a unique perspective to the discourse that surrounds individuals with disabilities. Studies that pertain to disability within communication studies will create a new discursive space and enhance understandings of ritual communication and performances within ritual communication. Deaf studies within communication are useful to create additional discursive space for communication scholars to utilize the specific space for deaf individuals within communication studies. When deaf participants are used in communication studies, there is potential for new perspectives and new spaces to
26 occur. When deaf participants are used in communication studies as a separate entity from hearing individuals, new cultural practices can be recognized. Closing Notes on Literature Review The literature review has displayed the importance of identity formation within communication and Deaf studies, especially for individuals with multiple identities. Through concepts such as intersectionality and latinidad, both scholars and their audience are better able to understand the complexities of feeling in an in-between place within the larger societal discourse. Individuals with multiple cultural identification use discursive spaces to negotiate a meaning for the self through the interpretation of and interactions with others. Deaf identities are similar because of the attempt to find meaning and belonging within a hearing society. While the tensions are noticed and articulated, there needs to be more of a focus as to how an individual portrays the self through discourse and interactions with others. Specifically, there needs to be a communication study that recognizes the importance of self-identification in cultural identity formation, such as cultural identification with Deaf culture, to see if there are conflictions between selfidentification within ethnic and Deaf cultures. For communication and Deaf studies, there needs to be more recognition to individuals of color that also associates with U.S. Deaf culture to contemplate the complexities of having to define and perform multiple cultural identities. The recognition of Latina/o and Deaf culture within an individual is a significant study because it attempts to understand the negotiations and combinations of identity formation and also how this identification is articulated and accepted by both the self and through the larger discursive society.
CHAPTER 3: METHODS The following study consisted of qualitative, open ended interviews. Each question was derived and delivered from an ethnographic interview perspective. There were several factors that influenced how the interviews were delivered and collected which was informative for the construction of data for analysis. There are four Appendices mentioned in this thesis. Appendix A refers to the Interview Protocol, Appendix B refers to the Informed Consent, Appendix C refers to the IRB Application and Appendix D refers to the IRB Approval. Participants The population sample consisted of seven Latina Deaf women and derived from a snowball sample (Table 1). To qualify for the study, participants had to be either deaf or hard of hearing and have at least one parent of Latina/o descent. The study pertained to intersections of cultural performances within a multi-cultural discourse; therefore the participants chosen identified with both Latina and Deaf culture. All participants were over 18 and the median age for the participants was 58. The focus of the study was to determine if balance and equilibrium were maintained between cultures and to analyze the additional discursive identity created through a Latina Deaf discourse and identity performance. Qualitative Interview Procedure Fourteen questions were asked to all of the interviewees. (see Appendix A). All participants were adults willing to participate in a 30-45 minute interview in a private setting in Fresno, CA. The location of all of the interviews was the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, CA. Prior to the interview, the participant, American Sign Language interpreter, and I as the researcher, discussed
28 Table 1 Participant Demographics Name Vanessa Margaret
Age 65 25
Laura Regina Maria
58 52 72
Angie Cristina
52 71
Country born/ raised U.S./ U.S El Salvador/ U.S. Mexico/ U.S. U.S./ U.S. Mexico/ Mexico U.S./ U.S. U.S/ U.S.
Type of schooling Residential
Acquisition of deafness Illness
Mainstream
Illness
Residential Mainstream
Illness Hereditary
Mainstream
Illness
Residential Residential
Illness Hereditary
the informed consent form (see Appendix B) to determine if the individual was willing to participate in the study and interview. The consent form explained that interviews were going to be digitally recorded for transcription purposes only. The participant was informed that although 14 questions were asked, if she did not feel comfortable with answering a question she had the option of declining to answer. Also, the participant was informed that if at any time she did not feel comfortable being a part of the interview or the study, she had the option of removing herself from the study. The individuals in the room for interviews were; me, the researcher, the Latina Deaf participant, and two American Sign Language interpreters. The following sections will discuss the significance of the room set-up and the use and role of an ASL interpreter. There is also an explanation on why two interpreters were used as opposed to one. For this particular study, all factors played a role in the data collection and analysis.
29 Room Set-up The interview was designed to highlight the interview participant only during the interview. The interview room was set in a triangle position with the interviewee at the top of the triangle formation. To ensure that both the researcher and the interpreters were heard for the camera, I sat to the left of the camera and the interpreters sat to the right. The interpreters’ chairs were close together to perform team interpretation throughout the interviews. Team interpretation is a term used by ASL interpreters to ensure that there is language verification during their interpretation process (see Cantrall & Owens, 2007). While one ASL interpreter voiced the response given by the deaf participant, the other sat close and verified that the voiced phrase was accurate. If a change was needed, the interpreter who did not voice would whisper the corrections to the voicing interpreter. Team interpreting was used for all interviews. Although minimal whispers and corrections were caught on the audio transcriptions, these whispers were inaudible and therefore were not transcribed. The camera only focused on the interviewed participant and ran from the time that the interviewee came into the room until the time that the interviewee departed. If the interview participant chose to not participate in the interview, the tape would have been immediately deleted. Role of Interpreters For this study, three American Sign Language interpreters were used that also identified with Latino culture. To prepare for each interview, I sent the research questions out several days in advance with my IRB protocol (see Appendix C) so that the interpreters could get familiarized with the question and the study. Before I began the first interview, I asked if there were any questions about how to situate the questions and there were none. After the first interview
30 was conducted, the interpreters and I realized that there needed to be modifications with the questions for future interviews. After each interview the interpreters explained if there were any errors within their interpretations and I would note this within the transcription. There were no follow up interviews with the interpreters after the meetings were conducted. A unique element to this qualitative communication study was the use of a third person interpreter to aid in clarification between spoken English and signed American Sign Language. Williamson et al. (2011) stated that in a cross-language qualitative study, interpreters are the best access to translation and do not create a third-person bias. The authors also state that when interviewees are offered a certified interpreter to aid in language verification, the interviewees feel more comfortable and feel more trustworthy towards the researcher. For these reasons, an interpreter was used for clarification and respect towards the interview participant. The interpreters’ role was to interpret the languages between the researcher and the participant. Out of the seven interviews, six participants were comfortable with using American Sign Language and one participant preferred to communicate in Spanish. Each of the interpreters was fluent in English, American Sign Language and Spanish and able to interpret all interviews with high standards. Each of the interpreters was also of Latina ethnicity, which helped with language verification and cultural recognitions that may have been brought up in the interview process. Also, the interpreter’s cultural recognition was significant to allow the participants feel comfortable speaking about their cultural background and narrative. While the interpreters aided immensely to language verification and language, there may have been potential limitations that occurred when using a
31 third person interpreter in a two-person interview exchange. Sheppard (2011) explained that researchers should be aware of Deaf culture and linguistics when constructing questions for the deaf interview participant. The interpreters often shifted questions and answers from English to American Sign Language using more explanations and words to aid in clarity for the participant. Sheppard also states that interpreters may add their own utterances to the interpretation that were not stated by the deaf participant. Brunson (2008) stated that deaf participants should be comfortable and have knowledge of the interpreters used in the interview process. For all interviews, the interpreters were selected by me as the researcher without the consultation of the deaf participants. Although the interpreters all worked within the Fresno area and the participants may show familiarity, the omission of the deaf participant’s preference in interpreter may have created a complication in the interview process. If this was a limitation, then the consideration of the participant in interpreter selection will be much more relevant for future studies and interviews. Procedure Construction Questions Although the interviews were conducted from a qualitative communication standpoint, the 14 interview questions were derived from Spradley’s (1979) ethnographic interview descriptive model of question construction. The questions were developed to prompt narratives through examples and explanations of culture. The questions were meant to be open ended and for the participants to give their own interpretation and responses to the questions. As the researcher, I wanted all the participants to feel comfortable during the interview and to not feel
32 limited with their answers. However, the ambiguity of the questions may have lead to complications in initial understandings from participants. Spradley further explained that rapport during interviews is built through a process of exploration and clarification of questions. The exploration of questions and answers feels like a tour of a persons narrative, which gives and overarching perspective about a person’s life and culture. After tour questions and rapport have been established, I as the researcher asked experience and explanation question. Interview Set-up and Question Delivery The questions were each derived with the intention to prompt open-ended responses that provided explanations and examples of culture and identity. Spradley (1979) noted that the purpose of descriptive questions is to build rapport between the researcher and participant and to obtain interview information through free conversation and to allow the participant to feel comfortable throughout the interview. Descriptive questions like example and experience questions allow the participant to share personal experiences and stories through free conversations and expansion of questions. The questions were intended to prompt follow up questions and responses. This process felt more comfortable for both the researcher and the participant, and the follow up questions and rapport building aided in clarification and expansion of answers for the study. Qualitative Interviews Qualitative open ended interviews are beneficial for studies that focus on analysis of communication patterns that are created through discursive situations (Potter, 1996). Compared to quantitative studies, qualitative methods extend beyond generalizations to understand the individual constructions of society.
