Out 4

EXPLORING THE EXPERIENCES OF DEAF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN
DEAF AND HEARING WORKPLACES: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY
by
Melissa A. Watson
PAMELA KLEM, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
LINDA SAMUELS, PhD, Committee Member
WILLIAM B. DISCH, PhD, Committee Member
Elizabeth Koenig, JD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
January 2016
ProQuest Number: 10006969
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10006969
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Melissa A. Watson, 2016
Abstract
This phenomenological study sought to explore the experiences of Deaf employees
working in deaf and hearing workplaces regarding job satisfaction, relationships with
hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or Deaf supervisors
and co-workers who knows sign language, and overall success in employment. Capital
‘D’ in this paper signifies a group of people with hearing loss who share a common
social, linguistic, and cultural identity. Research has shown that qualitative research is
viewed to be the most appropriate and beneficial for studying disability issues because
this type of study provides more insight on multifaceted experiences narrated by the
individuals who have a disability. Phenomenological qualitative methodology was
employed to learn from 10 Deaf adults who worked in both, deaf and hearing,
workplaces. Equity and social exchange theories guided this study to understand the
Deaf employees’ perspectives regard the level of equality and social exchange
experienced in both workplaces. Qualitative data were collected from videotaped semi-
structured interviews formulated by the researcher resulting in 22 nomothetic themes.
The themes for the hearing workplace are: (a) prides in completing tasks ahead of others,
(b) positive compliments and recognition by supervisor, (c) communication was a
challenge, (d) feeling alone/excluded, (e) no feedback from supervisors, (f) missed
information from co-workers and supervisors, (g) received promotion, (h) infrequent
encounter with supervisor, (i) minimal or no socialization with hearing co-workers, (j)
socialization with other Deaf co-workers was available, (k) literacy skills make a positive
difference, (l) assertive is necessary to get needs met. Themes for the deaf workplace
are: (m) communication was accessible, (n), received feedback from supervisors, (o)
accommodations were already in place and readily available, (p) supervisor provided
positive recognition, (q) able to share knowledge and experience, (r) direct
communication with supervisors using sign language, (s) supervisors were easily
accessible, (t) supervisors encouraged professional growth, (u) mixing personal and work
lives creates problems, (v) socialization impacts completion of job duties. Future
researches should be conducted to expand on deaf workplaces to explore the perceptions,
thoughts and experiences of Deaf people in managerial positions and front-line staff.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter, Jaycee, who has been nothing but
patient and encouraging throughout my journey towards a doctorate degree. With the
hard-earned dissertation behind me, I can give her my undivided attention during her
journey into her senior year of high school and college. To my parents, especially my
father, who asked me every time when I saw him “When are you going to be a doctor?”
The question became my driving force to reach the finish line. To my sister, Mandi, who
delighted me with my one and only nephew, Miles, who I simply adore. Now, I pass off
the torch to Mandi to be the next in line to pursue a doctorate degree.
To sign language interpreters who have mastered the skill of voice interpreting-
translating from sign language to spoken English. I did not fully grasp the magnitude of
the skill of voice interpreting especially during a lecture, workshop/training, or fast paced
meetings where the majority of the people are Deaf until I had to transcribe the
interviews in English. All my interviews were videotaped and I had the luxury of using
the pause button to allow me to type the words in English. There is no pause button
during the interpreting process. Hats off to you and you have my deepest respect.
To my friends and colleagues who have encouraged me along the way and rooted
for me along the way.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the 10 participants (you know who
you are) who were willing and open to share their experiences and contribute to the
study. Without you, there would have been no paper and I believe that your experiences
will open up doors to future studies.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank God for blessing me with my life and the support that
was endowed upon me throughout the dissertation process. I would like to thank Dr.
Joan Durante, my mentor and chair for most of the dissertation process, for being a
driving force and for our Monday phone conferences with my fellow learners. The
weekly phone calls were tremendously beneficial. Dr. Durante showed tireless effort to
push me to the end of the journey. Thank you for all you have done and your passion
and dedication is astronomical. I would like to thank Dr. Klem for guiding me to the
finish line.
I would like to thank Dr. William Wargo who became my mentor and external
auditor. I simply loved and looked forward to our weekly phone calls when we reviewed
Chapters 4 and 5. I learned so much from you more than you would ever know. You
were my rock. Your kindness and gentleness was a blessing to me.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Wendy Heines, for her support and
encouragement by allowing me to take some time off work to work on my dissertation.
Thank you for your flexibility and also for your faith in my work at PAHrtners Deaf
Services.
I would like to also thank certain people who have helped during the dissertation
process- Dr. Roesner, Dr. MacNair, Amy Lagleder, Chris Ruthledge, and Mandi Watson.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Significance of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 15
Research Design 17
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 18
Research Questions 19
Assumptions 21
Limitations 21
Expected Findings 23
Chapter 1 Summary 23
Organization of Remainder of the Study 25
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 27
Theoretical Framework 29
Theoretical Synthesis 41
Pathological to Positive Viewpoints about Deafness 47
vi
Deaf People and Employment 51
Synthesis of Research Findings 63
Qualitative Research Designs 67
Summary 69
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 73
Introduction 73
Target Population, Sampling, Methodology, and Related Sampling 76
Data Collection 82
Data Analyses 85
Validity of the Data Analyses 87
Ethical Considerations 87
Chapter 3 Summary 90
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 91
The Study and the Researcher 91
Research Methodology Applied to Data Collection and Analysis 93
Analysis and Findings 94
Findings of this Study 95
Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample 118
Reliability 140
Validity 141
Chapter Summary 142
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS 145
vii
Introduction 145
Review of the Research Problem and Purpose 145
Discussion of the Results 146
Summary of the Findings in Relation to the Literature 153
Limitations of the Study 168
Recommendations for Future Research 170
Conclusion 173
Summary 175
REFERENCES 177
APPENDIX A. PRE-RECORDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS UTILIZED 203
APPENDIX B. HEARING WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION MODES 204
APPENDIX C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS 205
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 1 96
ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, people have been employed. The nature of employment has
evolved over the years; whereas, the present workforce in the United States now also
includes individuals with disabilities, who have contributed to the work force and who
deserve to have the equality in employment (Patterson, 2011; Randolph, 2004). Stum
(2011) added that individuals with disabilities also deserve opportunities to have upward
mobility in their careers. Upward mobility in some fields of employment depends on an
individual’s level of the education, whereas it is believed that a higher level of education
increases the chances an individual has to enjoy upward mobility and to attain (Stum,
2001).
The American dream for many individuals is career advancement including
higher positions (Burge, Ouelle-Kuntz, & Lysaght, 2007). While promotions are
rewarding and often desired, these dreams may not always be within their reach for
individuals with disabilities due to their high rate of unemployment (Haynes & Linden,
2012; Kurata & Brodwin, 2013; Schrodel & Geyer, 2001). Most individuals with
disabilities stated they prefer to be employed (Kurata & Brodwin, 2013; Schur, Kruse &
Blanck, 2005).
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2009a), a disability is defined as a
physical or mental impairment that significantly impacts one or more major activities of
an individual’s life. Further, the person is required to have a record verifying the
disability. Haynes and Linden (2012) found that the rate of unemployment for non-
disabled individuals is lower compared to those with disabilities. This corroborated by
1
statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Labor (2015), which indicate the
unemployment rate for individuals with a disability, ages 16, and over, is 11.9% while the
unemployment rate for individuals without a disability was 5.9%.
Despite the passage of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) in 1990, the
employment rate for individuals with disability remains low (Kurata & Brodwin, 2013),
whereas the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities remains high. This is
particularly true for individuals who are deaf where the rate is believed to be as high as
52%, a figure which came to light during a 2011 Senate hearing (Leveraging Higher
Education, 2011). Luft (2000) posited that some professionals believe deafness falls
under the category of disability since deafness is found to significantly impact a person’s
ability to communicate and navigate through the educational system, which might
negatively impact a deaf person’s ability to obtain vocational training and career
placement. Although deafness is categorized as an invisible disability (Harder, 2009)
there is no clear definition of deafness (Paul & Moores, 2010).
Deaf people do not view themselves as having a disability (Doe, 2014; Lane,
2005). Deaf people consider themselves as belonging to a heterogeneous group with a
unique culture (Meador & Zazove, 2005). Deaf people view themselves as a member of
a community having its own unique cultural components that include linguistic and social
aspects (Padden & Humphries, 2005; Obasi, 2008; Reagan, 1995; Senghas & Monaghan,
2002). For the purpose of this paper, the term Deaf is utilized to exemplify a group of
community members who belong to a social and cultural group where their deafness and
usage of American Sign Language (ASL) is valued. Deafness generally encompasses a
2
group of people with hearing loss who have a sense of identity and positive self-esteem
when discussing deaf culture (Hamill & Stein, 2011). The capital ‘D’ signifies a
community of deaf people who share a common social and cultural identity (Ladd &
Lane, 2013; Lane, 2005; Senghas & Monaghan, 2002; Woodcock & Pole, 2008). Deaf
people who identify themselves as Deaf use American Sign Language (ASL) as their
primary Language (Shepard & Badger, 2010). The capital ‘D’ shifts the focus of the
hearing loss from an audiological mind-set and addresses Deaf people as a whole person.
Reagan (1995) described how deafness continues to be overlooked by mainstream
society because it is generally unfamiliar and invisible. Reagan concurred that deafness
falls under the category of disability, as deaf people cannot do what “normal” people can
do: hear. However, instead of focusing on the disability, Deaf people want to emphasize
their abilities rather than the one deficit they have- hearing loss. Deaf people strive to
shift their identity from an audiological view to a cultural view that brings about their
sense of identity and being viewed as people rather than a person with “non-functional
ears” and difficulty speaking (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007).
Former Gallaudet University president, I. King Jordan is known for his famous
quote “Deaf people can do anything but hear” when he gave a speech at Gallaudet
University during the protest known as Deaf President Now (Holte & Dinis, 2001;
Kamm-Larew, Stanford, Greene, Heacox & Hodge, 2008; Marschark & Spencer, 2003;
Sarti, 1993). The “Deaf President Now” protest at Gallaudet University was a cry for
equality and justice in a workplace for Deaf people. The protest started when a hearing
candidate was selected over two qualified Deaf candidates and Deaf people demanded
3
equality (Gannon, 1998). The protest brought national and global awareness to the long
history of social injustice and inequality faced by Deaf people in America (Anderson,
2013; Baber, 2003). In addition, this protest also paved the way for the emergence of
Deaf leaders in organizations and intuitions who cater to predominately Deaf and hard-
of-hearing people (Chin, 2010; Kamm-Larew et al, 2008).
Today there are more Deaf people who are professionals with positions of power
(Hauser, Finch, & Hauser, 2010; Hoza, 2010); however, there are still not many deaf
executives operating deaf-service agencies (Woodcock & Pole, 2008). Deaf-service
organizations in this paper refer to businesses, agencies, organizations and educational
institutions that provide services largely, if not solely, to Deaf and hard-of-hearing
children, adolescents, and adults. These types of organizations greatly value the use of
ASL and embrace the concept that Deaf people are part of a cultural minority group and
that Deaf staff members are viewed as role models (Glickman & Heines, 2013; Young,
Ackerman, & Kyle, 2000). Furthermore, Young et al., added that the essential part of the
services in deaf-service organizations is their perception of the importance and essence of
employing Deaf people who are ASL users to serve Deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers.
Besides fostering the employment of Deaf individuals, deaf-service agencies are also able
to boost the professional development of their employees by recognizing the Deaf staff’s
cultural identity. Although most Deaf people work in hearing workplaces there are more
Deaf professionals leading and working along with other Deaf people in deaf-service
agencies (Doe, 2014). However, a search of literature found no studies of the deaf-
services organizations and the experiences of Deaf people working in deaf-service
4

organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological study is to learn from
and better understand the experiences of individuals working in a deaf-service
organization with predominantly deaf employees.
Background of the Problem
Individuals with disabilities struggle to survive economically and socially as the
employment rate tends to be low for this group (Gewurtz & Kirsh, 2009; Schur et al.,
2005). In 2010, 18.7% of the American population was reported to have a disability
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). As stated previously, unemployment rates for those with a
disability are higher than for those who do not have a disability (Fogg, Harrington, &
McMahon, 2010; McMahon & Shaw, 2005) and individuals with disabilities struggle to
attain employment (Achterberg, Wind, De Boer, & Frings-dresen, 2009).
Rumrill and Fitzgerald (2010) suggested that employers might be reluctant to hire
and accommodate the needs of a person with disability, which further adds to the
difficulties in attaining employment, while Schur et al. (2005) wrote that the pejorative
attitudes of employers and co-workers hinder accessibility in the workplace for
individuals with disabilities. Schur et al. further stated that these pejorative attitudes
prevent individuals with disabilities from succeeding at work, from both a vocational and
social standpoints because they are not accepted as part of the team. Additionally
individuals with disabilities might face ineffective structures that do not allow them to do
their jobs effectively (Schur et al., 2005). Finally, earning less money compared to their
non-disabled co-workers and being treated unequally are part of life for individuals with
disabilities (Deal, 2007; Wooten & James, 2005).
5
A survey conducted by Simms, Rusher, Andrews, and Coryell (2008) discovered
that there is a very low number of Deaf administrators and overall increase in the number
of Deaf professionals has been less than 10 percent since 1993. Although the number of
deaf-service organizations is increasing, most Deaf people still work in a predominately
hearing environment (Doe, 2014). Whether working in hearing workplaces or deaf
workplaces, findings by Jacobs, Brown, and Paatsch (2012) suggested that Deaf people
credited their deafness to their success in life including employment. This study aims to
discover the experiences of Deaf people working in a workplace with predominately Deaf
co-workers and around people who share a common culture and language.
Obtaining accurate estimates of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (HOH) populations in
the United States is difficult (Sheridan et al., 2010). Brault (2012) from the U.S. Census
Bureau stated that there are about 1.1 million people who reported having severe hearing
loss. Despite Deaf people labeling themselves non-disabled and that Deaf people can do
anything but hear, there are a plethora of studies that indicate that Deaf people face
difficulties and challenges in a predominately hearing workplace (Backenroth, 1997;
Boutin & Wilson, 2009; Cawthon & Caemmerer, 2014; Foster, 1987; Foster, 1998;
Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven, Anema, Goverts, Bosmans, Fester
& Kramer, 2012; Hintermair, 2008; Luft, 2000; Punch, Hyde, & Creed, 2004; Punch,
Hyde, & Power, 2007; Rosengreen, Saladin, & Hansman, 2009; Rosengreen & Saladin,
2010; Shaw, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2010; Tyler, 2004). Seventeen years of studies among
researchers in this field yielded the same data as it relates to career barriers faced by Deaf
people.
6
Fabian, Ethridge, and Beveridge (2009) explained that barriers to job success
occur internally and externally. Internal factors include individuals’ perception of how
well a Deaf person can perform a job, and external factors include means of getting to
work, availability and provision of accommodations, and opportunities for work (Fabian
et al., 2009). Other barriers that Deaf people in hearing environments encounter are
limited or no accommodations and accessibility, communication and linguistic barriers,
and discrimination.
Accommodations and Accessibility
Haynes and Linden (2012) found through their study that Deaf people report
being unsatisfied with the level of accommodations at their places of employment, such
as technology not being available or readily accessible for them, and lack of support from
their co-workers. Another important accommodation is the use of sign language
interpreters (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004). However,
companies are reluctant or financially unable to hire interpreters because the cost is high
(Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010), ranging from $30.00 to $100.00 per hour. Often
companies are charged a minimum of two hours even if the interpreting need was not for
that amount of time (Cost Helpers Small Business, 2014; Massachusetts Commission for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 2015; Tyler, 2004). At times, the prices for interpreters
can be as high as $150.00 for the first hour and $65.00 per hour thereof (Andrea Smith
Interpreting, n.d.).
Some employers hire interpreters for limited amount of time. This results in the
deaf person missing out information when there is absence of sign language interpreters.
7

They can miss information when hearing co-workers share information with the
interpreters without the presence of the Deaf person, which is not the role of the
interpreter (Sheridan et al., 2010). Often sign language interpreters are simply not
available at workplaces (Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Sheridan et al., 2010; Wheeler-
Scruggs, 2003). For general companies, converting the physical structures of the office,
such as installing a wheelchair ramp, is a one-time expense. Accommodating a Deaf
employee comes with an ongoing expense, making it unattractive to hire Deaf employees
(Houston et al., 2010).
Discrimination
Discrimination can be unintentional or intentional (Woodcock & Pole, 2008) and
discrimination is manifested in various ways, such as being denied access to
communication, promotions, and experience of negative perceptions such as perception
“deficiency, dysfunction, and deviance” (Luckner & Stewart, 2003). Obtaining
employment is a problem for many Deaf people (Luft, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2010).
When employers who have an established mind-set that Deaf people are handicapped,
they often fail to understand the concept that Deaf people consider themselves as a
cultural minority. Therefore a percentage of Deaf people continue to have difficulty
acquiring employment (Vogel & Keating, 2005; Walter & Dirmyer, 2013). Deaf
employees also face the challenges of discrimination such as being denied interpreters for
training, which has resulted in lawsuits (Shaw, 2012). At times promotion seems to be
out of reach for some Deaf employees. As Foster and MacLeod (2003) demonstrated in
their qualitative study Deaf employees have been told directly that they were ineligible
8
for promotion due to communication difficulties. These findings were corroborated by
Shaw (2012) who quoted one supervisor’s blatant statement, “there is no place for
someone we cannot communicate with”. This statement was in reference to a Deaf
person who applied for a job at a fast food franchise.
Lane (2005) explained the hearing loss itself is less the reason for discrimination,
but rather, linguistic difficulties and not providing reasonable accommodations for the
Deaf employee. Furthermore, as Luft (2014) described limited literacy skills influence
access to post-secondary education which in turn further limits vocational opportunities.
Discrimination and lack of support are attributed to the obstruction in people’s career
choices and development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010).
The fear of the ADA and the cost of interpreters have been identified as factors that might
negatively affect a Deaf person’s chances of being hired (Houston et al., 2010).
Struggling in the hearing environment is not new for Deaf employees. The
outlook for Deaf people in terms of employment has improved due to access to
education, training, and rehabilitation programs; however, this did not improve the
statistics of Deaf people being employed. Unemployment or under employment remains
high for Deaf people (Rosengreen et al., 2009; Tyler, 2004). Despite the struggles, Deaf
people are found to be capable of succeeding in the working world, as some Deaf people
have obtained supervisory roles even in hearing environments (Foster & MacLeod,
2003). Those who obtained managerial positions were graduates from a university
(Boutin & Wilson, 2009). Some Deaf leaders have taken the role in running education
systems and other organizations.
9

However, the number of Deaf professionals remains low due to the still limited
access to training and with that, upward mobility (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007). Moore
(2010) expressed that although lives of minorities have improved due to change in
leadership, but not in all areas of employment, as environmental barriers at times create
the disability rather than the deafness itself (Punch et al., 2004). Additionally, societal
attitude and opportunities in life continue to play a part in how deafness impacts a person
(Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012). The Deaf-World is a place where Deaf people
use ASL (Lane, 2005) and deaf-service organizations with predominately Deaf
employees could be considered a Deaf-World.
Statement of the Problem
This study addresses the problem of very little knowledge base about the lived
experiences and perceptions of Deaf employees working in both hearing and deaf
workplaces. This is especially true in deaf-services organizations that employ many Deaf
people. Since there are not that many deaf-service organizations, Deaf people continue to
work in hearing workplaces (Doe, 2014). There is a plethora of studies related to the
struggles faced by Deaf people in a predominately hearing workplaces (Backenroth,
1997; Foster, 1987; Foster, 1998; Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven
et al., 2012; Hintermair, 2008; Luft, 2000; Punch et al., 2004; Punch et al., 2007;
Rosengreen et al., 2009; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Shaw, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2010;
Tyler, 2004). However, despite their struggles, Deaf people are capable of functioning
successfully in a hearing workplace including managerial positions (Bain, Scott and
10
Steinberg, 2004). Working in a hearing workplace can generate either positive or
negative experiences.
Search of literature identified a problem of lack of literature regarding the
emergence of deaf-service organizations. At present, there is an emergence of deaf-
service organizations that allow Deaf people to work in a workplace where services are
catered to Deaf or Hard of Hearing consumers and employees alike. Since provision of
services targets the Deaf or Hard of Hearing population, communication accessibility is
readily available. However, there is lack of research that focuses on this population, and
as such, this study aims to generate more information regarding Deaf employee’s
perceptions, thoughts, and experiences about working in a Deaf workplace.
As Geyer and Schrodel (1998) pointed out based on the results of their survey
lack of job satisfaction led to feelings of frustration. This can be detrimental to the
employee as well as the employer/organization, as it is understood employees perform
better work when they are pleased with their work (Hiriyappa, 2009; Petty, Brewer, &
Brown, 2005; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984), which also promotes overall job
performance (Smith & Shields, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to close the knowledge gap by
exploring the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in
predominately deaf workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction,
relationships with hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or
Deaf supervisors and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in
11

