Lessons Learned: Best Practices for Conducting Research with the Deaf Population

By Kristen Parsons, Research Associate

Through its CJII-funded process evaluation of Barrier Free Living’s Deaf Services Initiative, the Urban Institute, in collaboration with Gallaudet University, developed a set of recommendations for conducting research involving deaf participants in order to ensure that data collection methods are accessible and culturally appropriate.

When seeking to improve services for survivors of domestic violence, especially those who are Deaf/deaf/hard-of-hearing (HOH), [a] it’s critical to ensure every step is accessible and culturally appropriate—including data collection and research. The Urban Institute and Gallaudet University—a research university for deaf and HOH students—recently completed a process evaluation of Barrier Free Living’s (BFL) Deaf Services Initiative (DSI), which aimed to enhance access to care for Deaf/deaf/HOH survivors of domestic violence and raise awareness of the unique needs of this population among local stakeholders in New York City.

Incorporating data collection methods that are accessible and culturally appropriate not only show respect for the population, but also result in more reliable, quality data that is grounded in equity and inclusivity. To do so, Urban and Gallaudet identified several key recommendations that other researchers may consider when working with this community.

American Sign Language Fluency & Cultural Knowledge

Researchers working with the deaf population should possess specific qualifications, such as fluency in participants’ signed language.[1] Trained researchers can recognize local signing nuances and understand how different experiences shape the way deaf participants communicate. For the BFL evaluation, this included a principal researcher fluent in ASL with 33 years of professional experience in the deaf community.

Researchers must acknowledge the wide variations in language and experiences of people who are deaf, and be intentional in engaging deaf participants that proportionately represent the demographics and culture of interest. For instance, deaf persons born outside of the US may not be familiar with ASL, let alone use it as their primary language. Barriers to engagement may include additional disabilities, shame and stigma, and lack of trust for service providers. Accordingly, researchers must invest in building trust and rapport among deaf participants.

Data Collection & Communication Accessibility

Traditional research methods for the general public, such as random-digit-dial or English surveys, are often inaccessible to deaf individuals who sign. To ensure the research is culturally appropriate and accessible, researchers must be aware that deaf individuals vary in their comprehension of different languages and in their individual preferences for communication. In response, researchers should explore a wide range of communication assistance strategies, including video communication technology, in-person interpreters, or written text, among others. The recruitment, sampling, and data collection procedures should be evaluated by experts in research methods as well as deaf culture and communication to maximize accessibility for deaf participants.

Urban and Gallaudet also recommend utilizing creative methods to enhance outreach and increase participation by deaf individuals. For example, to promote participation in the study, researchers recorded a signed video introducing themselves and the project in an outreach email and posted a flyer in BFL’s common spaces with a QR code redirecting deaf individuals to the survey. Urban and Gallaudet also featured ASL videos within their online survey to ensure participants could access the consent form, survey questions and response options.

Urban and Gallaudet encourage researchers to consider these recommendations when conducting research with deaf participants. Accessible, deaf-specific data collection methods and cultural knowledge about the deaf population will help close the substantial research gaps on deaf survivors’ victimization experiences and the effectiveness of supportive services, the results of which will improve the availability and accessibility of programs for the deaf community.  

For more information on these recommendations, see Conducting Research with the Deaf Community.

About the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) and the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII)

The CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance manages the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII), which was established by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in 2015. ISLG provides technical assistance, conducts oversight, measures performance, and manages all CJII grantees.

The CJII focuses on three investment areas—crime prevention, reentry and diversion, and supports for survivors of crime. The Deaf Services Initiative and this evaluation were funded through the CJII’s crime prevention-focused investments in Victims of Crime. This blog accompanies the Urban Institute’s final evaluation report of DSI. Its earlier findings are available here and here.

[a] Lowercase “deaf” is typically used to refer to the physical condition of having limited or no hearing, whereas uppercase “Deaf” refers to deaf people who identify as belonging to the linguistic/cultural community that uses American Sign Language as its primary language. Except when referring specifically to Deaf culture, for purposes of inclusivity and simplicity, we use “deaf” in this blog to refer to people who are Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened, or Deaf-Blind.

[1] “The legal recognition of national sign languages,” World Federation of the Deaf. Retrieved from https://wfdeaf.org/news/the-legal-recognition-of-national-sign-languages/.

Image by Farknot Architect on Adobe Stock.