33 Potter (1996) further stated that qualitative methods are based on personal construction, and examine the meanings of symbols and language that are used in interpretation or representation for their audience. A key component to qualitative research is to understand people as research participants. People serve as the creators and interpreters of language and discourse. For a study that discovers how an individual self-identifies, qualitative inquiries were the best method to identify how symbols and language are created and used to make sense of larger generalizations. Qualitative interviews were chosen to elicit personal discourse about rituals and relationships through experiences. Lindlof and Taylor (2011) described that qualitative interviews offer an explanation for specific accounts for social contexts. Similarly, Kvale (2007) stated that qualitative interviews expand beyond everyday conversations and discourse to develop and inquire knowledge about a specific element of everyday discourse. Moreman (2011) used qualitative interview methods to unravel the complexities of cultural identities that are situated outside of the dominant culture. His study on Latino-White hybrid individuals utilized questions that pertained to the construction of race through communication when participants “organically discuss their lived experiences” (Moreman, 2011, p. 199). This study also focused on the construction of race and identity though lived experience through extended answers and a focus on the language used within the interview. Therefore, qualitative interviews were the ideal method to use. Although qualitative interview methods were the method used, the questions were derived from an ethnographic interview perspective. Ethnographic interviews are constructed to develop a strong relationship with our participants in order to gain understanding about a certain culture or phenomenon. Madison
34 (2012) explains that ethnographic interviews “reflects deeper truths” (p. 28) about social and cultural subjectivity through interview participants responses. Spradley (1979) contended that ethnographic interviews should feel personal and specific by using the words “you” and offering paraphrasing when necessary. Throughout the qualitative interview participants were always considered and each interview was meant to feel personal to get to know about the individual narratives and cultural formations. Data Compilation After all of the interviews were conducted and digitally recorded, each was viewed a second time for transcription purposes. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain content information through narrative answers, therefore utterances and pauses were not transcribed. Each interview was transcribed to read as a script. To identify each of the participants, the women were asked their age and each interview was given a number from one through seven. After each interview was transcribed, pattern coding mechanisms (see Saldaña. 2009) will be used to find common patterns and categories within each of the interviews. To aid in confidentiality, after the interviews were completed and transcribed, each participant was assigned a pseudonym by me the researcher. As Sheppard (2011) has stated, the use of interpreters may have provided complications within the data transcription. There were instances when the interpreter added her own utterances and pauses and it was difficult for me as the researcher to decipher if the utterance was given by the participant or the interpreter. Also, there were instances where the team interpreting was used for clarification and the second interpreter would assist the first for translation. Therefore, the second interpreter’s translation may have been paraphrased by the
35 first interpreter for the video and was therefore used as the transcription. Finally, there were instances where the participant talked louder than the interpreter, and the interpreter’s voice was hard to decipher. Out of the three interpreters, two offered to watch the interviews a second time to assist in a second interpretation or to alter their interpretation to provide a more accurate translation of the sentence. However, as the researcher I graciously declined the offer and decided to use the interpreter’s first interpretation of the interviews for the data transcription. To confirm language verification, a certified American Sign Language interpreter and a certified Spanish interpreter viewed the data and provided corrections to the transcriptions if needed. Limitations There were minimal limitations within this data collection. The first was that the questions sometimes were phrased around communication academic vernacular. This lead to complications within the question delivery and often the questions had to be repeated or altered. The interpreters’ explanations of the questions were not recorded, therefore information may be biased or skewed. Also, some of the interview participants were limited on time, therefore some interviews felt rushed and answers may not have been as well thought out or prepared. Another possible limitation was the collection of participants. All participants were selected from a sample from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center (DHHSC) in Fresno. These participants were also originally asked by a representative from the DHHSC and not personally by the researcher. Therefore, it was unknown how the participant was asked to participate in the study and what the participant understood was the purpose of the study and the
36 interviews. I allowed for a person besides myself to ask the participants because I am not fluent in American Sign Language and I wanted to allow the participants to have access to someone who was fluent in American Sign Language. While the act of not personally collecting interview participants was good for language verification, it was not good to establish a researcher-participant relationship. When I arrived the day of the interview I was a stranger to the participant, therefore it was more difficult to establish rapport and build a relationship during the interview. Analysis After the data were collected, each interview was transcribed and coded. Richards and Morse (2007) explained that coding is a way to organize the many thoughts that are produced through interview responses. Topic coding was used to analyze different themes and topics that emerged from interviews responses. Similarly, Saldaña (2009) described there are two cycles for coding, a first and a second. To differentiate between the first and the second cycle there is a decision as to how to code based upon the respondents answers and the goal of the study. The first set of coding was based on the research question and the discursive formations of rituals, relationships in relation to cultural identity. After the first set of coding was complete, a second coding was performed within each of the discursive formation to find commonalities within each discursive formation. After each interview was coded twice, there was a final coding based on Martin and Nakayama’s (1999) dialectical approach for intercultural communication.
37 Dialectics and the Dialectical Approach Martin and Nakayama (1999) first introduced the dialectic approach as a call for intercultural communication scholars to utilize multiple communication research methods simultaneously in research studies to distinguish new perspectives that may form out of a combination of approaches. The authors explain that cultural studies can be best understood by examining several distinct elements of cultural practices to fully understand the many constructions of culture and community. In a later essay, Martin and Nakayama (2010) observed that few intercultural communication scholars had utilized the dialectic combination of multiple intercultural communication resources to identify new perspectives of culture despite an acknowledgment of benefits. In addition to offering new research mechanisms for intercultural research, Martin and Nakayama (1999) identified several cultural dialectics that may occur through individuals. These dialectics appear to be binary constructions to identify differences. Cultural dialectic constructions include: cultural-individual, personalcontextual, differences-similarities, static-dynamic, present-future/history-past, and privilege-disadvantage. Martin and Nakayama (2010) noted, “Our inclination is to put that concept into dialectical tension with cultural similarity to highlight the hybrid and heterogeneous character of all cultures” (p. 59). Through their creation of dialectical tensions and similarities, the authors imply that there can be similarities and fluidity between cultures to find commonalities. Dialectical approaches may offer an additional perspective of culture and cultural communities to create cultural similarities and multiple perspectives of cultural development. Several articles utilized Martin and Nakayama’s (1999, 2010) dialectic approach to highlight the significance of dialectics within individuals who have
38 multiple cultural identifications. Halualani (2011) used the dialectical perspective to understand how students in a multi-cultural university interact with one another to identify cultural differences and similarities. Collier (2005) conducted her study based on group interviews of South African women to find their multi-cultural identification in the height of hierarchy establishment of government changes. Hopson and Orbe (2007) explained the dialectics that were created for Black men in literature pieces that had to create cultural identities within a white hierarchical discourse. Orbe (2008) discussed how an exploration of the first generation college student dissects dialectical tension created through the new space created through the college environment. Each research article is a standpoint to show the constant push-pull factors that stem from cultural relations within an individual and also through societal interactions in which the individual partakes. The dialectic approach is useful for intercultural communication research because the approach encourages fluidity and multiple research outlets. Significance is found through the cultural blending and also to highlight cultural combinations within society and individuals. Martin and Nakayama (1999, 2010) encouraged the use of multiple research paradigms to ultimately expand the understanding of cultural identification within intercultural communication studies. Through culture and relationship dialectics, cultures are able to be viewed beyond the differences to highlight what is significance when multiple conversations are allowed to be combined and researched as a single entity. Within this study, the dialectics approach was applied to interview responses to understand the fluidity of cultural experiences and how one experience can affect two cultural identities. After the coding process of rituals and relationships has been performed, a final coding will be enacted to find commonalities within experiences and interactions that have dialectic formations.
39 If there are dialectic relationships, then an intersectional identity may be easier to comprehend from the larger discursive spaces of Latino and Deaf culture.
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS I conducted seven interviews of seven Latina deaf women over a ten day period. I finished transcribing the interviews one week later. After the transcriptions, I coded the data broadly based upon my originals research questions: How are the cultural discursitivites of Latina Deaf women communicatively constructed and maintained through relationships and rituals in everyday life? My overall goal was to understand the lived experience of these Latina Deaf women by noting the discursive formations of such themes as rituals, relationship, and culture. After an initial coding process of each individual interview, I did a second coding to create connections across the discursive formations of the participants. After the patterns were found, I then connected these discursive formations to larger discourse of latinidad, rituals, and intersectionality. The following section discusses the discursive formations that were noted within the main categories of rituals, relationships, and culture. Language Use An intriguing factor was the association of cultural identity with language choice. Although I specified the word “Latina” within my questions, the interpreters used were several signs or descriptors used for the cultural terms. At times, the interpreters would sign the word “Spanish” or “Mexican.” The interpreters would also fingerspell the word L-A-T-I-N-A for the participants. The variance in cultural terms represents the multiple representations of Latina identity. The word deaf only has one sign. The multiple word references for Latina demonstrates the fluidity and complications that arise through latinidad and the naming of one’s cultural self. Likewise, the single sign for deaf associates deafness represents a single entity within identity formation.
41 Community Involvement Community was a salient factor throughout the interviews and directly related to the three main discursive formations of rituals, relationships, and culture. Therefore, I decided to include the role of community within each of the main themes to enrich each concept rather than making community separate. Community is created through rituals, roles, and relationships that are all embedded within a cultural discourse. Each theme is enhanced through the discussion of community within cultural identity acknowledgement and performance. Cultural Identity Through Ritual Formation One discursive formation related to cultural identity is the use of rituals to establish identity. Identities are based upon the recurring rituals of an individual’s life. Carey (1989) explained that rituals are transformative and have the ability to shift throughout time periods. Bell (1992) also stated that rituals indicate cultural significance and knowledge of culture signifies a role and identification within culture. Rothenbuhler (1998) noted rituals are different than average behaviors because rituals have symbolic meaning and significance. Rituals have rules, norms, and values and are recurring elements or events within an individual’s life. With relation to cultural identity formation, there were several references to the rituals of residential schools for the deaf and home visits. A residential school for the deaf is situated for deaf and hard of hearing students to take residence within their school for both their living and education accommodations. All students and instructors use American Sign Language as their primary language and residential schools for the deaf is where many students learn about American Sign Language and Deaf culture.