employment. This study is important because a search of the literature found no studies
on Deaf people working in predominately deaf workplaces. Rosengreen and Saladin
(2010) explained that past studies discuss the successful outcomes of Deaf employees
revolving around identifying employer needs and expectations and those past studies
were of hearing workplaces.
This qualitative phenomenology thus seeks to fill the gap in the knowledgebase
by providing findings that might help other Deaf professionals working or those who
employ Deaf workers in a predominately deaf environment, vocational rehabilitation
counselors, guidance counselors, teachers of the deaf, career counselors or any deaf-
related professions to better understand the challenges as well as the rewards of working
in a predominately deaf workplace. Phenomenology research makes it possible to learn
about job satisfaction, relationship with supervisors and co-workers, and overall success
in employment.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it specifically gained insight into the perceptions,
experiences and thoughts of Deaf individuals, which up to now have not been studied and
are not well understood. This study is further significant as many supervisors or those
who work with Deaf people have a very limited understanding about working with Deaf
people and what accommodations are necessary for them to be satisfied and productive
employees: for example, providing Deaf employees with sign language interpreters to
ease communication (Fusick, 2008) since Deaf employee tends to be the only deaf person
in the environment (Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010) thus helping break down barriers to
12
employment success and upward mobility. This study is also significant because it
allows for a better understanding of the struggles and needs that Deaf people face,
because as Harder (2009) pointed out those with invisible disabilities often struggle
making their needs known.
This study is also significant as it might help also help employers in the Deaf
organizations because Deaf individuals often struggle with literacy in English (Pollard &
Barnett, 2009) and thus struggle to be understood as a Deaf individual with unique needs.
A deaf-service organization may seem alluring to Deaf employees or those who seek
employment. A culturally affirmative organization as described earlier by Glickman and
Heines (2013) is a place of employment where professionals working with Deaf
employees understand the trials and tribulations of Deaf people. However, there does not
seem to be any present knowledge from the perspectives of Deaf employees regarding
their experiences working in a predominately deaf workplace. There remains a gap in the
knowledge base about whether or not their deafness becomes unnoticeable or a matter of
concern in a deaf workplace or if Deaf employees experience discrimination, isolation,
communication barriers, or pejorative attitudes.
In addition, there is a gap in knowledge about whether Deaf employees
experience successes such as promotions, feeling equally exchanged, or sense of
inclusion in a predominately deaf workplace. This study hopes to bring such insight and
knowledge from the participants in this study. In addition, supervisors who have never
met a Deaf person often do not know sign language thus making it difficult to
communicate and engage in discussions with the deaf employee (Rosengreen & Saladin,
13

2010). Deaf professionals are entering the field in organizations that specialize in
delivery of services to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers and this means more Deaf
people are working in deaf-services organizations (Doe, 2014).
In regard to the success of operating a successful deaf-service organization
establishing a culturally affirmative philosophy is essential. The culturally affirmative
philosophy is about hiring Deaf employees to work with their deaf and hard-of-hearing
consumers as well as establishing an expectation that the environment will be readily
accessible for both the Deaf employees and consumers (Glickman & Heines, 2013).
Deaf-service organizations cater to the needs of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in
different realms so the person can come to work, as well as receive services, without
having their deafness as the forefront (Glickman & Heines). This breaks down the wall
of communication barriers as the person can come to work knowing that his or her
managers and co-workers can sign and understand deafness. Therefore, their deafness is
not a matter of attention as they come to work as individuals who happened to be deaf.
Being deaf does not necessarily qualify a person for the job and supervisors need to hire
Deaf people with qualifications. Managers also need to be qualified and believers of the
culturally affirmative philosophy (Glickman & Heines, 2013). Lack of work experience
resulting from lack of opportunities makes it difficult for Deaf people to gain experience
and qualifications for their resumes (Gournaris and Aubrecht, 2013). Deaf individuals
who did not graduate from high school struggle to obtain employment intensifying their
lack of experiences in employment (Schley et al., 2011).
14
Definition of Terms
Deaf
This paper uses Parasnis’ (1996) definition of use of Capital ‘D’ in Deaf. This
paper refers to a group of people with hearing loss who “share a common language (ASL
in this case) and cultural values that are distinct from the hearing society (Parasnis, p.
xiii). The lower case ‘d’ in deaf is associated with the “audiological conditions of
deafness” (p. xiii).
Deaf Culture
A shared value and belief system of a group of individuals who are Deaf that
consider themselves to be a linguistic minority and value American Sign Language as
their primary mode of communication (Padden, 1996). Padden added that the common
mission is equality in all aspects of their lives.
American Sign Language
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) defines American Sign Language
(ASL) as a visual language using hands that use shapes, movements and placements as
well as facial expressions and body movements to convey linguistic information
(NAD.org). ASL been formally recognized as a language with its own unique rules of
grammar and syntax.
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 to ban
discrimination against individuals with disability (Blanck, 2005; Kruse & Schur, 2003;
Lee, 2003; McMahon & Shaw, 2005; Randolph, 2004; Sheridan et al, 2010). ADA bans
15
discrimination involving hiring and firing of a person based on their disability (U.S.
Department of Justice, n.d.). Section 12111 (9) of the ADA also mandates that
employers provide reasonable accommodations including making physical changes in the
work environment (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). This law enables individual with a
disability to effectively perform the job duties (Butterfield & Ramseur, 2004).
Hearing People
People who do not have hearing loss and use a spoken language other than ASL
(Parasnis, 1996).
Hearing Workplace
A hearing workplace refers to a place of employment where the Deaf participant
either currently works or worked at where there were predominately non-signers (Foster,
1996).
Deaf Workplace/Deaf-Service Organizations
Deaf workplaces and deaf-services organizations are entities where the service
deliveries are geared for Deaf and Hard of Hearing children, adolescents and adults.
Deaf workplaces consist of predominately signing employees (Punch et al., 2007).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is subjective and what an individual perceives as satisfying or not
satisfying related to his or her job. Job satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a product of a
person’s perception based on what they desire to get out of the job and whether or not the
job fulfills their desires (Locke, 1968).
16
Socialization
Socialization involves communication that can be a formal/informal,
planned/unplanned, or structures/unstructured process, and this is a foundation for peer
interaction (Stinson & Foster, 2000) and can occur at places of employment (Foster &
MacLeod, 2003).
Research Design
As this study sought to explore the experiences of Deaf employees working in
deaf and hearing workplaces phenomenology was the appropriate research methodology.
Qualitative research is viewed to be the most appropriate and beneficial for studying a
phenomenon such as disability issues because qualitative studies provide more insight on
multifaceted experiences narrated by the individuals who have a disability (Creswell,
2009; Mertens, 2010; Schur et al., 2005). Qualitative studies can produce knowledge and
awareness to help others understand the experiences of participants in this study,
specifically with regard to their employment. This might assist others who share the
experience or those who work with this specialized population.
Purposeful sampling was utilized as this study examined a specific group
(Sandelowski, 1995), which for the purpose of this study were Deaf individuals who use
ASL as their primary method of communication. Based on the phenomenon being
studied, the researcher developed the criteria for the study (Tuckett, 2004) which were:
Deaf employees who utilize sign language as their primary mode of communication; and
who have at least one year of work experience in each environment, both deaf and
hearing.
17

The use of the phenomenological design was also appropriate as it enabled the
researcher to tell the unique stories of each of the participants who bring their unique
experiences with them (Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010). This allowed the researcher to
share the meanings and perspectives from the lived experiences (Collingridge & Gantt,
2008). While some may argue that qualitative studies are based on subjectivity,
nevertheless, the best way to learn about the lived experiences is by interviewing the
people who experienced the phenomenon that is being studied (Mertens, 2010).
Conducting face-to-face interviews is one avenue (Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010) and
since the participants in this study are Deaf, face-to-face interviews were necessary.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
This study adopted the phenomenological methodology as the research method.
The foremost rationale was that phenomenological studies allow the researcher to gain
knowledge from the participants who shared their lived experiences regarding a
phenomenon (Creswell, 2009; Giorgi, 1997; Mertens, 2010; Moustakas, 1994). Giorgi
(1997) explained that unlike quantitative studies, qualitative researches are not intended
to be scientific and the purpose of qualitative studies are to tell a story (Attride-Stirling,
2001). The story emerges from the themes derived from the study (Collingridge & Grant,
2008; Ponterotto, 2005; Smith & Firth, 2011). The themes found in this study answer the
six research questions of this study thus bringing closure to the problem by closing the
gap of knowledge.
The theoretical foundation of the study was based on equity and social exchange
theories. Equity theory discusses the concept of equity or inequity in a workplace that is
18
based on the perception and experiences of the employee (Adams, 1965; Lawler, 1968,
Pritchard, 1969). Social exchange theory is also based on the perceptions of the
employees regarding the availability or provision of exchange as a result of their
contribution to the job (Blau, 1964a; Homans, 1958; Lawler & Thye, 1999; Molm, 2003;
Zafirovski, 2001). These theories discuss the impact employees’ perceptions have on
outcome of their contribution to the job. Job motivation and job satisfaction impacts
employees’ contribution along with their perspective regarding their job Herzberg, 2003;
Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003; Stum, 2001). This study uses the tenets of the two
theories to learn about Deaf employees perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf
employees regarding equity and/or inequity in their respective workplaces along with
their views of reciprocity received or not received by their supervisors and co-workers.
A sample of 10 Deaf employees was selected to answer the research questions
regarding their job satisfaction, relationship with their hearing or Deaf supervisors and
Deaf and hearing co-workers and overall success in employment. This was possible by
using phenomenological qualitative study via in-depth face-to-face interviews to gain
new knowledge of their lived experiences working in deaf and hearing workplaces. Data
collection was a result of the face-to-face interviews. The researcher videotaped the
interviews which were later transcribed and coded.
Research Questions
This study was guided by Moustakas (1994) to address the gap of knowledge
regarding the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in
predominately deaf and hearing workplaces. Moustakas described phenomenology as a
19
way to discover and produce new knowledge base. The research questions adhered to
Moustakas’ guidelines to learn from the Deaf employees about their job satisfaction,
relationships with their hearing or Deaf supervisors and co-workers who know sign
language, and overall success in employment. By doing so, the research questions
become the center of this study. This study has two primary research questions and four
secondary research questions.
Primary Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees
working in a hearing workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
working in a predominately deaf workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
Secondary Research Questions
working in a hearing workplace regarding their relationships with hearing
supervisors and co-workers?
working in a predominately deaf workplace regarding their relationships with
supervisors and co-workers, deaf or hearing who may or may not know sign
language?
5. What are the perceptions, thoughts and experiences of Deaf employees
working in a hearing workplace regarding their overall success in
employment?
20

