Opetussuunnitelmat

Objective

The aim of this module is to introduce students to the basic cultural, historical, social
and political developments of concern to the Deaf communities of the partner countries,
with reference to relevant developments in the European Union and international
contexts. In addition, the course focuses on providing theoretical knowledge of current
theories of Deaf Studies and ability to reflect upon and discuss issues of relevance to
Deaf communities, providing the foundation for reflection on working within contact
situations between Deaf and Hearing communities.
The module aims to provide students with:
– A critical understanding of the principal theories and concepts used to conceptualise
deafness and Deaf communities.
– A critical awareness of current issues in the field of Deaf studies.
– Detailed and critical knowledge and understanding in one selected area relating to
their 'home' Deaf community informed by developments at the forefront of the
discipline.
– Familiarity with a significant range of materials which are associated with
investigating this intellectual territory.
– Enhanced skills in planning and executing a project relating to a selected issue
concerning their 'home' community.

Content

The module will cover topics such as:
– Current theories of conceptualising deafness, Deaf culture and Deaf communities.
– Points of contact and comparison in the historical, social and political development
of Deaf communities.
– 'Deaf policy' at national and international levels.
– The (changing) structures of Deaf communities.
– The history of Deaf communities and the future of Deaf heritage.
How historical and cultural developments shape Deaf communities.
– From Deaf Studies theory and scholarship to community action.

Materials

Baker, Charlotte and Battison, Robin. 1980. Sign Language and the Deaf Community:
Essays in Honor of William Stokoe. Washington: National Association of the Deaf.
Bauman, H-Dirksen L. (ed.). 2007. Open Your Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking. University of
Minnesota Press.
Baynton, Douglas C. 1996. Forbidden Signs – American Culture and the Campaign
against Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, Lennard J. 1995. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness and the Body.
London: Verso.
Higgins, Paul C. 1980. Outsiders in a Hearing World. A Sociology of Deafness. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Hoyer, Karin. 2007. Albanian Sign Language: Language contact, International Sign, and gesture. In
D. Quinto-Pozos (Ed.) Sign languages in contact (195–234). Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Ladd, Paddy. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture – In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon:
Multillingual Matters.
Lahtinen, Inkeri & Rainò Päivi (Eds.) 2016. Deaf People in Albania in 2015. A survey
study. Tirana: United Nations Development Programme & Republic of Albania,
Institute of Statistics & Finnish Association of the Deaf & Albanian National
Association of the Deaf.
Lane, Harlan. 1993. Mask of Benevolence. New York: Random House.
Maher, Jane. 1996. Seeing Language in Sign: The Work of William C. Stokoe.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Monaghan, Leila, Nakamura, Karen, Schmaling, Constanze and Turner, Graham H.
(eds). 2003. Many Ways to Be Deaf: International Variation in Deaf Communities.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Padden, Carol and Humphries, Tom. 1988. Deaf in America. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard
University Press.
Senghas, Richard J. and Monaghan, Leila. 2002. “Signs of their times – Deaf
Communities and the Culture of Language”. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 69-
97.
Turner, Graham. 1994. “How is Deaf Culture?”. Sign Language Studies 83: 103-126.
Turner, Graham H., Dodds, Jen K. and Richardson, Lisa. 2002. “Always the Last to
Know”: Institutionalised Audism and Linguistic Exclusion of Deaf People from
Workplace Communities. Preston: University of Central Lancashire.
Wilcox, Sherman (ed.). 1989. American Deaf Culture. An Anthology. Silver Spring, MD:
Linstock Press.

Evaluation scale

0-5

Further information

Assessment methods

Students will be required to complete one assessment task.
1) Analysing implementation of the UNCRPD through a Deaf Studies lens (100%)

The UNCRPD is recognised as a key document by the world’s major Deaf
organisations, led by WFD. It will be introduced in the first block seminar, after which
students will be expected to interrogate documentation in their home countries which
addresses the national response, across diverse organisations, to the Convention.
Whilst conducting preparatory and follow-up reading around the Edinburgh block
seminar, students will be invited actively and consistently to reflect upon the relationship
(or lack of it) between the UNCRPD and the conceptual and theoretical apparatus
formulated in Deaf Studies scholarship.

During Phase C, students should write an account of this relationship. Does and should
the Convention draw upon the Deaf Studies canon? Does the academic literature have
anything to say that should inform the Convention’s impact or enactment? If so, what
and how?

This writing task is a solo activity: however, students will be grouped into twos or threes
from different countries and expected to interact throughout the process of preparation
and delivery of this task. Their task is not to co-author, but to offer one another critique
and a point of comparison and cross-reference to at least one other specific country’s
efforts with the UNCRPD. They will read different texts and with different eyes, and are
expected to share insights with one another, exploring the process of trans-national
collaboration and the cooperative generation of knowledge – sometimes from radically
divergent experiences, assumptions and perspectives – which has always been integral to the ethos of EUMASLI.

In Phase D, students will reach agreement on a joint summary which offers a
collaborative synthesis of the issues they have individually recorded in their written work
from Phase C, identifying common ground and divergences. They will present this
summary to the whole staff/student group for informal review. This is not a summative
(i.e. assessed) task, but one in which the primary rationale is to reflect upon lessons
learned and how their impact should transfer forward to the next Semester. Students will
therefore compare and contrast their own and other pairs' conclusions, and identify key
issues to carry forward from this module into their forthcoming activities.

The required word/page-count will correspond to the programme’s standard
expectations in relation to the ECTS value of the module. Please refer to APA
guidelines for referencing. All submissions should have: 1.5 line-spacing, be set in 12-
point font, and have a margin of at least 2.5cm all the way around the page.

Assessment criteria
1. Effective communication (20%)
2. Critical analysis of issues highlighted by the module (40%)
3. Use of literature (20%)
4. Appropriate adoption of academic conventions (10%)
5. Structure and organisation of presentation (10%)
A more detailed task description will be provided.
This assessment task relates to all of the stated learning outcomes.