42 The Berkeley (now Fremont) school for the deaf was a key reference to several of the interviews. Berkeley, (now known as the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California) is a residential school in which children are educated and reside in a deaf community atmosphere. According to the CSD handbook, the goals of the school are to have students fluent in ASL and English and to be productive members and advocates in the Deaf community. Students and staff members are expected to speak only in ASL at school, and all staff members must be fluent in ASL to apply for a position. The handbook did not provide information about ethnicity or gender populations or percentages. During the interviews, the women described how they transitioned to ASL and Deaf culture from their home lives of homesigns and brief conversations with family and also how they enjoyed the easier access to communication at Berkeley. However, the stress of being separated from their family was also an issue. Vanessa stated: I really felt like my parents kind of tossed me into that environment. For holidays and summer vacations, I would be able to go back home. That was when I felt more relieved. The exposure to residential schools for the deaf also produced a loss of family and home life. For these women, growing up in a residential school allowed for connection within Deaf culture, but detachment from their Latina home culture. The ritual of school stay and home visits created two separate cultural communities and Several participants felt more comfortable and included within the deaf community because the communication was easier with people who shared a common language. However, there was also a disconnection from Latina or Mexican culture because of the loss of home traditions and rituals. It may have
43 been difficult for these women who were raised in a residential school to comprehend the Latina rituals and traditions in which they did not participate. The decision for the women to attend the Berkeley school for the deaf was a choice made by the parents of the women. However, some participants understood the importance of choice within cultural communities. For example, Cristina stated: I have explained my experiences at the residential school and parents have been grateful for my perspectives. I tell parents that deaf children need to go to residential schools not mainstreamed schools with hearing children. And parents have listened and considered what I have told them. That happened often when I worked as a teachers aid in a deaf classroom here in Fresno. Several of the parents I spoke with did listen and actually sent their children to the residential school in Fremont and their children were successful. The parents were very happy and proud. The choice to go to a residential school for the deaf is made through agency by the parents, but if the child grows up within the cultural community they will feel a sense of loyalty within the rituals. For Cristina, she grew up enjoying her time at the residential school, but after years of reflection she understood the importance of her ritual. Although it was originally not her decision to attend, the agency of the ritual of school became her personal choice because she was involved in the community. Carey (1989) explains that roles within rituals play a critical factor within identity formation. Cristina did not originally choose her role within the residential school for the deaf, but found a place of belonging within the Deaf community. Her agency within the rituals was better established because she can share her experiences through personal narrative and therefore feel included within the rituals of sending children to residential schools for the deaf.
44 Community and Rituals Through rituals, communities are formed with people who share a similarity with culture and ritual practice. Shome (2000) explained that within an identity formation there also needs to be recognition of spaces created through discursive rituals and the power of these spaces. Participation within family events was another ritual that was relevant to the participants. Family events and differences between Deaf women and their hearing relatives created a powerful space that complicates Latina identity formation. Several participants explained their struggle to find their place within their family during many different family events. Often, the separation was caused through a lack of knowledge of Spanish or American Sign Language. Margaret described: There’s no communication at the family events that I go to. Therefore, I enjoy interacting with my deaf community. Vanessa stated a similar experience: Suppose my family might be involved with an event. We would go as a family to the family gathering and I know that I would be there alone. I would be sitting at the table twiddling my thumbs because no one is going to approach me. It’s tough to communicate with me because I’m not hearing. These women did not state a particular event or circumstance in which she felt excluded. Family events were not seen as a specific instance but rather a ritualistic event that had rules and regulations. Through these rituals, a separation was created between Latina family and the Deaf woman. The women who experienced disconnections at family events believed the ritualistic norm was to be excluded due to the language barrier. Each of the participants who stated the lack of communication at family events also directly associated this role to their
45 deafness. When participants understand that family events are ritualistic, they will assume that it is a norm to have minimal interactions at family events because they are deaf and not hearing. In relation to communication at events, participants also explained that they felt more comfortable at deaf events and within the Deaf community. Deaf social events became rituals because participants knew that they would be involved with the conversation throughout the event. Cultural negotiations and rules are now in favor of the women, and the women felt more engaged within Deaf culture and the Deaf community. Regina explained: Oh, I love it. I love the Deaf community very much. There’s something in my heart that tells me that I belong in the Deaf community. Angie also stated: I honestly feel more involved in my Deaf culture and in the Deaf world. I don’t gravitate as much with Latin culture. The rituals created through the deaf community are directly related to cultural identity because the Latina women are better able to articulate their identity and their role within the ritualistic event. Rules and norms around communication and inclusion are situated towards a deaf person’s preference and therefore the women have a positive norm through the rituals of deaf social events. For many women the discovery of Deaf community allows for a transformation of the self through recurring involvement within a community. Now that the communication barrier is lifted, these women are better able to establish an identity and sense of the self. Based on language communication with ASL and Spanish, the women associated better with the Deaf community because it is easier to identify their place within the community and the ritual.
46 The identity performance of latinidad created through rituals was one of separation between hearing Latina and Deaf cultures. The women who attended a residential school felt separated from their Latina identity; there was a struggle to comprehend how to perform Latino rituals and Latino identity. The performance and understanding of a Latina identity is further complicated by the exclusion at Latino family events and inclusion at Deaf social events. Similar to intersectionality, the women tried to find their place for their Deaf identity at Latino family events and their Latino home life identity within a United States residential school for the deaf. The rituals that were formed within school and Latina family events helped to shape and transform the identity of the women and their place within Latina and Deaf cultures. For many, communication and language helped to solidify roles within their community rituals and therefore a positive or negative association to culture and cultural identity. Relationships An association with culture arises from relationships and discussions of culture. The discursive formation of family relationships was common amongst all the interviews. Specifically, each interview participant discussed the relationship with their parents. It is common to associate parents as outlets for culture acquisition and knowledge. Parents and primary caregivers are often a main source of cultural recognition and understanding. If the relationship with a parent is poor, this could affect a child’s representation of culture. In this study, none of the women had deaf parents, and two had deaf siblings within the immediate family. If communication was easier among the family, the women were better able to establish a relationship with their parents. One participant, Mary, had a good relationship with her family.
47 Mary explained: I very much enjoyed my childhood. It was beautiful. There was so much love and a lot of patience. They [my parents] were very loving and tender towards us. Throughout her interview, Mary had a positive outlook on her both Mexican culture and her family lifestyle. Her family included two other deaf children, and all were raised at home and sent to mainstream public schools. She was born and raised in Mexico with her family and is very well versed in Mexican culture. She gave several positive statements about her parents and how she was proud to be a part of her family. Her relationship and home life may have given Mary the acculturation to Mexican culture. Also, communication was easier because there were deaf siblings to share communication and language. The close relationship with deaf siblings allowed Mary to feel included with the Deaf community and Mexican Deaf culture. The only other participant that had deaf siblings, Regina, also had a good relationship and communication with her family and her parents. The access to communication within family home life allows for close family relationships and cultural identities to form. For Mary, the collaboration of Latina and Deaf culture based on acceptance and communication from family allowed for her Latina and Deaf identity to flourish. Parent-child relationships can also be complicated or separated due to differences between Latina and Deaf culture. In Latina families, a Deaf identity is outside of the dominant discourse produced through Latino culture. Through parent-child relationship, the woman’s cultural identity is now a place that shifts and flows between Latina and Deaf culture. In order for parents to acknowledge their daughter’s identity, the daughter must be able to situate her deafness within the Latina discourse in which her parents were situated.
48 Parent-child relationships have the ability to change over time through parental acceptance of deafness. In two interviews, relationships between Latino parents and their deaf daughter came from acceptance of deafness or a realization that parents have missed many years of a relationship with their child. Cristina explained in her interview that she never had a strong relationship with her father because he drove a taxi in Mexico. He also never learned English and did not have quality communication with Cristina. She stated: Until my dad was dying he signed to me, “I’m sorry”. He let me know that he made a mistake and wasn’t proud of me because I was deaf. And I told my father I’m so happy we moved to Berkeley. Thank you. If we hadn’t have moved to Berkeley I wouldn’t have been able to communicate with anyone. I would have never learned English and I would have been totally isolated and not be able to communicate with people. Angie also had a complication with her parents due to the lack of communication. She felt frustrated because she was never able to establish communication with her parents to understand their teaching philosophy. However, when Angie was an adult she took an initiative to create a relationship with her mom. She explained: I did approach my mom and let her know that I understood what they did what they did when they were raising me but I didn't see the love there at the time. She started to cry and I think through that conversation we began becoming closer. Really, it wasn’t until I was older. I was 19 that we really started to have a closer relationship. The relationship change between the child and parent came from a shift in cultural acceptance between the parents and their Latina Deaf daughter. In Cristina’s situation, her father realized that the separation of their relationship was due to his daughter’s deafness and his gradual progress of acceptance. Cristina
49 forgave her father and thanked him for allowing her to go to a residential school to communicate and develop her identity. For Angie, her relationship with her parents changed after she had the courage to speak about her family as a young adult. In each relationship there was a realization from the parents and therefore an acceptance occurred. Also, there was an acceptance from the daughter for past treatments and decisions. Through these negotiations, parent-child relationships can flourish and a space of belonging can emerge. The acceptance from parents, which is a primary source of culture acquisition, may allow for the participants to feel more comfortable with their home life and Latina identity. Culture Carey (1989) described culture as a reality that is produced and maintained from rituals and interactions with others. Collier and Thomas (1988) defined culture as “a historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, and norms” (p. 102). Both Collier and Thomas (1988) and Carey (1989) believe that culture is created through ritualistic forms of rules, meanings, and relationships. Collier and Thomas (1988) further clarified that a cultural identity is one that “is fluid and narrative in nature, and that multiple identities are likely to be negotiated in a single episode” (p. 114). Culture is derived through rituals and discursive realities, and an individual person can have multiple cultural identifications. These cultural identities are based on personal narratives and have the ability to shift and transform throughout an individual’s life. Cultural identities are created through both the individual and family interpretation of deafness. As mentioned previously, relationships with parents and involvement within family events may slow down the formation of an intersectional Latina Deaf cultural identity. If parents or family have never
50 personally experienced deafness before the deaf woman was born, the family could rely on Latina cultural constructions of deafness. Salas-Provance, Erikson, and Reed (2002) explained that the Latino culture, in general, views deafness as a situation within the family. In order for parents to understand deafness, they consult fellow family members or friends. Throughout the interviews, it was difficult for many of the participants to specifically identify with their Latina culture. The following section discusses the role culture plays within identity formation. There will also be discussion on how rituals and relationships are based on and can shift from cultural influence. Cultural Feelings Towards Deafness The strongest connection between culture and identity comes from cultural association and feelings towards deafness. Mary had a good understanding of Mexican deaf history and Mexican deaf culture because her family was largely involved with Mexican deaf politics. Mary states: My sister became president of an organization for the deaf. She was such a strong advocate and mediator to bring awareness about being Deaf. She became very well known, even the government recognized her. Mary was also an oral teacher for the deaf in Mexico, and throughout her interview she explained the difference between Mexican and United States Deaf culture. Although Mexico does not have the same education resources as the United States, Mary’s deaf siblings were able to advocate for and represent the Mexican Deaf community. Some of the women experienced separation from Mexican culture because of the belief that deafness was not tolerated within Mexican culture. Cristina stated:
51 We went to the doctor and they [my parents] found out I was deaf. My parents were very heartbroken. Later on in the interview, Cristina explained she never knew that she had five deaf cousins in Mexico until one of her deaf cousins came to the United States to visit her. To create a further surprise, her father knew about their deaf relatives and never mentioned them to Cristina. In Angie’s interview, she noted: Well honestly my parents, they never learned about deafness. They had never heard about what it was to be deaf. All of our relatives could hear. So when I came around my parents were baffled. It affected their self esteem-they didn't know what to do to help. They were so used to a certain type of socialization and being involved in Mexican culture and they were so proud of having a little girl, which was me. They didn't realize I had a hearing loss when I was growing up. In these examples, parents and families of Latino cultures had either never encountered deafness or had a negative perception towards deafness. The uncertainty of deafness from their Latina family may have prevented the women from feeling included or involved within their Latina community. From a cultural standpoint, the rules and norms of Mexican hearing culture are shifted to now recognize deafness, and some Mexican families took time to adjust. Presently, both Christina and Angie’s Mexican family culture has to include acknowledgement of deafness. The acknowledgment of deafness allows an additional cultural identity to be recognized through Latina Deaf females within a Latina family.