working in a predominately Deaf workplace regarding their overall success in
employment?
Assumptions
An assumption of this study through phenomenological methodology is that new
findings from this study will produce new knowledge (Moustakas, 1994). Data based on
first person account generated from the interviews are analyzed to better understand the
lived experiences of a phenomenon (Mertens, 2010; Moustakas, 1994). For this study,
new knowledge of the lived experiences of Deaf employees working in a deaf and
hearing workplace is intended to fill the gap in knowledge. Moustakas explained that
first person account is intended to search for meanings and essences of their experiences
rather than measuring and explaining. Another assumption is that the researcher will be
able to gather in-depth information from each participant during the one-on-one interview
since one-on-one interviews generally produces in-depth data (DiCicco-Bloom &
Crabtree, 2006). Additionally, it is assumed that since this researcher is Deaf and fluent
in sign language, communication barriers will be minimized. Lastly, it is assumed that
themes that emerge from this phenomenological study will be in alignment with literature
findings.
Limitations
All research has limitations. Qualitative studies especially have the limitation of
the lack of generalizability (Merriam, 2009). However, the purpose of this study was not
to generalize findings, but rather to better understand the lived experiences of Deaf
21
people. It is understood that the deaf community is a diverse group and as Benedict and
Sass-Lehrer (2007) clearly pointed out one Deaf person cannot represent and speak for all
Deaf people. Some deaf people may find some commonality; however, there are many
variables, situations, or circumstances that makes each one of them distinctive. Their
deafness, working in deaf and hearing workplaces, and use of sign language may be the
common denominators among the participants, considering all factors that may make
each participants’ stories unique to their own is imperative. This study used only 10
participants and the 10 participants clearly cannot represent the rest of Deaf employees.
Sandelowski (1995) stated that purposeful sampling is intended to add to the research
instead of generalizing to the rest of the comparable population.
The other limitation involves the pre-signed interview questions. The researcher
translated the interview questions into ASL. In order to check the accuracy of the
translation of questions, Jones, Mallinson, Phillips, and Kang (2006) utilized a sign
language interpreter who watched the videotape and translated the interview questions in
ASL into English. The interpreter did not have the interview questions prior to watching
the videotape. Then the authors compared how the interpreter translated the questions
into English and how they wrote the questions for validity and reliability. However, this
researcher conducted a pilot test consisting of three people who compared the questions
in English and watched the videotape to determine if the way it was written in English
was conveyed accurately or comparable in ASL.
Lastly, Mertens (2010) cautioned that a bias can occur when the researcher
belongs to the same group as the participants so the researcher did attempt to minimize
22

bias by not assuming anything based on her knowledge about deafness and ask questions
to elicit answers based on the participants’ experiences only.
Expected Findings
The researcher hopes that this study will increase what is known about the
experiences Deaf employees working in a Deaf environment and further, that the findings
of this study will provide insight into the struggles as well as successes of Deaf people in
working within a predominately deaf environment. Many studies indicated that the
limited knowledge about deafness on part of hearing employers and co-workers create
some type of hardship for the Deaf employee (Bowe et al., 2005; Foster & MacLeod,
2003; Luft, 2000; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010). In a predominately deaf workplace,
deafness will be a familiar phenomenon thus opening more unanswered questions such
as: “What are the experiences of Deaf employees working in an environment where their
deafness is a common denominator?”
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to close the knowledge gap
regarding the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in
predominately deaf workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction,
relationships with hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or
Deaf supervisors and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in
employment. This chapter discussed the findings regarding the difficulties Deaf
employees face in regard to accommodations/accessibility, communication/linguistic
barriers, and discrimination (Boutin & Wilson, 2009; Cawthon & Caemmerer, 2014;
23
Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven, Anema, Goverts, Bosmans, Fester
& Kramer, 2012; Hintermair, 2008; Punch, Hyde, & Power, 2007; Rosengreen, Saladin,
& Hansman, 2009; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010).
Deaf people have reported being unsatisfied with the limited accommodations at
their hearing workplaces (Haynes & Linden, 2012) including use of sign language
interpreters which often is lacking (Marschark et al., 2004). Sign language interpreters
are expensive (Tyler, 2004). Compared to others with disabilities, providing
accommodation for a Deaf employee is an ongoing expense which can be undesirable for
employers (Houston, et al, 2010).
Communication is essential and a necessity in any workplaces (Morreale, &
Pearson, 2008; Smith, Mikulecky, Dreher, Kibby, & Dole, 2000). Deaf employees often
face communication barriers and this issue has been identified to greatly impact personal
and vocational aspects of their lives (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008;
Gussenhoven et al., 2012; Houston et al., 2010; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Rosengreen
et al., 2009; Woodcock & Pole, 2008). When interacting with hearing co-workers who
do not sign, Deaf employees often struggle with writing back and forth as a mode of
communication since English is often not their primary language (Bishop & Hicks, 2005;
Brice, et al., 2013). In addition, lip-reading is not an easy task to master thus
exacerbating the communication barriers (Luey et al., 1995).
The struggles Deaf people have in regard to obtaining employment has been
found to be a result of discrimination and pejorative attitudes of employers (Foster &
MacLeod, 2003; Shaw, 2012; Vogel & Keating, 2005; Walter & Dirmyer, 2013). Lane
24
(2005) explained that deafness itself is not necessarily the reason for discrimination but
rather, the linguistic difficulties faced by Deaf employees. Lane added that denying
accommodations for the Deaf employee is the reason why Deaf people experience
discrimination. Thus, discrimination and lack of support have been found to contribute to
the difficulty Deaf people have with attaining employment along with obstructing their
chances for career choices and development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000; Rosengreen
& Saladin, 2010).
The studies found in many qualitative studies addressed the struggles faced by
Deaf employees in hearing workplaces. Bain et al. (2004) found in their qualitative that
Deaf people are capable of succeeding in hearing workplaces. Furthermore, review of
literature found no studies on the experiences of Deaf employees working in
predominately deaf workplace thus creating a gap in literature. This study chose to
utilize phenomenology research to close the gap by gaining knowledge on the
perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in predominately deaf
workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction, relationships with
and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in employment.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The review of literature is presented in Chapter 2, which includes the history and
problem outlined in Chapter 1. The review of the literature will include findings from
past research related to the subject under investigation, particularly literature and findings
as they relate to challenges and successes of Deaf people in places of employment.
25

Additionally, the review of the literature will describe the theoretical framework for this
study, which is social exchange theory and equity theory. Chapter 3 provides a
description of the methodology used for this study to answer the research questions.
Chapter 4 includes the analysis of the data that was generated by face-to-face interviews
and transcriptions. The final chapter presents an overall summary of the findings,
recommendations for future studies and conclusion. Appendix A outlines which
participants utilized the laptop to view the pre-recorded interview questions in ASL.
Appendix B exemplifies the mode of communication between the participants and their
non-signing supervisors in the hearing workplaces. Lastly, Appendix C provides
descriptions of each participant.
26
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
One area Deaf people experience struggle is with employment and most studies
discuss the problems faced by Deaf employees in a hearing workplace (Backenroth,
1997; Foster, 1987; Foster, 1998; Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven
et al., 2012; Hintermair, 2008; Luft, 2000; Punch et al., 2004; Punch et al., 2007;
Rosengreen et al., 2009; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Shaw, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2010;
Tyler, 2004). At present, there is an emergence of deaf-service organizations that allow
Deaf people to work in a workplace where services are catered to Deaf or Hard of
Hearing consumers and employees alike. Furthermore, search of literature also found
that there is very little study regarding the success Deaf people experience working in
hearing workplaces. Bain et al. (2004) conducted a qualitative study outlining successes
Deaf employees experienced in hearing workplaces. Despite the emergence of deaf-
service organizations, most Deaf people continue to work in hearing places (Doe, 2014).
Phenomenological studies allow for in-depth learning about the perspectives,
thoughts, and experiences of people in regard to a phenomenon (Creswell, 2009;
Mertens, 2010; Moustakas, 1994). In phenomenology, sample sizes are usually small,
yet purposeful; however, this type of study still allows the researcher to divulge in-depth
experiences shared by the small group (Connelly, 2010). Connelly explained that
phenomenological originated from a philosophical movement which intended to focus on
the lived experiences of the person regarding a phenomenon being studied. The process
can be rigorous and challenging since the researcher has to analyze the data from
individual perspectives and then study them as a whole by identifying themes derived
27
from the interviews of the participants (Sloan & Bowe, 2014).
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to gain a better understanding of
the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in predominately
deaf workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction, relationships
with hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or Deaf
supervisors and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in employment.
This review of the literature will first focus on the two theories that guided this
study, equity theory and social exchange theory, in the context of Deaf people in their
workplaces. Literature review, an important component in the research, provides a
background of what has been done and studied in previous studies by other researchers
(Boote & Beile, 2005). They explained that the researcher is a scholar first since the
researcher needs to become familiar with the work of other researchers regarding the
phenomenon being studied. Following this, this review will outline the shift from a
longstanding pathological view to how Deaf people are positively viewed today.
Literature findings regarding Deaf people and employment including accommodations
and accessibility will be discussed. This review also shares the synthesis of the findings
from the literature review of Deaf people and employment. Finally, this review will
outline that despite some knowledge about Deaf people in their respective working
places, there is very little, if any research that specifically focuses on the experiences of
Deaf employees’ views of their inputs and outputs and their perceptions about equality or
inequality when working in hearing and deaf workplaces. One of the aims of the study is
to learn how Deaf employees measure themselves and their achievements in comparison
28
to their co-workers and their perspectives of their own inputs and outputs in deaf and
hearing workplaces.
Theoretical Frameworks
Equity Theory
Equity theory applies to multitudes of disciplines including business relationships
(Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). The writings of Holman on social exchange
theory regarding justice, a social phenomenon impacting people’s work and social lives,
led Adams to develop equity theory (Beugré, 1998). Adams (1965) used the term
inequity rather than injustice due to his theory that inequity refers to the causes and
consequences related to interactions and exchanges between people. Adams elaborated
about the inevitability that one person may view the exchange as inequitable. Types of
exchanges involving pay, intelligence, education, experience, training, skill, age,
seniority status at work, ethnic background, gender, social status, level of interest, and
motivation along with the amount of work a person invests in his or her job play an
important role in equity theory (Adams, 1965; Lawler, 1968; Pritchard, 1969). The three
authors explained that a person’s physical attributes such as a person’s appearances,
health status, and possession of some type of desired tools or characteristics of a person’s
partner are factors considered during the transaction of exchanges. Adam (1965)
explained the majority of the contributors and receivers of the exchange agree with the
aforementioned types of exchanges and expanded on what to expect during the exchange
process. People engaging in the contribution are determinants of whether the exchange is
equal or unequal (Adams, 1963).
29