52 Geographic Locations Another separation from Latina culture came from a move in geographic locations. Some participants felt that because they did not live in Mexico, then there was no relation to Mexican or Latina culture. For example, Angie stated: I grew up in Los Angeles. I have no idea what Mexico has to offer children, the deaf specifically. Regina also explained: I feel like I’m white, but I am not, I’m Mexican you know what I mean? It is what it is. That is all I know. Later on in the interview, Regina again stated: Not really. I'm not really a Latina. I am used to American. But I am learning a little bit about Mexican people and traditions. I don't really know much of Mexican history. Sorry. If the participant were born in the United States, there was more identification to United States culture. However, Angie and Regina still have an association to Mexican culture through family association. Both women had parents of Mexican descent and they each had Mexican surnames. Also, the women had been to Mexico in the past but did not have a positive experience. Regina went to Mexico once and disliked it so much that she never wanted to return back to that country; and Angie has not been to Mexico since she was a teenager (she is now in her early 50s). Mexican culture could not be positively conceived because there was no association to them as belonging in the cultural location or because they frankly disliked Mexico. The rituals of going to Mexico were associated with norms such as getting sick or not understanding Spanish, therefore there was a negative association to Mexico as a region and as an identity formation.
53 Even more so, the women felt more included within United States culture because they were raised in the United States. Each woman went to a school in the United States and was immersed within English and United States culture. Both Angie and Regina are also closely associated to Deaf culture and the Deaf community. The association with American Sign Language and English as primary languages of communication could also be implications that the women felt more involved within Deaf culture and not Latina culture. Mary was raised in Mexico and had a strong association with Mexican culture. She moved to the United States. When she was asked about her cultural identity, Mary quickly replied: I identify myself as a Mexican American person. Mary was a strong advocate of the deaf within Mexico and has a very accomplished life. She was very confident within her culture and was able to talk about Mexican culture easily. Her references to Mexican culture were associated with both Mexican Deaf culture and the differences between Mexican and United States culture. The separation from Mexico as a country may have the women feeling uncomfortable associating themselves with claiming Mexican traditions and values. Likewise, growing up in Mexico created a strong identification to Mexico and Mexican culture. Margaret had a good relationship with her family and good knowledge of her El Salvadorian culture. In her interview, she described that her grandparents told her stories about El Salvador’s history. Margaret wants to share her knowledge of El Salvador with her daughter. She stated: I want my daughter to know about the [El Salvadorian] culture so when she gets married and has children she can also teach them our culture and traditions. I want her to carry on the traditions of my cultures, both El Salvadorian and Deaf culture.
54 Margaret understands the value of narrative within culture and a cultural identity. Her grandparents told her the stories of her country in the past and she understands that she needs to share her cultural identity with her daughter as well for the maintenance of El Salvadorian culture. Culture has the ability to transform throughout time and generations in order to sustain a strong identification to culture. Spanish within Latino Culture Often, the fluidity of both Latina and Deaf culture within one cultural identity was hard to establish for the women because of the United States residential schools for the deaf. The residential schools emphasized the use of English and American Sign Language within their education. The use of strictly English was a struggle for parents whose first language was Spanish, and this language barrier provided a cultural separation as well. Angie explained: The school [Berkeley school for the deaf] asked my parents not to speak Spanish to me; to please refrain and focus on speaking in English. It was hard on my parents. My mom was going to school, attending English classes so she could communicate with me as I was growing up. Cristina also shared a similar experience: I had nothing established in regards to the English language. Both of my parents spoke Spanish so it was very hard to figure out how to communicate with each other. We used gestures and home signs. Laura found the use of Spanish as a cultural factor as well. She explained: My family knows Spanish and English. They are hearing and that’s what they can do. My parents know a little bit of English but they speak a majority of Spanish.
55 Angie, Cristina, and Laura felt disassociated with their Latina culture because of the communication barrier from Spanish to English. However, the more intriguing aspect was the mandatory use of English within the Berkeley school for the deaf. Spanish was not encouraged to use with the deaf children, therefore the separation from culture accrued between Spanish speaking parents and English/ASL speaking deaf children. A parent whose primary language was Spanish tried to learn English to communicate with their deaf or hard of hearing daughter, but the task was very difficult and hard to complete. The loss of Spanish to the preference of English from residential schools created a separation between Latina and Deaf cultures, and because communication was easier in English and ASL the women had a closer association to Deaf culture and the deaf community. Deaf Community and Cultural Identification A final discursive formation that was evident within the interviews was the minimal mention of ethnic culture within United States Deaf culture. Several of the women stated that ethnicity within the deaf community was not a relevant factor. When asked about what makes a Latina Deaf identity unique, Laura replied: It doesn’t matter their ethnicity or culture; we [people involved in Deaf culture] all just socialize regardless and move forward. We are not in separate groups. We socialize with everyone. We’re not exclusive, we're inclusive. Vanessa had a similar response: I think that cultures are more the same than different. You’re human and we have more commonalities than differences. Regina also stated:
56 We [people in general] are all the same. We should all be connected rather than separated. We shouldn’t have that ignorant feeling that one culture is better than the others. We should all share and embrace each other. We should have a sense of unity. When these women heard the word culture, the discursive formation did not positively associate culture with ethnicity but rather culture as a space of acceptance. In the deaf community and Deaf culture there are many ethnicities and ethnic cultures, but Deaf culture is brought together through language use and rules and norms of community and belonging. Cultural identification was interpreted by these females as space of acceptance. In their Latina culture the women experienced separation or lack of acceptance from the culture, which meant they did not want to have exclusion within Deaf culture. These women are transforming Deaf culture to have a rule of acceptance of different ethnic culture. However, the acceptance may come with the risk of losing ethnic cultural differences and values. Analysis Conclusions As this analysis has demonstrated, culture is closely related to the discursive formations of rituals and norms to sustain and transform a cultural discourse. For a Latina Deaf woman, there were many separations from Latina communities and family relationships due to a communication barrier and a separation from living environments provided by residential schools for the deaf. For the women participants, the separation between communities created by language barriers left the women unsure about their role within Latino culture and Deaf culture. A negotiation between relationships with family members created a space of belonging for their Latina Deaf identity. The easier access to ASL and
57 English also situated a place for the women as belonging through language in Deaf culture, but because of the lack of priority to ethnicity it was harder to situate a place for Latino identity within the deaf community. The use of language was evident within community formation and cultural identification. Many female participants were better able to identify with Deaf culture because the communication was easier and there were several people that shared a similar language and the women were better able to articulate their narratives. Participants with strong relationships with their families also had a good recognition about their Latina cultural identity. Participants who did not grow up within the geographic location of Mexico or have a close association to Spanish language were not as comfortable associating themselves with Latina identity. Cultural communities created through rituals between community members within Latina and Deaf cultures. Culture is also a discursive formation that is formed through communication and relationships within Latina and deaf communities. Individuals positively identify to a culture with communication relationships to create and express their own cultural identity. For most of the Latina Deaf women participants, cultural identification was better associated to a Deaf identity rather than a Latina identity. Within latinidad, the Latina Deaf female’s cultural identity is a performance of rituals and roles that are situated outside of a common communication barrier. Latina Deaf identity was situated as a separation from both Latino and Deaf cultures and the women had to situate their place within the larger dominant discourse of Latino and Deaf culture. A Latina Deaf identity was often situated through interactions with others to negotiate an understanding of culture and cultural identity. The gradual acceptance of deafness and limited language acquisition from families left some Deaf women creating a place within both
58 Latina and Deaf culture to find belonging within both discourses. The use of limited Spanish and homesigns helped with relationships, but overall the dominance of English from residential schools for the deaf and the gradual acceptance of deafness from Latino culture provided complications for the Latina Deaf identity to be articulated. Latina Deaf females felt torn. In one sense, they loved their family and home life, but they grew up separated by their family through language and space. United States Deaf culture provided inclusion within community and rituals at the expense of Spanish language and culture in favor of English and American Sign Language. A suggestion would be an additional discourse space created for women who are Deaf and wish to use Spanish, English, and ASL to develop relationships and a cultural identity through narratives.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION This communication study was an attempt to answer the following research question: How are the cultural discursivities of Latina Deaf women communicatively constructed and maintained through relationships and rituals in everyday life? The seven interviews collected provided great insight to the discussion of how cultural identities are discursive formations based on rituals and interactions with others. A Latina Deaf identity is complex and involves multiple cultural identifications and spaces of belonging. Within these multiple places of identification, there are relationships and rituals with others from a dominant discourse, both in Latino and United States Deaf culture. Latina Deaf women find their place of belonging within the two dominant Latino and Deaf cultures through community involvement and the access of communication with others through the use of language. Summary of Study The introduction of the thesis explained the purpose and rationale for a study on Latina Deaf identity formation. Discursive formations of ritual and relationships within cultures are a salient factor in cultural identity. The use of Latina Deaf women as interview participants would be beneficial for Latino and Deaf studies to understand a complex intersectional identity. Within communication studies, Latina Deaf identities would enhance constructions of cultural identity to include discussions of United States Deaf culture within communication studies. Chapter 2 focused on the literature on theories such as discourse, intersectionality, latinidad, Deaf identities, and Deaf studies within communication. The construction of the literature review identified that multiple