Some past, yet relevant, studies have addressed the issue of organizational
fairness and justice in workplaces. For example, Beugré (1998) pointed out that
successful outcomes of the business are contingent on employees’ productivity, whereas
the concept of equity centers on the level of aggression, number of turn-overs,
commitment, trust, and performances of the employees. Furthermore, as Walster et al.
(1973) suggested, the impact of people’s perceptions of the quality of exchange depends
on reciprocity within the contribution or exchange. Perceptions of inequality could lead
to distress, while attempting to restore equity-- for example by either contributing less at
work or doubling the amount of work-- to restore feelings of equality.
According to Adams (1963; 1965), exchanges involve two parties, whereas the
term “Person” refers to an individual who has a perception of equity or inequity and the
term “Other” refers to any individual who the Person is in an exchange relationship with
or compare himself or herself with. Additionally, Adams found that inequity transpires
when the perceived ratio of the Person’s and Other’s outcomes to inputs are offset.
Inputs refer to the contribution a person makes during the exchange or in a relationship,
and outcomes, positive or negative, are what the person receives for his or her
contribution. Examples for positive outcome are pay, reward, fundamentals to the job,
seniority, fringe benefits, a positive supervisor relationship, job status, and privileges.
Examples of negative outcomes are insults, rudeness, or rejection in the employee-
employer relationship (Adams, 1963; Adams, 1965).
According to Lawler (1968), Pritchard (1969) and Walster et al. (1973), inputs
result in either rewards, which are positive, or costs, which are negative. The perception
30
of the type, level, or value of the inputs determines how the person will measure the type
of exchange expected to reciprocate for their input (Adams, 1965; Pritchard, 1969).
When individuals work for pay, the Person develops an assessment of his or her
own inputs and outputs. Additionally the Person also develops the perception of how he
or she evaluates and determines the Other person’s inputs and outputs (Adams &
Jacobsen, 1964; Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962; Lawler, 1968; Pritchard, 1969) and they
compare himself or herself to their fellow co-workers (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles,
1987). Perceived inequity or inequality of outcomes could lead to cognitive dissonance.
However, the Person will strive to achieve equilibrium (Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962), by
either increasing the input to match the outcome or decrease the outcome to align it with
the inputs (Adams & Jacobsen, 1964).
Should such equilibrium not be achieved, unpleasant emotional states can emerge,
as Adams and Jacobsen explained -- for example, tension, stress, guilt and even anger,
along with dissatisfaction. The degree of the unpleasant emotional states is contingent on
the degree of inequity (Adams, 1965). It also depends on the potential responses that the
Person chooses, such as altering his or her input and output, either by decreasing or
increasing it, engaging in rationalization to create a sense of equality by altering his or
her perception of the situation, leaving the field or obtaining a transfer. The Person might
act out on the Other by changing the object to whom he or she compares himself or
herself to. A Person might choose which mode of inequity to accept. Crowe (2003)
underlined that feelings of inequity might also lead to feelings of mistrust which might
manifest itself in negative attitudes toward others.
31
Assessment of Equity and Inequity
Huseman et al. (1987) proposed four schemes that explain Adam’s concepts and
the rationale for the sense and responses to inequality. First, they stated that the
determination of the existence of equality or inequality depends on how the Person
compares himself or herself to counterparts. Second, if the Person perceives that the
other person is performing comparable inputs but has better outputs, inequality exists for
the Person. Third, elevated stress assumes that the Person prefers to have sense of
equality and have comparable outcomes as others around him. Fourth, the Person might
choose to terminate the relationship after analyzing the outputs or the Person might find
different ways to compare the input and outcomes between themselves and the Other.
Different outcomes can also be seen in how much a person in paid. As Lawler (1968)
suggested, if the Person feels overpaid for the work performed, overcompensation occurs
as evidenced by the person working harder to match the value of his or her payment, thus
seconding Adams’ (1965) assertion that employees rationalize to remove feelings of guilt
if perceiving that his or her level of contribution does not match the amount of rewards
received. This might also motivate people to work harder to maximize outcomes
(Walster et al. 1973).
Equity theory further posits that employees often examine themselves to assess
the type of qualifications they have in order to measure the level of contribution in
addition to determining how they can be reciprocated or they evaluate their work in
relation to pay (Celik, 2011). If the pay equals to the work conducted, the more satisfied
the employees are; however, if the employees feel they are underpaid, feelings of
32

resentment become evident which might further affect motivation that is influenced
factors in the environment (Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003).
Motivation and Satisfaction
Yet, motivation can be increased. Herzberg (2003) and Ruthankoon and
Ogunlana (2003) identified factors that increase motivation: achievement; recognition;
the type of work given; the sense of responsibility at work; advancement; the possibility
of upward mobility; interpersonal relations with supervisors, peers, and subordinates;
environmental conditions at work; income; feelings of security about the job; and
employees’ current status at work and the positive outcomes experienced by employees.
With regard to the employee satisfaction, Stum (2001) identified five factors that
contribute positively to this: a) feeling of safety and security, both physical and
psychological that are related to commitment to the job as well; b) reward with regard to
compensation; c) sense of belonging and affiliation, e.g. feeling like a member of the
team; d) opportunities, and e) work/life harmony. Equity in the compensation creates
feelings of satisfaction.
Deaf People and Employment
With regard to Deaf people, Lane (2005) explained that Deaf people vie for a
sense of belonging and they attain this from being around other Deaf people. Working in
a deaf workplace where there are other Deaf and hearing co-workers including
supervisors who know sign language allows for opportunities to belong to the team at
work. Opportunities for personal and professional growth are identified to be crucial part
of the job. The level of commitment to the job has been identified to be contingent on
33

their trust that they will experience professional and personal growth. Employees also
strive to have work/life harmony meaning that having a sense of equilibrium at work
including feeling successful or sense of success creating sense of harmony in their
everyday life.
Equity theory can help to understand employees’ perceptions about the fairness of
the outcomes they received as a result of their inputs. Using this theory as part of the
theoretical framework for this research allows Deaf participants to share their
perspectives, thoughts and experiences as they relate to social exchanges, pay equity,
benefits, status, fairness that contribute to perceptions of equity of Deaf people.
Social Exchange Theory
George Homans, John Thaibaut, Harold Kelley, and Peter Blau are the renowned
names in social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976; Meeker, 1971). Blau (1964a)
described social exchange as an action voluntarily performed by individuals motivated to
get something in return expected as a result of their contribution. Such exchanges are not
limited to employment alone; they also apply in areas of love and friendship. Examples
of social exchanges described by Blau include neighbors swapping favors and recipes,
sharing of toys among children, and colleagues debating scholarly topics and exchanging
their ideas. Humans desire family, challenges, professional recognition and social life
(Blau, 1964a).
Social behavior within the framework of social exchange theory is a phenomenon
that involves an exchange between a person and another person, corporate group, entity
and interchangeable occupants of hierarchy. The exchange can take place in forms of
34
tangibles such as material goods, title, raises, money, benefits as well as nontangible
goods such as approval, honor, prestige, acknowledgement and promotion; hence the
name, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964a; Homans, 1958; Molm, 2003; Zafirovski,
2001). Lawler and Thye (1999) simplified the concept of social exchange as “self-
interested actors who transact with other self-interested actors to accomplish individual
goals that they cannot achieve alone” (p. 217). Molm (2003) added that the tangible and
nontangible rewards can be used resources especially when they are beneficial to a
person within the exchange, thus creating a tangible outcome.
Homans (1964) suggested that social exchange theory features four propositions
that are designed to describe the relationship between properties of nature and which are
based on Skinner’s theory of reinforcement. The first proposition states that if a person is
rewarded, it is more likely that the person will continue to engage in actions in hope to
get the same type of reward. The second proposition is the opposite of the first
proposition: if a person’s actions are not rewarded the person is likely not to repeat the
action e.g. the person will not engage in the exchange again. The third proposition
explains how undesired emotions arise when a person did not receive a reward as
expected or received an unexpected punishment causing the person to engage in
undesired behavior or experience frustration. And finally, the fourth proposition relates
to anticipated rewards or rewards beyond their expectation, whereby the behavior is seen
as more valuable. This is likely to create feelings of happiness or satisfaction.
In the context of Deaf people in the workplace, frustrations can arise with regard
to behaviors, especially when perceptions of justice come into play combined with
35
feelings of frustration for those Deaf employees who rely on sign language for
communication, particularly within their interaction with supervisor who do not sign
(Foster & MacLeod, 2003). However, the majority of the Deaf people are bilingual:
capable of using written English enabling them to have some type of social interaction
with hearing people (Grosjean, 1996; Kushalnager, Hannay, & Hernandez, 2010), which
requires patience (Foster, 1998). Bain et al. (2004) found that Deaf employees who set
ground rules of how to have effective communication with hearing people experienced
enhanced ability to engage in reciprocal and productive dialogues as well as socialization.
Perceived outcomes for Deaf people might play a role in whether the effort is continued
or ceased, whereas the behavior is more likely to continue if it is perceived as a benefit
and more likely to cease if it becomes too much of a strain or too frustrating.
Building on Blau’s framework, Meeker (1971) provided three definitions for
social exchange theory: The first defines social exchange as an act performed by the
person and the other and the exchange is valuable to both parties. The second definition
relates to the interdependent relationship between the rewards and the cost which is
defined by the primary person’s values, and perceptions of the availability of alternatives
for the people involved in the exchange. This includes the preconceived planned for acts
of consequences for each available alternative. The third definition offers the notion that
the person and the other person are independent in their own actions and their decisions
regarding the exchange are based on whether the return was profitable for the person or
costly for the other person.
Meeker (1971) described four foundations: the person’s values; the person’s
36