60 cultural identifications are an area of communication that needs to be studied beside a dominant discourse construction. The literature review demonstrated the benefits of studies based on intersectional identities and the potential contributions from a study on Latina Deaf identities. The review of literature helped situate my position as a researcher to the area of intersectional identities that I wanted to focus on, which were the discursive formations of culture within rituals and relationships. The third chapter focused on the construction of the study and qualitative communication interviews. Qualitative interviews elicit narratives from individuals to understand a certain phenomenon, which in this communication study was the discursive formation of a cultural identity. Seven Latina Deaf women were interviewed to begin to understand the complexities of multiple cultural identities. These women were selected as a snowball sample by a representative of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, CA. After I received permission by the IRB committee (see Appendix D), the interviews began on March 24, 2012. The interviews were conducted in a 10-day period and all were coded 1 week later. Chapter 4 was an analysis of the transcribed interviews. The interviews were coded based upon the initial research question proposed. Rituals and relationships within cultures were the discursive formations used. After each discursive formation was categorized, each discursive formation was coded to find commonalities. The data analysis confirmed that Latina and Deaf communities were created, maintained, and transformed through ritualistic spaces and relationships with others. When communication was established, women participants were able to positively connect to the community and the rituals because they were able to provide a narrative and cultural identity. Culture was
61 positively associated with inclusion and belonging and a common language between the participants and the others with a cultural space. If there was a language separation, there was a feeling of exclusion within the cultural space and cultural identities were not easy to comprehend. Overall, the identity formation of Latina Deaf women is complex and intersectional, and throughout the interviews it was difficult for the women to articulate intersections within Latina and Deaf cultures. Language separation between Spanish and English/ASL created positive or negative association to cultural communities and the role of the participant within each community. Ritualistic spaces such as residential schools for the deaf, family events, and trips to Latin American countries helped to create a discursive formation of culture and a cultural identity. Latino cultural viewpoints and also the acculturation to United States Deaf culture created a space of belonging for Latina Deaf women within Latino and Deaf cultures; these viewpoints were also a factor in the discursive formation of a positive or negative association of a cultural identity. Interpretation of Findings Discourse Hall (2007) stated that discourse is situated within language and narratives. Discursive formations performed representations of discourse from individuals through interactions with others. This communication study demonstrated that discourse of culture is situated in language, which for the Latina Deaf females was Spanish, English, and ASL. Discursive formations were based on language use and on individual construction of cultural meanings. The women created positive associations to cultures when language was an easy access to help create good relationships and good cultural identities. When the women were able to articulate
62 their identity narrative and their role within the cultural community, there was a positive association to a cultural identity. Culture was a discursive formation of inclusion, and the women were more inclined to associate themselves to a cultural community in which they felt included. For many of the women, they were quick to associate themselves to Deaf culture rather than Latina culture. Discursive formations of culture within Deaf culture were based on communication inclusion rather than ethnicity inclusion. Intersectionality Crenshaw (1991) discussed that individuals with intersectional identities may be forced to choose between two cultural identities, which therefore creates a separation and marginalized identity within both dominant cultures. The Latina Deaf women in this study felt a separation between Latino culture based upon rituals and spaces like residential schools for the deaf and Latino family events. Cultural separation also occurred through language barriers and/or an inability for Latino parents to accept deafness. If there was a separation between family and the Deaf women, then a negotiation was needed for the Latina deaf women to find their place and representation within the Latino family discourse. In retrospect, when communication was easier within Latino communities or families the women may have been better able to identify their place of belonging within Latino discourse. Within Deaf culture and through ASL, the women were able to articulate their individual identity and place of belonging within the Deaf community; however, they were still unsure how to include their Latina culture within Deaf culture discourse. Latina Deaf women are within their intersectional identities and need to find their place of belonging within both Latina and Deaf cultures. This place of
63 belonging is complex due to the language and cultural differences that arise from both Latino and Deaf culture. This study indicated that the lines between cultures are not easy to cross, and more exploration of personal narratives in association with identity formation is needed to formulate the place of belonging for an intersectional identity within the larger Latino and Deaf culture discourses. Latinidad A Latina Deaf identity was difficult to conceive for several women because they felt out of place within their Latino identity. Their identities were complicated from personal factors such as living or growing up in the United States as opposed to a Latin American country. There was also a disconnect felt by the women from Latino’s primary language, Spanish. The separation from one part of Latino culture created personal distance from the Latino culture and the women were hesitant to personally conceive and articulate their own Latina identity. A Latina identity was also difficult to establish within the Deaf community that did not feel comfortable highlighting ethnicity as a form of difference. When a community is joined together through language and not ethnicity, it is complicated to articulate ethnicity within identity formation. The women who felt involved in Deaf culture and the Deaf community viewed culture as inclusive and wanted to treat all members of the community the same. There was an unspoken uncertainty that exposure of ethnicity would highlight difference and create separation within the community. When ethnicity was not spoken about, then it was a challenge to understand or comprehend an ethnic identity. The Deaf community and Deaf culture are tied together through language connection and information sharing, not by ethnic culture relationships. Therefore,
64 the association to English and American Sign Language created a language preference to United States culture and would thereby associate the Latina Deaf identity within a space of Whiteness. Ritualistic spaces such as residential schools for the deaf acculturated the women to United States culture, but a residential stay within a United States culture caused confusion from Latina identity because the home life separation. The emphasis of English and ASL as primary means of communication may have also created separation from Latino culture. The women were then left to negotiate their intersectional Latina Deaf identity in an environment that was situated around United States culture and Whiteness. Therefore, it was harder to articulate a Latina identity. The Latina identity is complex and difficult for many Latina’s to identify, which demonstrates commonality of Latina Deaf women within Latina culture. Martin and Nakayama’s Dialectics Approach Finally, a place of belonging for an intersectional Latina Deaf identity was situated as a dialectic approach that may find ways in which the women were able to enact both Latino and Deaf cultures. Martin and Nakayama’s (1999) dialectical approach explains that individuals have dialectics within themselves that should be utilized in identity formation. For this communication study, the application of Martin and Nakayama’s dialectics approach examined dialectics between Latino and Deaf cultures and also dialectics between accessibility of languages such as English, ASL, and Spanish. Throughout the interviews, the women explained the cultural experiences that demonstrated cultural inclusion from one culture yet exclusion from another. For example, the dialectic perspective of privilegedisadvantage could be applied to residential schools for the deaf. In this experience, the women who went were privileged to learn ASL and English to
65 begin to form their identity through easier communication access. However, the separation from their family and home life put the women at a disadvantage within their Latino home life. The use of dialectics through experiences was more apparent than dialectic personal characteristics that have been previously used in dialectical studies. Experiences and cultural dialectics have not been used in dialectical research and the findings from this study could be applied to create another study. Limitations There were few limitations within this study that might best be used to modify this line of research for the future. The following study was an exploratory study; there were factors within this study that will be noted for future research studies and inquiries. One limitation was the collection of population sample. Each participant was selected from a sample of people that frequented the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, CA. Also, all interviews were held at the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center. The location selected was centered within the Deaf community and Deaf culture and may have given preference to Deaf culture. For my next study, I will expand my population search to find more Latina Deaf women that are not associated with the service center to see the contrast in answers. Another limitation was my inexperience with interpreters during the interview process. The triangle interview set-up created a large space between me and the participant, and the participant had to shift their focus from me to the interpreter throughout the interview. Also, the questions were interpreted and asked in a different manner than my original questions and the interpretations were