perception of behavior routes to take in order to receive reciprocity; the person’s
expectations of the consequences of behavioral choices for that person and the others if
there was no exchange; and the presence of social norms of the society in which the
person abides by that govern the first three. Exchanges are outlined by Meeker as
follows: a) Exchange rules involve the person who is the participant of the exchange; b)
The act that is the behavior or actions performed by the person; c) the value of the acts
which are rewards or reinforcement a person receives based on his or her actions and the
values can be in forms of material, physical states of the person, affection, deference, and
conformity; d) cost of the act that can be in form of negative value or reinforcement.
Reciprocity within those exchanges should be expected at least to a minimum value and
that both parties are expected to follow through with the rules of the exchange
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Reciprocity in Workplaces
In order for Deaf employees to experience reciprocity in a hearing workplace,
communication has to take place, yet, very little research exists about how Deaf people
perceive reciprocity at their places of employment, especially as it relates to
communication. Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) outlined three types of reciprocities:
reciprocal interdependence, reciprocity as folk belief, and reciprocity as a moral norm.
Outcomes of the exchange are determined by the actions of two people involved in the
exchange and bidirectional transaction typically occurs which mandates something being
received and something given back, like returning a good deed. Gouldner (1960)
explained that people often feel the need to reciprocate. The general finding is that most
37

people will eventually be reciprocated equally and those who do not will end up with
negative repercussions. Those who do reciprocate will be rewarded with some type of
reciprocation. Blau (1964b) also believed that when people do not reciprocate justly,
feelings of guilt arise.
Reciprocity among Deaf and hearing employees is possible as Foster and
MacLeod (2003) pointed out, especially when Deaf employees felt their efforts were
reciprocated, for example as in being included in conversation and interoffice news and
when hearing co-workers reached out to provide support, as such, communication is an
essential function in a workplace for Deaf employees as well, and therefore barriers to
communication should be minimized to allow Deaf people access to upward mobility and
promotions (Bain et al., 2004) and attaining upper managerial positions (Bain et al.,
2004).
Not all Deaf people have positive experiences in the hearing workplace (Foster &
MacLeod, 2003; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010), especially when there were no perceived
benefits (Homans, 1968) or when reciprocity was not perceived to be of equal value
(Blau, 1964b). Social exchange theory has been identified as one of the foundations to
gain understanding of workplace behaviors as exchanges provide the potential of
generating favorable relationships between people hence employer/employee/coworkers
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Studies have found that positive outcomes and
beneficial actions directed at employees by the organizations or employers contribute to
high quality of exchange relationships (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Employee
satisfaction is related to their perceived support and being valued by the organization as
38
well as their employers. Organizational support is very important (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002).
Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived organizational support transpires when employees feel that they are
valued and well taken care of (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and employers have purposefully
created an atmosphere where employees feel obligated to perform well at work.
Organizations benefit from this type of reciprocity (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Rhodes and
Eisenberger (2002) wrote that when employees feel a sense of worth at work, they
demonstrate more dedication and loyalty and Eisenberger, et al said that the higher the
employees’ perception of support, the more the employees feel obligated to reciprocate.
This was corroborated in the longitudinal study by Riggle, Edmondson, and Hansen
(2009) which found that the more the support from the employers perceived by the
employees the better they perform their work duties.
Deaf employees have had mixed experiences with occupational satisfaction due to
equality and recognition for their work in the hearing workplace. Some fared very well
while others struggled with communication barriers, denied promotion, low pay, and
loneliness (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Punch et al., 2007; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Shaw,
2012; Tyler, 2004). Social exchange takes place between the employer and employee as
employers benefit from the reciprocity when morale and work performances increase
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange theory provides a way to understand
the rationales of employees perceiving the need to reciprocate their supervisors and
perform above and beyond their duties (Settoon et al., 1996). Employees feel obligated
39

to return the favor by working harder when they perceive they have been treated fairly, as
their desire to reciprocate becomes great (Maertz, Griffeth, Campbell, & Allen, 2007;
Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Wayne, Shore, & Linden, 1997).
Rewards lead to an increase of perceived value by employees which can be
observed in different forms such as praise, mentoring, promotions, raises in salary,
mutual respect, access to information, approval, support, formation of coalition, social
status, loyalty, trust, positive interpersonal affect, fairness, and recognition (Cook & Rice,
2003; Hom, Tsui, Wu, Lee, Zhang, Fu, & Li, 2009; Molm, 2003; Rhodes & Eisenberger,
2002; Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne et al.,1997). In exchange for the fairness, the
employees reciprocate by working harder, and maintaining good attendance (Cropanzano
& Mitchell, 2005). Interdependence relationship between the employee and employer is
strong when the level of trust is solid and foundations of social exchange involve trust
and perception of fairness by employees (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano,
Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson et al., 2000; Molm, 2003; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002;
Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne et al., 1997). When the employee and employer have a
trusting relationship this increases the likelihood of some type of exchange.
Interchangeable relationships between the employers and employees have been
noted to be beneficial for both parties especially when benefits from such giving are
exchanged, thus known as the pay-off, are either fair or more than fair (Cook & Rice,
2003; Settoon et al., 1996). Employees and employers value fair exchanges and in the
long run organizations benefit from the positive social exchanges. When there is a strong
foundation of mutual trust and loyalty between the employer and employee, the
40
likelihood of existence of exchange is higher (Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008).
Although desired, not everyone acquires a fair exchange thus creating feelings of
animosity and resentment towards the person who did not reciprocate fairly according to
his her own calculated value (Blau, 1964a; Blau, 1964b). Deaf people find ways to cope
with the undesired emotions as Bain et al. (2004) found that some Deaf employees
learned to accept that there would not always be communication equality thus lessening
the negative emotions. On the other hand, feelings of satisfaction occur when the person
perceives the anticipated and desired reward of his or her preconceived value was met
(Blau, 1964b). Furthermore, the person determines the value of the exchange based on
their experiences with reciprocity and history of reinforcement (Cook & Rice, 2003).
In sum, social exchange theory has been viewed as a combination of theories
deriving from other theoretical frameworks (Emerson, 1976). The economic concept
utilized by Blau includes transactions occurring between two parties where the
behavior/response are contingent on the response of another person and what one finds
rewarding and not rewarding which is demonstrated in more research in this field (Cook
& Rice, 2003; Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, Xiao-Ping, Tetrick, 2009).
Theoretical Synthesis
Equity theory and social exchange theories have been applied to the field of
employment (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964a; Cook & Rice, 2003; & Emerson, 1976). Both
theories can be intertwined and have an impact on job satisfaction. An employee’s sense
of equality or inequity as well as their perception of whether or not there is some type of
equal reciprocity is an important factor on their performance (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964a,
41
Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958).
Job satisfaction impacts an employee’s emotional well-being, productivity,
interpersonal relations with co-workers and supervisors, and motivation (Adams, 1963;
Adams, 1965; Buegré, 1998; & Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003). Job satisfaction has
sparked great interest amongst people who work in and study organizations (Lu, While,
& Barriball, 2005). These authors explained that job satisfaction is not limited to whether
employees find the nature of the job satisfying or dissatisfying, but the expectations
employees have regarding what their employers should provide for them.
Deaf employees face issues at work with discrimination (Wooten & James, 2005)
such as lack of accommodations, denying promotion, barriers (Foster & MacLeod, 2003;
Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010). It is every person’s right to use whatever means it takes
to develop and express his or her own talents (Stein, 2007). Discrimination at work can
impact job satisfaction leaving individuals with disability experiencing sense of inequity
(Uppal, 2005). There are laws such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to combat
discrimination.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Discrimination is defined as “less favorable or unfavorable treatment of an
employee or job applicant with physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a
major life activity” (Wooten & James, 2005, p. 125) and they explained that
discrimination is a reality for individuals with disabilities. Schur, Kruse, Blasi, and
Blanck (2009) shared their findings through studies where employers openly admitted
that discrimination plays a role as well as the attitudes of employers and co-workers in
42

regard to lower pay. This was not related to a potential, lack of productivity on part of
individuals with disability. Schur et al. further indicated that individuals with disabilities
are often marginalized at work and frequently face lower pay, benefits, and job security
as well as exclusion from participation in decision-making and company training.
To help address the multiple issues that individuals with a disability face,
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 (Wooten & James,
2005), which was viewed as a turning point for civil rights as it is designed to combat
discrimination as well as to remove oppression, segregation, and inequality in various
places including employment, impose accommodations, and to improve the lives of those
with disabilities (Blanck, 2005; Kruse & Schur, 2003; Lee, 2003; McMahon & Shaw,
2005; Randolph, 2004; Sheridan, White, & Mounty, 2010). Although the ADA was
passed in Congress in 1990, it did not become the law of the land until 1994 (Hotchkiss,
2004). The concept behind the ADA is similar to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which bans discrimination and requires that individuals cannot be treated
differently based on their sex, race, age, religion and national origin (U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Furthermore, the ADA requires employers
to impose accommodations for individuals with disabilities, which shifted the
responsibility to the institutions to enable individuals with disabilities to be able to adjust
to the environment (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009b). Accommodations mean
adapting the work environment for individuals with disabilities. This includes modifying
the physical structure as well as providing equipment or any form of technology that will
43
enable individuals with disability to effectively perform their duties (Butterfield &
Ramseur, 2004).
The goal of the ADA was to reduce the unemployment rate among individuals
with disabilities and to break down the barriers at workplaces (Hotchkiss, 2004). The
ADA bans practices such as discrimination in the hiring, firing and other decisions
related to employment based on the person’s disability (Kruse & Schur, 2003). This
means if individuals with disabilities need to have some type of intervention related to
their performance, the issue cannot be related to their disabilities (McMahon & Shaw,
2005).
However, despite the concept and goals outlined in the ADA, this legislation did
not appear to have an impact on omitting or at least reducing discrimination, and neither
did it impact the rate of unemployment for individuals with a disability. Houston,
Lammers and Svorney (2010) commented on the rise of the employment rate for
individuals without disability after the recession between the years 1990-2001. Similar
trends could not be observed for individuals with disabilities (Dinsmore, 2004;
Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2004). Rather the opposite was the case: unemployment for
individuals with a disability increased. Bagenstos (2004) also reported that the ADA did
not impact unemployment among this population as did the National Council on
Disability (2007). Although the ADA did not appear to have influenced the high
unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities, Bagenstos outlined positive
outcomes of the ADA: individuals with a disability have become more visible; they find
easier access to places they visit and frequent; and more awareness and reduction of
44