66 not verbally stated for me or the camera. The different interpretation of questions and the lack of knowledge as to what specifically was asked provided some infrequency within question formation. For my next study I will situate the room differently to have myself and the interpreters sitting in the same vicinity and also have a consultation with the interpreters before and after the interviews have been performed to have a verification of the interview process. The use of ethnographic interviews within a qualitative study may have also created a limitation within my research. The purpose of the ethnographic interview was to elicit personal rapport and emotional responses from research participants. Within my interview I was focused to find specific themes within answers, and the mix of ethnographic interviews may have caused confusion within the data analysis. For future studies, I will consider using an ethnographic approach and follow up with ethnographic interviews. As previously stated, this was an exploratory study that was also a learning process. While my data was accurate, knowledge of these limitations will only strengthen future research endeavors and outlets. For this study, the knowledge acquired was significant and the limitations did not hinder the result findings. Suggestions for Future Research This communication study prompted me with several inquiries or areas of study within the complexities of Latino Deaf identities. One of my first inquiries would be to perform follow-up interviews with several of my participants to have a better understanding of the certain themes that were found during the first sets of coding. A further examination of discursive formations or rituals, relationship and culture will strengthen my understandings of cultural identities and identity formations. If possible, I would also like to interview Latino parents or siblings to
67 have a better understanding of Latino cultures and the construction of deafness within Latino identity. Also, I would like to continue my study to include younger participants who are 35 years old or younger to do a comparison between older and younger Latina Deaf women. Another outlet of research would be the exploration and comparisons of Mexican Deaf to Mexican American Deaf individuals. This study included one participant, Mary, who was involved with Mexican Deaf culture and noticed a difference within Mexican and United States culture and deaf communities. As the literature review indicated, Mexican Deaf culture and the Mexican Deaf community is quickly emerging and the community is underrepresented in academic research. A study devoted to Mexican Deaf individuals who either lived in Mexico or lived a majority of their lives in Mexico would also be an intriguing study to allow for a better understanding of Mexican Deaf culture and Mexican Deaf identity formation. Finally, an area that could be further researched is the use of gender within Latino identity discourse. The following study focused on the identity construction of Latina deaf women and their place within the discursive formation of rituals and relationships within cultures. A study that focused on Latino males and their discursive formations of rituals and relationships within cultures would be a good comparative study. Conclusion In closing, this study provided many great insights into the complexity of an intersectional Latina Deaf identity. The women in this study provided discussed their place within Latino and Deaf cultures and how language use and cultural association complicated their cultural identity formation. Through rituals and
68 relationships with others at the residential school for the deaf and Latino family events, Latina Deaf women begin to understand their place of belonging within both cultures. The process of belonging is a transformative process which is still occurring in present day. The study did not provide a concrete answer on how Latina Deaf identities are discursively formed and performed within rituals and interactions with others, which further complicates the latinidad identity. Intersectional identities cannot be identified through clear boundaries but are fluid entities that negotiate their place of belonging with larger dominant discourses. A Latina Deaf identity should be taken into positive consideration from both Latino and Deaf cultures to better understand the complexity of a Latina Deaf identity formation to create a space of belonging.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES Adams, M. G. (2003). La historia de la educacion de los sordos en Mexico y lenguaje por señas Mexicanos: History of the education of the deaf in Mexico and Mexican Sign Language. Mexico, MEX: FSH. Adams, M. G. (2004). Journey beyond silence. Mexico, MEX: FSH. Alexander, B. K. (1999). Performing culture in the classroom: An instructional (auto)ethnography. Text & Performance Quarterly, 19(4), 307. Alcoff, L. M. (2003). Latino/as, Asian Americans, and the black-white binary, The Journal of Ethics, 7, 5-27. Allen, B. J. (2010). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Allen, B. J., Orbe, M. P., & Olivas, M. R. (1999). The complexity in our tears: Dis/enchantment and (in)difference in the academy. Communication Theory, 9(4), 402-429. Amaya, H. (2007). Performing acculturation: Rewriting the Latina/o immigrant self. Text & Performance Quarterly, 27(3), 194-212. doi: 10.1080/10462930701412320 Anderson, G. B., & Miller, K. R. (2004). Appreciating diversity through stories about the lives of deaf people of color. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 375-383. Anzaldúa, G. (2007). Borderlands: La frontera (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Báez, J. M. (2007). Towards a latinidad feminista: The multiplicities of latinidad and feminism in contemporary cinema. Popular Communication, 5(2), 109128. doi: 10.1080/15405700701294079 Bat-Chava, Y. (2000). Diversity of Deaf identities. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 420-428. Bell, C. (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York, NY: Oxford University. Booth-Butterfield, M., Heare, D., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1991). The effect of communication anxiety upon signing effectiveness among the profoundly hearing-impaired. Communication Quarterly, 39(3), 241-250.
71 Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1994). Communication anxiety and signing effectiveness: Testing an interference model among deaf communicators. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(3), 273286. Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995). The study of anxiety and signing as social science. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(2), 163-166. Braithwaite, D. O., & Thompson, T. L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brooks, D. K. (1996). In search of self: Experiences of a postlingually Deaf African- American. In I. Parasnis (Ed.). Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 246-258). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Brunson, J. (2008). Your case will now be heard: Sign language interpreters as problematic accommodations in legal interactions. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 77-91. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm032 Calafell, B. M. (2010). When will we all matter? Exploring race, pedagogy, and sustained hope for the academy. In D. L. Fassett and J. T. Warrenn (Eds.). The Sage handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 343-359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Calafell, B. M., & Moreman, S. T. (2010). Iterative hesitancies and latinidad: The reverberances of raciality. In R. Halualani & T.K. Nakayama (Eds.), Handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 400-417). Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell. California School for the Deaf. (2011). CSD Parent-Student Handbook. Fremont, CA. Electronic resource. Retrieved from http://www.csdf.k12.ca.us/pdf/ CSD_Handbook_2011-2012.pdf. Cantrall, T. S., & Owens, T. (2007). Empowering the Deaf consumer through the use of Deaf and hearing interpreting teams. Journal of American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 40(3), 35-41. Carey, J. (1989). A cultural approach to communication. Communication as culture: Essays in media and society (pp. 13-36). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
72 Chávez, K. R. (2009). Remapping latinidad: A performance cartography of Latina/o identity in rural Nebraska. Text & Performance Quarterly, 29(2), 165-182. doi: 10.1080/10462930902774866 Collier, M. J. (2005). Context, privilege, and contingent cultural identifications in South African group interview discourses. Western Journal of Communication, 69(4), 295-318. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.) Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 99-123). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cooks, L. (2010). Revisiting the borderlands of critical intercultural communication. In R. T. Halualani and T. K. Nakayama (Eds.) Handbook of critical intercultural Communication (pp. 112-129). Maiden, MA: WileyBlackwell. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. Dannis, J. (Producer) & Lee, Y. (Director). (2006). The lives of deaf Mexicans: Struggles and successes. [Motion picture]. San Diego, CA: Dawn Pictures. Delgado, F. (2000). All along the border: Kid Frost and the performance of brown masculinity. Text and Performance Quarterly, 4, 388-401. Emerton, R. G. (1996). Marginality, biculturalism, and social identity of Deaf people. In I. Parasnis (Ed.). Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 136-145). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Fasset, D. L. (2010). Critical reflections on a pedagogy of ability. In R.T. Halualani and T.K. Nakayama (Eds.) Handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 462-471). Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Fassett, D. L., & Morella, D. L. (2008). Remaking (the) discipline: Marking the performative accomplishment of (dis)ability. Text & Performance Quarterly, 28(1/2), 139-156. doi: 10.1080/10462930701754390 Flores, L. A. (1996). Creating discursive space through a rhetoric of difference: Chicana feminists craft a homeland. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82, 142156.
73 Flores, L. A. (2003). Constructing rhetorical borders: Peons, illegal aliens, and competing narratives of immigration. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(4), 362-387. Foster, S., & Kinuthia, W. (2003). Deaf persons of Asian American, Hispanic American, and African American backgrounds: A study of intraindividuals diversity and identity. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 271-290. Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. (D.F. Bouchard and S. Simon, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gerner de Garcia, B. (2000). Meeting the needs of Hispanic/Latino Deaf students. In K. Christiansen, (Ed.), Deaf plus: A multicultural perspective (pp. 149198). San Diego, CA: DawnSign Press. González, A. (2011) Chapter one: Listening to our voices: Latina/o’s and the communities they speak. In M. Holling & B. M. Calafell (Eds.) Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces; Somos de Una Voz? (pp. 3-17). Lanham, ML: Lexington Books Hall, S. (2007). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern sciences (pp. 56-60). Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Halualani, R. T. (2010). Interactant-based definitions of intercultural interaction at a multi- cultural university. Howard Journal of Communication, 21, 247-272. doi: 10.1080/10646175.2010.496666 Halualani, R. T. & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Critical intercultural communication studies: At a crossroads. In R.T. Halualani and T.K. Nakayama (Eds) Handbook of critical intercultural communication. (pp. 1-16). Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hasain, M. (2004). “Critical legal theorizing, rhetorical intersectionalities, and the multiple transgressions of the ‘Tragic Mullata,’ Anastasie Desearzant. Women’s Studies in Communication, 27(2), 119-148. Henderson, B. (Ed.) (2008). Special issue on disability/performance studies. Text and Performance Quarterly 28 (1/2). Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. London, GBR: Routledge.