ignorance as well as a decreased stigma associated with being disabled. Furthermore, the
ADA had some counter-effects regarding employment (Bagenstos, 2004; National
Council on Disability, 2007).
The ADA is mandated for employers with 15 or more employees to provide
individuals with disabilities with “reasonable accommodation” to prevent hardship for the
employers (Bowe, McMahon, Chang, & Louvi, 2005; Geyer & Schrodel, 1999; Lee,
2003). Reasonable accommodations can assist individuals with a disability to perform
their job duties successfully (U.S. Office of Personal Management, n.d.). Examples of
accommodations include providing interpreters, readers, modifying job duties, changing
or reconstructing the work site, providing flexible schedules, and providing technological
assistance to allow people the opportunity to work at specific job sites including their
home (U.S. Office of Personal Management, n.d.).
Not everyone embraced the ADA because some felt it was unfair to the
businesses and employers as some accommodations would be very costly. However,
some research suggested that the cost for accommodation has not been as expensive as
initially thought (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012; Lee, 2002). Yet, as McMahon et al.
(2008) found in their study the trend of employers intentionally not hiring individuals
with disabilities continues. Although the ADA law requires employers to provide
reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities, the law cannot change the
mindset and attitudes of the non-disabled individuals towards individuals with disability
(Bagenstos, 2004; Deal, 2007). The attitudinal mindset highly depends on the how
individuals with disabilities are viewed.
45
The medical model of disability focuses on identifying the disability that a person
has (White, Simpson, Gonda, Ravesloot, & Coble, 2010) and how such a disability can
be treated (Rumrill & Fitzgerald, 2010). This perspective seems to equate the disability
with a sickness that requires “fixing” and how the disability impacts the lives of
individuals with a disability and others around them such as their families, place of
employment/education, and political affiliation (Burch & Sutherland, 2006). These
attitudes impact the ability of people with disabilities to participate fully in the
community (White et al., 2010) and with that their ability to be employed.
According to Balser (2007), Campolieti (2009); and Putman (2005), individuals
with disabilities expressed for a long time that the disabling factors of their disability are
a product of the environment along with the incompatibility of the environment
exacerbating the disability. Furthermore, if the environment would adapt and gear more
towards them their disability will go unnoticed or unhindered. This exemplifies an
alternative standpoint that as long as places modify the environment and provide
appropriate accommodations, the disabled person becomes a person who just happens to
have disability. Individuals with disabilities view themselves as a person first and their
disability comes in second; they do not let their disability define who they are as a person
and how they perceive themselves to be part of a culture (Peters, 2000; Shakespeare,
2014). The definition of disability remains the same; however, the view of disability has
changed over the last 20 years shifting from the medical standpoint to viewing the person
being a product of the interaction between the person and the environment including
46

employment (Burge et al., 2007; O’Day & Killeen, 2002). Despite the changes, equality
is not fully attained (Lindstrom, Kahn, & Lindsey, 2013; Wehman, 2011).
Pathological to Positive Viewpoint about Deafness
Shalock (2004) described the changes of views, mindsets, and attitudes of the
general population regarding disability including the improvement of how disability is
perceived. A majority of the individuals with disabilities strive to become full-fledged
members of society (Hammel, Magasi, Heinemann, Whiteneck, Bogner, & Rodriquez,
2008). These individuals view themselves as equal participants of society in all arenas of
their lives and they vie for social inclusion and equality. Deaf-service organizations
managed by Deaf individuals are not a new concept. The Center for Independent Living
(CIL) was the first national grassroots movement for social justice and civil rights led by
individuals with disabilities. They developed their own philosophy of life, which
proclaim their desires to live and be a part of society as independently as possible, guided
and governed by their own community (Deegan, 1992). CIL has been a driving force for
the change of attitudes, mindsets, and equality on the part of society to improve the lives
of the individuals with disabilities, rejecting the mindset that those with disabilities need
to be “fixed,” but rather to allow individuals with disabilities the opportunity to work and
integrate into society as independently as possible and to improve their quality of life
through advocacy and awareness building (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Thus,
the authors explained the shift from seeing disabilities from a medical model towards a
model of positive psychology. Shalock (2004) outlined eight quality-of-life domains and
summarizes how they impacting the quality of life centering on the emotional,
47
psychological and functionality of a person, which is part of the movement to allow
disabled people to improve their lives. This can be perceived as a guiding tool to
determine whether or not the domains are being fulfilled for them. The domains function
as a guide and assessment tool to determine whether or not the domains are being
fulfilled for individuals, which are contentment, self-concept, and lack of stress.
Contentment influences feelings of satisfaction, moods, and enjoyment among the
participants. Self-concept is related to a person’s feelings of self-worth and their self-
esteem. Lack of stress comes from predictability and possessing control over their lives
and situations. The individuals’ feelings of contentment, self-worth and having minimal
stress in their lives are enhanced by the positive experiences in their lives.
Positive psychology as a model allows could therefore allow disabled individuals
to be embraced and respected as equals while enjoying the elements that comprise quality
of life, which also includes interpersonal relationships and interactions as well as support,
as individuals with disabilities, just as they counterparts without disabilities, encounter
individuals on both social and personal levels, such as families, friends or peers.
According to Shalock, relationship can promote emotional well-being and the ability to
acquire supports including emotional, financial, physical and feedback. The levels of
support the individuals have enables them to rate the quality of their lives.
However, Deaf people face communication barriers when interacting with hearing
co-workers and supervisors, which can create stress and impact communication within a
hearing environment (Rosengreen et al., 2009), which could explain why Deaf people
gravitate to their own kind because common linguistic communication is readily
48

available when they socialize with other Deaf people (Holcomb, 2012).
Although Deaf people are employed in hearing and non-hearing workplaces, Deaf
people continue to struggle financially because they tend to be underemployed, which
affects their housing situation just to name one example (Haynes & Linden, 2012; Kurata
& Brodwin, 2013) while it continues to be hard to pinpoint exact numbers for Deaf
people in the workforce (Mitchell, 2005). Additionally, Deaf people can benefit from a
college education and improve their personal competencies which would allow them earn
more money (Boutin, 2008) and it might also allow them for more independence and
success and mobility (Shalock, 2005). Independence further allow Deaf people to make
more choices for themselves, which leads to self-determination and the individuals’ sense
of autonomy and personal control, self-reliance and having an “I can” mentality to
become members who fully participate in societal activities (Komesaroff, 2006; Kamm-
Larew et al., 2008). Foster and MacLeod (2003) pointed out in an older, yet relevant
article that social inclusion allows for individuals to be part of the majority by means of
community integration. Individuals assess the level of inclusion they experience to
determine whether or not they are satisfied with the integration, how they assess their role
as contributors or volunteers in the community. Inclusion in a hearing workplace can be
a struggle for Deaf employees, but feelings of deep appreciation arises when they are
included in the social aspects of work and having a sense of belonging (Foster &
MacLeod, 2003; Hintermair, 2008).
49
Deafness as a Cultural Model
Deafness has not always been viewed as a culture since the medical model took
hold of people’s views for a long time (Golos, Moses, & Wolbers, 2012). Davis (2007)
explained that historically the term ‘Deaf’ described a person’s inability to hear or having
a physical impairment. The medical model addresses deafness as a disabling condition
resulting from hearing loss that prevents a person from understanding speech and thus
making it difficult for him or her to navigate within the hearing mainstream (Rosen,
2008; Wheeler-Scruggs, 2003).
Today’s definition has changed to include the cultural model as well. Societal
perception of Deaf people has evolved over the past 30 years (Davis, 2007). The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2011) defines ‘deaf’ as lacking
full or partial hearing and a group of people belonging to a culture. Deaf people shouted
with their hands that deafness should not be viewed as a disability but rather as a group of
people belonging to a unique culture or a subgroup (Lane, 2008; Sheppard & Badger,
2010). This includes focus on their capabilities including employment whereas the
disability only becomes more visible when society as a whole and places of employment
do not provide the Deaf with appropriate accommodations to fully participate in societal
activities, including employment (Bowe et al., 2005; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010).
As such, impairment is not the focus of Deaf people; the focus is on a group of
people who share two commonalities: their hearing loss and their common language,
ASL (Lane, 2005; Valentine & Skelton, 2008) and with that finding means to overcome
misconceptions by educating society about the multifaceted components of deafness
50
(Scheier, 2009). The cultural model allows each Deaf person to be seen as a person with
unique characteristics that define him or her as a person (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007)
where the common denominator is the use of ASL as their primary language used to
communicate their thoughts, as “For the Deaf, the hands is the mouth of speech, the eye,
its ear. Deaf hands speak. Deaf eyes listen” (Seibers, 2001, p. 737). As a culture, Deaf
people are a minority group, whereas it is believed that the minority groups tend to form
based on being ostracized by the mainstreamed (Burch & Sutherland, 2006; Doe, 2014;
Jambor & Elliott, 2005).
Deaf people and Employment
Literatures discussed the frustrations experienced by Deaf employees regarding
lack of upward mobility and interpersonal relations with supervisor and peers as well as
their incomes in relation to their positions (Bowe, McMahon, Chang, & Louvi, 2005;
Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Punch et al., 2007; Shaw, 2012; Tyler, 2004). Emergence of
Deaf leaders and increased deaf workplaces allow more choices for Deaf people in terms
of where they choose to work. Work satisfaction is employees’ perceptions of their
positive experiences from their job leading to positive outcomes for both the worker and
the organization (Lent, 2008). Furnham, Eracleous, and Chamorro-Premuzic (2009)
stated that job satisfaction becomes evident when workers receive recognition,
achievement, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth, which are also factors
for motivation. Work satisfaction and positive well-being is a result of experiencing
constructive interaction at work (Backenroth, 1995).
However, the self-worth of a person receiving can be greatly impacted as a result
51
of unfavorable treatments by the general mainstream such as oppression, discrimination,
and pejorative views toward “different” people (Putman, 2005). Treated unequally and
experiencing a lack of social reciprocity has left individuals with disabilities remaining
isolated in their communities (White et al., 2010) although, as Randolph (2004) argued, it
is important to give individuals with disabilities equal opportunities to gain employment
and be equally integrated at work to contribute to the economy.
Despite the passage of the ADA, integration in the world of employment
continues to be a struggle for Deaf people because discrimination at work remains a
barrier (Bowe et al., 2005; Harder, 2009). Deaf employees generally have deficits in
possessing work experience, skills and training (Fusick, 2008). Nevertheless, Deaf
employees overcame barriers by adapting to their environment. They did not allow their
deafness to interfere with their ability to perform tasks at work (Shaw, 2012).
Communication & Linguistic Barriers
Decades ago, in 1998, Backenroth described deafness as a communication and
information handicap. Rosengreen and Saladin (2010) appeared to view deafness as a
communication barriers between the Deaf person and hearing person often occur leading
the Deaf person to feel isolated and confused, especially when information and
instructions rendered to him or her are not clear. Despite the shift from a medical model
to a cultural model review of literature found that communication and linguistic barriers
have a great impact on employment for Deaf people.
Although many Deaf people tend to be bi-cultural, meaning they can function and
succeed in the hearing world (Jambor & Elliott, 2005), communication barriers was
52