74 Holling, M. A. (2008). Retrospective on Latin@ rhetorical-performance scholarship: From ‘Chicano communication’ to ‘Latina/o Communication?’ The Communication Review 11, 293-322. Holling, M. A., & Calafell, B. M. (Eds.). (2011). Latina/o Discourse in Vernacular Spaces: Somos de Una Voz? Lanham, ML: Lexington Books. hooks, b. (2009). belonging: a culture of place. New York, NY: Routledge. Hopson, M. C., & Orbe, M. P. (2007). Playing the game: Recalling dialectical tensions for black men in oppressive organizational structures. The Howard Journal of Communication, 18, 69-86. doi: 10.1080/10646170601147481 Hurt, H. T., & Cook, J. A. (1979). The impact of communication-handicapped students on high-school teachers' expectancies, interaction anxiety, and interpersonal perceptions in regular education classes. Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 38-46. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladd, P. (2008). Colonialism and resistance: A brief history of Deafhood. In H.L. Bauman (Ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking. (pp. 42-60). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lang, H. G., Cohen, O. P., & Fishgrund, J. E. (2007). Moments of truth: Robert R. Davila, the story of a Deaf leader. Rochester, NY: RIT Press. Leigh, I. W. (2009). A lens of deaf identities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lindemann, K. (2008). "I can't be standing up out there": Communicative performances of (dis)ability in wheelchair rugby. Text & Performance Quarterly, 28(1/2), 98-115. doi: 10.1080/10462930701754366 Lindemann, K. (2010). Masculinity, disability, and access-ability: Ethnography as alternative practice in the study of disabled sexualities. Southern Communication Journal, 75(4), 433-451. doi: 10.1080/1041794x.2010.504454 Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75 Mapp, I., & Hudson, R. (1997). Stress and coping among African American and Hispanic parents of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(1), 4856. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9(1), 1-25. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural communication and dialectics revisited. In R.T. Halualani and T.K. Nakayama (Eds.), Handbook of critical intercultural communication. (pp. 59-83). Maiden, MA: WileyBlackwell. McIlroy, G., & Storbeck, C. (2011). Development of deaf identity: An ethnographic study. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 16(4), 494511. Mendoza, S.L., Halualani, R.T., & Drzewiecka, J.A. (2002). Moving the discourse on identities in intercultural communication: Structure, culture, and resignifications. Communication Quarterly, 50(3&4), 312-327. Molina Guzmán, I. (2008). Policing the Latina/o other: Latinidad in prime-time news coverage of the Elián González story. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.), Latina/o communication studies today. (pp. 115-137). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Moon, D. G. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and critical intercultural communication. In R. T. Halualani and T. K. Nakayama (Eds.) Handbook of critical intercultural communication. (pp. 34-52). Maiden, MA: WileyBlackwell. Moreman, S. T. (2011). Qualitative interviews of racial fluctuations: The “how” of Latina/o- White hybrid identity. Communication Theory, 21, 197-216. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01382.x Moreman, S. T., & Non Grata, P. (2011). Learning from and mentoring the undocumented AB540 student: Hearing an unheard voice. Text & Performance Quarterly, 31(3), 303-320. doi: 10.1080/10462937.2011.573949 Moreman, S. T. & McIntosh, D. M. (2010). Brown scripting and rescriptings: A critical performance ethnography of Latina drag queens. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 7(2), 1-31. doi:10.1080/14791421003767912
76 Ono, K. A. (1997). A letter/essay I’ve been longing to write in my academic/personal voice. Western Journal of Communication, 61(1), 114126. Orbe, M. P. (2008). Theorizing multi-dimensional identity negotiation: Reflections on the lived experiences of first-generation college students. New directions for Child and Adolescant Development, 120, 81-95. doi: 10.1002/cd.217 Padden, C. A. (1996). From the cultural to the bicultural: The modern Deaf community. In I. Parasnis (Ed.) Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience. (pp. 79-99). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Pearson, H. (2010). Complicating intersectionality: Through the identities of a hard of hearing Korean adoptee: An autoethnography. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(3), 341-356. doi: 10.1080/10665684.2010.496642 Ramsey, C. L. (2000). On the border: Cultures, families, and schooling in a transnational region. In K. Christiansen, (Ed.) Deaf Plus: A multicultural perspective. (pp. 121-148). San Diego, CA: DawnSign Press. Rexroat, N. (1997). The colonization of the Deaf community. Social Work Perspectives, 7(1), 18-26. Rinderle, S. (2005). The Mexican diasporas: A critical examination of signifiers. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29, 294-316. Ronai, C. R. (1996). My mother is mentally retarded. In C. Elllis and A.P. Bochner (Eds.) Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing (pp. 109-131). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Rose, H. (1992). A semiotic analysis of artistic American Sign Language and a performance of poetry. Text and Performance Quarterly, 12(2), 146-159. Rose, H. (1994). Stylistic features in American Sign Language literature. Text and Performance Quarterly, 14(2), 144-157. Rose, H. (1995). Apprehending Deaf culture. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(2), 156-162. Rose, H. (1997) .Juliana Fjeld’s The Journey: Identity production in ASL performance. Text and Performance Quarterly, 17(4), 331-342. Rothenbuhler, E. W. (1998). Ritual communication: From everyday conversation to mediated ceremony. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77 Salas-Provance, M, Erikson, J. G., & Reed, J. (2002). Disabilities as viewed by four generations of one Hispanic family. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 11, 151-162. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Sheppard, K. (2011). Using sign language interpreters to facilitate research among Deaf adults: Lessons learned. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 22(2), 129134. doi: 10.1177/104365961039576. Shome, R. (2003). Space matters: The power and practice of space. Communication Theory, 13(1), 39-56. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College. Strozier, R. M. (2002). Foucault, subjectivity, and identity: Historical constructions of subject and self. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Struxness, K. (2000). School support services for Hispanic deaf children and families in Southern California school settings. In K. Christiansen, (Ed.), Deaf plus: A multicultural perspective. (pp. 199-220). San Diego, CA: DawnSign Press. Valdivia, A. N. (2004). Latina/o communication and media studies today: An introduction. The Communication Review, 7, 107-112. Valdivia, A. N. (2008). Is my butt your island? The myth of discovery and contemporary Latina/o Communication studies. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.) Latina/o communication studies today (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Walker-Vann, C. (1998). Profiling Hispanic deaf students: A first step toward solving the greater problems. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 46-54. Williamson, D. L., Choi, J., Charchuk, M., Rempel, G. R., Pitre, R. B., & Kushner, K. E. (2011). Interpreter facilitated cross-language interviews: A research note. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 381-394.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
80 Interview Protocol 1. Tell me a little about yourself. Where you grew up, your family, personal interests. 2. How you identify yourself. What communities are you a part of? 3. How do you identify yourself? Give an example of some people that shape how you feel about yourself. 4. Is it interesting to be both Latina and Deaf? Why so? Why not? 5. How do other people know that you are a Latina Deaf person? What are some things not expressed with words that let people know you are a Latina Deaf person? 6. Describe an experience where you felt aware that you are Latina. Deaf. 7. Growing up, what did your family do to develop your Deaf identity? Your Latina identity? 8. Explain how you know that you are a part of Latina community. The Deaf community? 9. How do you feel when you are with other Latinas? How do you feel when you are with other Deaf people? 10. What are the spaces and places where you feel comfortable as a Latina? Being Deaf? Why did you feel comfortable? 11. Describe an experience where you did not feel accepted as a Latina? As a Deaf person? Who included or excluded you? 12. What are the benefits or pleasures of being both Latina and Deaf? What do you enjoy about being a part of Deaf and Latina cultures? 13. How is your story as a Latina Deaf woman helpful for Latina and Deaf communities? For other Latina Deaf women? 14. What is something that you would like others who are not Latina Deaf to understand about Latina Deaf women?
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT
82
Informed Consent You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Stephanie Briones M.A. Communication Graduate Student at California State University, Fresno. We hope to learn about multicultural identities and the benefits of intersectional identities to offer an additional perspective to cultural community identification and cultural communities. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you met the characteristics needed to conduct this type of research; a woman over the age of 18; identify as both Latina and Deaf; and are an active member of the Latina and Deaf cultural community.
Confidentiality of Your Records Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. If you give us your permission by signing this document, your privacy will be taken seriously and the interview will be kept confidential. Only the principal investigator and major academic advisor, Dr. Shane Moreman or investigator, Stephanie Briones, may inspect the transcribed data from this research project. You may be contacted once more only if a follow up interview is absolutely necessary.
Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study Your decision whether or not to participate is completely voluntary and will not prejudice your future relations with California State University, Fresno. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without penalty. The Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects at California State University, Fresno has reviewed and approved the present research. To ensure that I have the most accurate language verification in American Sign Language (ASL) translation, I will provide two (2) RID-certified ASL interpreters for the entirety of this study process. An interpreter will be provided at any point where you need a verbal or written translation during any portion of this study. If you have any questions, please ask. Dr. Shane Moreman (559)278-6287 will be happy to answer any additional questions you may have after the study is completed. Questions regarding the rights of research subjects may be directed to Constance Jones, Chair, CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects, (559) 278-4468. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. If you have any questions about this research study before or after the interview has been conducted, you can also contact Stephanie Briones, (559) 618-2731
83 Graduate Student Communication Department California State University, Fresno 4780 North 4th Street Fresno, CA 93726 Email:
[email protected]
Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form I agree to all the conditions of the human participant in the research specified above. In addition, I agree to the following: I have fully read or have had read and explained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question the person in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated above. I understand that I will be recorded during the interview process and records of my interview will be kept confidential. I have been given a signed copy of this informed consent form, which is mine to keep. YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE. ______________________________ Print Name _______________ Date
Participant Signature
_________________________________________ Print Name _________________________________ Signature of Witness (if any)
_________________________________________ Signature of Investigator
APPENDIX C: IRB APPLICATION
85 Protocol A. Purpose and Background The purpose of this study is to discuss how identities are created and performed through discursive formation such as self-narratives. Often, identities are constructed from multiple outlets and cultural communities (See Mendoza, Halualani and Drzewiecka, 2002). In my study, I will specifically analyze the Latina Deaf1 identity to explore the complexities and intricacies of an identity that has two distinct yet overlapping cultural communities. I have chosen a Latina Deaf identity because I notice many parallels between Latina and Deaf identity formation. Both discursive formations (see Hall, 1996) lie outside of the hegemonic power norm (i.e. White, male, hearing) that has been ideologically constructed by society (see Foucault, 1977, 1990). Latina and Deaf identities are both unique because through their individual identity formation and performance there is always an interaction with the larger discursive power formation (See Valdivia, 2004, Ladd, 2008). I have chosen a Latina Deaf identity because there may be political identity intersections (See Crenshaw, 1991) or dialectic fluidities (See Martin and Nakayama, 1999, 2010) that occur between an intersectional identity that is self-selected (i.e. Deaf culture) when compared to one that is based on racial/ethnic constructions (i.e. Latina culture). Thus, I propose a study that provides an additional explanation of an identity formation through the stories of women who are an active member of Latina and Deaf culture. Through their interview responses, these women will demonstrate how the lived experience of their intersectional identities thus showing the complexities of multiple cultural identifications through cultural fluidity and collaborations. Therefore, I propose this study focused on answering the following question. Research question: How is the intersectional identity of the Latina Deaf individual conveyed through the discursive formation or everyday personal narratives? Cultural collaborations have been previously studied using qualitative open ended interviews (See Moreman, 2011, Halualani, 2010, Foster and Kinuithia, 2003, Collier, 2005, Hopson and Orbe, 2007) but there has yet to be a study that focuses on the dialectics and intersections of a person who identifies with Deaf culture and ethnic culture within communication studies. Therefore, my study is distinct and will present new dialectical insights into intersectional identities. B. Subjects/ Participants
1 I use Deaf with a capitol D to emphasize the cultural significance of Deaf culture within an individual. Rexroat (1997) explains that the emphasis of a D in Deaf signifies a cultural identification and pride with deafness and involvement with the Deaf community. This contrasts with deaf (lowercase d) that identifies a person with hearing loss that view deafness as a medical condition. Throughout this IRB I use Deaf because my study pertains to deafness as a cultural construction and not as a disability construction.
86 The participants of this study will be 5 (five) Latina Deaf women that are located within Fresno, California. Fresno, California was selected because there is a rich Latin and Deaf community within the area. Participants will be recruited from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center (DHHSC) in Fresno, California. C. Methods Participants will be given qualitative, open ended interviews that are based upon narrative discourse (See Lindloff & Taylor, 2011, Fisher 1984). Each qualitative interview will be taped for transcription purposes only. In addition to collecting five interviews, I will also selected two (2) RID2 certified American Sign Language interpreters to aid in language clarification for the interviews. These interpreters will be self-selected by the researcher, but will be approved by the participant before the interview process begins. The interpreters will remain the same throughout the interview process, and both interpreters must be Latina females who have a strong knowledge base in U.S. Deaf culture and American Sign Language. After a sample population has been suggested, the ASL interpreter and I will explain the elements of the study and the interview to the participant. If the participant is willing to proceed with the interview, a signed consent form will be given and filled out with help from the ASL interpreter and the researcher if needed. The consent form meets all the requirements as specified by the IRB Application that is included with this protocol. The form clearly states that participants are able to withdraw from the study at any time and participation is optional. After consent has been given, interviews will be scheduled within 1-2 weeks of the consent form being signed. The participant’s privacy will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. To further protect privacy, pseudonyms will be self selected by the participant. Only the principal investigator/ major academic advisor (Dr. Shane Moreman) or I may inspect the recorded and transcribed interviews from this thesis project. The participant will be contacted once more only if a follow up interview is absolutely necessary. I plan to conduct all interviews in March 2012. However, these interviews may be conducted from the time of the IRB approval through May 2012. Each interview will last approximately thirty minutes to one hour. All interviews will be transcribed for analysis. The interviews will be conducted in a location that is convenient for the participant, preferably at the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, California. If the participant does not have a specific location, the conference room FFS 119 or SA 9 at California State University, Fresno will be offered. 2 RID is an acronym for Registered Interpreters of the Deaf. In order for ASL interpreters to be RID certified, s/he must take a comprehensive exam and an expressive performance exam that is evaluated by professional peers in the field. There are additional credentials that can be administered in addition to RID, but the RID general certification is a high accomplishment for established interpreters. (Reference: rid.org)
87 On the day of the interview, the researcher and the ASL interpreter will explain the protocol of the consent form and the article. The participant will understand that the interviews will be taped for transcription purposes. Open-ended questions will be asked throughout the interview. The following are representative samples of potential questions and narrative prompts: 1. Please describe your cultural upbringing as a child. What did your parents and immediate family teach you about who you are? 2. Describe a situation where you felt aware that you are Latina. 3. Describe a situation where you felt aware that you are Deaf (emphasis on D). 4. Have you ever felt that you had to choose between being Latina and Deaf? Please explain. 5. How does being Latina and Deaf combine together in your daily life, if at all? D. Potential Benefits The benefits of this study will be to add to communication research about cultural intersections for the Latina Deaf individual. Within the communication field, a study that focuses on dialectical constructions will provide an enriching perspective to the dialectics approach (Martin & Nakayama, 1999, 2010) intersectionality (see Crenshaw, 1991) and border theory (see Anzaldúa, 2007). Another benefit is the expansion of cultural identity formations. With critical intercultural studies in mind (see Moon, 2010, Cooks, 2010, Calafell & Moreman, 2010, Halualani & Nakayama, 2010), this study may create an enriched perspective of culture and cultural identifications to create social change through the acknowledgment of multiple discursive identity formations. E. Potential Risks There is a minimal risk in my study. The main risk comes from the discomfort about talking about oneself. Participants may also feel a new awareness of the self within their cultural communities. While the intention of the interviews is not to ignite emotions, there is the risk that emotional responses may arise from the interviews. F. Management of Risk To manage potential risks participants will be informed of the type of thesis that I am performing and the participant’s role with the interviews. The participant, ASL interpreter, and I will review all the questions before the interview begins. Participants are encouraged to bring up any questions or concerns at any point of the interview. If at any point a participant feels uncomfortable about a question or any portion of the interview, the participant does not have to continue with the study and their data will not be used within the study. All participant interviews
88 will be based on a volunteer basis, and all participants must feel comfortable with the interview process and answering questions. To ease with potential confidentiality risks, I will ensure all participants that all interviews will remain private and confidential. For all study purposes, a pseudonym chosen by the participant will be used and all tapes will be transcribed by the researcher. Interviews will be kept under lock and key at Fresno State in FFS 119. The results of this study may be published. However, the publication results will not include the interviewed participants’ full names nor any other information that would personally identify participants in any way. Research investigators are required to keep all research related materials, including all IRB correspondence for no less than five (5) years. At the end of five years of study completion, I will have them destroyed. G. Subject/ Participant Compensation Participants will not be compensated for their participation in this study. The RID-certified American Sign Language interpreters will be compensated for hourly rates via a scholarship provided by Division of Graduate Studies and California State University, Fresno at a rate of 30 dollars an hour. H. Qualifications Investigator: Stephanie Briones, Graduate Student I have conducted extensive research on my topic throughout my graduate education. I have taken the following courses: COMM 290 Independent Study on Intercultural Communication COMM 263 Group Communication; COMM 260 Communication Theory; COMM 214 Instructional Communication; COMM 241 Strategic Rhetoric and Public Discourse; COMM 275 Organizational Training and Development; COMM 241 Rhetorical Theory; COMM 242M Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism. In my communication classes I have acquired a 4.0 GPA. In each of these courses, I have applied qualitative and critical communication research methods to my final seminar papers. My research topics have included public and strategic discourse/ identity formation/ body as rhetoric/ critical rhetoric strategies. In addition, I have also applied Deaf culture within four (4) of my final papers. Outside of my communication studies I have devoted an ample amount of my graduate studies to Deaf studies at California State University, Fresno. I have taken five courses of American Sign Language (ASL) and volunteer frequently at the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, California to maintain and advance my ASL skills and interact with local deaf and hard of hearing people. Academic awards I have received include an honorable mention for the Sally Casanova Pre-Doctoral Scholarship from the Division of Graduate Studies at California State University, Fresno. This honorable mention came with a cash award of 3000 dollars. I have also received a Scholars Service Grant and work as a Graduate Teaching Associate liaison for the Center of Scholarly Advancement of Learning and Teaching at California State University, Fresno. In addition, I
89 have also presented a paper at the 2011 National Communication Association conference in New Orleans, Louisiana entitled “Studying Collective Task Groups of Difference: A Proposal to Study Deaf and Hard of Hearing Work Groups.” This paper incorporates the use of Deaf studies within communication studies, and utilized similar methods that I wish to receive in my IRB proposal. I have two Bachelor of Arts degrees in Communication and English CredentialEmphasis on Speech. I also have a minor in Communicative Disorders and Deaf Studies- Emphasis Deaf Studies. I have worked as a tutor for elementary school children for six years and an instructor in the Communication department at California State University Fresno, for two years. I feel confident and comfortable interacting individually with people of all ages and educational backgrounds. In addition to three years of ASL classes, I have also volunteered at the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center in Fresno, California for the past 5 months and enjoy getting to know the local Deaf and Hard of Hearing community. The combination of people skills, previous academic studies, and knowledge of the primary language of ASL will aid in my participants feeling comfortable and willing to be a part of my study. Principle Investigator: Shane Moreman, Coordinator of Global Studies and Associate Professor in Communication Ph.D., University of South Florida After receiving his Dr. Moreman joined the Communication department in 2003 as its Intercultural Communication scholar. Dr. Moreman's research mainly concerns Latina/o populations, but more generally it involves critical approaches to the communicative and performative aspects of all cultural identity expression and interaction. He has publications in Communication Theory, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Text and Performance Quarterly, Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, Liminalities, The Communication Review and Theatre Journal. He was also co-editor of a special issue of TPQ on “Latina/o Performativities.” Additionally, he has book chapters in Latina/o Communication Studies Today and The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication. In 2008, he received “Latina/o Scholar of the Year” from the Latina/o Communication Studies Division of the National Communication Association. Dr. Moreman teaches Intercultural Communication at both the undergraduate and the graduate level. Currently his undergraduate Intercultural Communication course is a completely on-line course—the department’s first completely on-line course. He also teaches a fully online version of Communication Theory. Additionally, he has developed and taught Communication Theory and Research (graduate), Cultural Criticism of Media (graduate), Gender Communication, Ethnography as Communication Inquiry (graduate), Fundamentals of Public Communication, Performance as Communication, and Tourist as Cultural Communicator (held in México over Spring Break). In Spring 2009, Dr. Moreman was in England teaching and co-Directing the College of A&H’s London
90 Semester. He was the past President of the Latina/o Faculty and Staff Association. Currently, he serves as the Coordinator of Global Education in the office of Study Abroad and International Exchange, I. Certification of Training Certification is included in IRB Application packet.
APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL
92
California State University, Fresno Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to make your thesis/dissertation available electronically via the library’s eCollections database) By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video. You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation. You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright. If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission. If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement. California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license. Stephanie Renee Briones Type full name as it appears on submission May 14, 2012 Date