another identified factor that greatly impacts personal and vocational aspects of the Deaf
peoples’ lives (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven et al., 2012;
Houston et al., 2010; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Woodcock &
Pole, 2008). Communication is a necessity in any workplace (Morreale, & Pearson,
2008; Smith, Mikulecky, Dreher, Kibby, & Dole, 2000). Gussenhoven et al. (2012)
described the evolution of the types of employment having an impact on deaf employees.
The authors shared that in the past a variety of manual jobs were available for deaf
employees. However, at the present most jobs involve a lot of communication (Foster &
MacLeod, 2003).
Lip-reading is one way that Deaf people communicate, which means Deaf people
understand speech by watching mouth movement and facial expressions to translate them
into words (Luey, Glass, & Elliott, 1995). Luey et al. added that such a task is very
arduous, cumbersome, and challenging and that not all Deaf people have the capability of
lip-reading. Those who rely on sign language as their primary mode of communication
often face barriers with communication because relying on facial expressions to convey
emotions cannot fully capture what sign language can (Lussier, Say, & Corman, 2000;
Rosengreen et al., 2009). This leads to communication breakdowns due to inappropriate
strategies for communicating. Responses have resulted in dire consequences for Deaf
employees (Fusick, 2008; Gussenhoven et al., 2012; Houston, Lamers, & Svorny, 2010;
Luft, 2000; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Woodcock & Pole,
2008).
53
Writing back and forth is another mode of communication. This can pose a
challenge for some Deaf employees because writing back and forth is not a simple
solution for many Deaf people. Often hearing people do not realize that ASL is actually
classified as a formal language, which unlike the English language is visual and has its
own rules and grammatical structure (Bishop & Hicks, 2005). Some Deaf people,
especially if English is their second language, do not have sufficient reading and writing
skills to use proper English grammar (Brice, Leigh, Sheridan, & Smith, 2013).
Furthermore, Pollard and Barnett (2009) explained that the difficulty Deaf people
have with reading and writing is related to fund-of-information deficit resulting from lack
of factual based knowledge despite their IQ or educational attainment. Pollard and
Barnett added that the fund-of-information deficit is also based on limited access to
ongoing bombardment of information such as television, people talking, or other
auditory-emitted information. Education attainment for deaf individuals remains lower
than their hearing counterparts (Punch et al., 2004; Schley, Walter, Weathers, Hemmeter,
& Burkhause, 2011). This might ultimately affect job attainment and upward mobility, as
most employers increasingly expecting employees to have workplace literacy including
good vocabulary skills and understanding of concepts on top of requiring myriad of
communication skills (Bonds, 2003; Boutin & Wilson, 2009; Luft, 2000).
Communication technologies have opened doors to increased knowledge as
information sharing is now much faster and global and those who read and write well
benefit from such technology (Smith et al., 2000). Deaf people often do not have good
spoken or written language and this has been a problem for many decades (Bélanger &
54
Rayner, 2013; Miller, 2010), hence the exacerbation of the issue. Even if most jobs
require 4th grade reading level (Bowe, 2002), writing back and forth does not necessary
resolve the communication issues faced by Deaf employees as literacy skills are essential
to success in a workplace (Ntiri-Wayne, 2013). Being visual learners (Moores, 2010), on
top having to struggle with verbal communication as well as reading and writing, may
lead to the notion that the Deaf person is limited, which might not only foster a
misunderstanding of the deaf person’s capabilities (Fusick, 2008; Luft, 2014) but also
creates stigma and negative attitudes and discrimination by society (Harder, 2009; Punch
et al., 2007).
Struggles with communication and linguistic barriers faced by Deaf employees
ultimately leads to feeling a sense of failure and hopelessness without an outlook for an
upward mobility. Such communication barriers can impact processes and socialization,
which, as Heaphy and Dutton (2008) argued, is vital component of a person’s work life
that includes office jokes, chatters, and developing a personal relationship with co-
workers. Because of communication barriers, such socialization can be a struggle for
many Deaf people (Backenroth, 1997; Foster, 1998; Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Fusick,
2008; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Woodcock & Pole, 2008).
For those in a hearing environment, Foster (1987) described two types of
communication in a hearing workplace. First, functional communication that entails
communication related to day-to-day operations of the job. Second, personal-social
communication involves informal communication consisting of office chatter and
personal tidbits about co-workers. Functional communication tends to be lesser of an
55
issue compared with personal/social communication for Deaf employees (Foster, 1987;
Lussier et al., 2000), who report that they often feel left out and isolated from the office
chatter and social interactions which take place during lunch breaks (Foster & MacLeod,
2003). This can lead to potentially decreased job satisfaction (Backenroth, 1997),
increased stress and frustration (Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010), feelings of loneliness and
isolation (Backenroth, 1997; Foster, 1998; Hintermair, 2008; Lane, 2005). A sense of
belonging, equality and contentment are important factors for individuals, Deaf and non-
Deaf alike, to feel job satisfaction (Hintermair, 2008; Lane, 2005).
Various studies indicated the importance of having close relationships as this
greatly improves the quality of life, health, and self-esteem of a person (Cummins & Lau,
2003; Diener & Chan, 2011; Veenhoven, 2008). Relationships are a vital feature of the
social capital in which interactions take place through family, friends, neighborhoods,
and work (Partington, 2005). It is believed that socialization involves reciprocity. This
poses a challenge in a social context when a Deaf person who uses ASL is around hearing
employees. When this happens, a Deaf person might respond by withdrawing from the
group both physically and emotionally due to the cumbersomeness of communication
barriers (Bat-Chava, 2000; Ciorba, Bianchini, Pelucchi, & Pastore, 2012). This
especially occurs in-group settings such as staff meetings, in-service training or work
related social functions (Punch et al., 2007).
Accommodations
Accommodations can take place in different forms. The ADA mandates that
employers provide reasonable accommodations (Butterfield & Ramseur, 2004).
56
Communication barriers are evident when Deaf people and hearing people cannot
communicate, which can create emotional strains (Foster, 1998). Foster further argued
that these are the struggles faced by both the Deaf and hearing employees. When a Deaf
person asks for clarification and repetitions, the Deaf person tends to be perceived as not
fully paying attention or being incompetent for not understanding what was being said.
Or, as Foster further pointed out, that while the Deaf person might perceive the hearing
co-worker or employer to be resistant or reluctant to communicate with him or her, the
real issue might be whether the hearing person fails to make an effort to communicate
due to fear of being embarrassed. With the difficulties of communication, Deaf people
require some type of accommodation to assist with communication barriers.
To the Deaf employee’s advantages, e-mails have replaced the use of the
telephone in many hearing workplaces (Tyler, 2014), shifting the workplace from an
industrial based workplace to a technological-based workforce and an in increase in
service sectors (Basole, 2008; Punch et al., 2004). Technologies have greatly benefited
Deaf employees by providing communication accessibility such as e-mails, captioning,
instant messaging, Internet, and acoustic equipment (Butterfield & Ramseur, 2004;
Hintermair & Albertini, 2005; Shaw, 2012; Tyler, 2014; Woodcock & Pole, 2008). Such
technological advances and assistance is often a necessity to have equal access to
communication and information in a workplace (Bagenstos, 2004). Since Deaf
employees cannot hear to utilize regular telephones or voice mails, technology has
greatly improved the employees’ ability to access to communication (Woodcock & Pole,
2008).
57
Video relay service has been in existence since early 2000 and became an
essential part of the lives of Deaf people (Warnicke & Plejert, 2012). Rather than being
in the same room with the Deaf person video relay interpreters work at a call center.
After the Deaf person places a phone call using the device engineered by their video relay
provider, the sign language interpreter visible to the Deaf person on a screen facilitates
the conversation between the Deaf and hearing person (Warnicke & Plejert, 2012). This
process also works the other way around when a hearing person places a phone call to the
Deaf person. Sign language interpreters via relay could be considered a technological
assistance while hiring an interpreter for office training or meeting is an accommodation.
Access to communication is a vital to Deaf employees and technology has made it
possible for Deaf people. Although e-mails decrease the likelihood of face-to-face
communication, e-mails have been found to greatly benefit the Deaf people (Benson &
Dundis, 2003; Garberoglio, Cawthon, & Bond, 2013) as use of e-mails allows the Deaf
person to communicate with hearing people. Conversing by means of text messages links
the Deaf person to other people, including co-workers (Power & Power, 2004). Another
possibility for employers to consider is the use of Computer-Assisted Remote
Transcription (CART). This is an accommodation where a transcriptionist produces a
real time transcription of the speaker. Use of CART would require the Deaf employee to
possess proficient English skills to benefit from this type of accommodation (Debevc,
Kosec, & Holzinger, 2011; Marschark, et al., 2006; Preminger & Levitt, 1997). Some
benefits of using CART include the reduction of missing information, especially if
dialogues are too fast and difficult to keep up when interpreted by an interpreter. A print
58

out of the transcription allows the Deaf person to review the presentation.
Interpreting from one language to another may use lag time. Lag time, called
processing time, is often necessary to accurately render the information to another
language (Christoffels & de Groot, 2005; Timarová, Dragsted, & Hansen, 2010). Sign
language interpreters, like other translators and interpreters, require sufficient input from
the speaker before proceeding with the interpreting. This means that the speaker is ahead
of the interpreter by a few seconds or at least five words (Christoffels & de Groot, 2005).
During rapid dialogues following the discussion may be difficult for some Deaf
people (Anita, Sabers, & Stinson, 2006; Long, Vignare, Rappold, & Mallory, 2007). The
use of CART does not allow for the Deaf employee to participate in meetings unless the
Deaf employee has comprehensible speaking ability. Another downside of CART is that
facial expressions, tone of voice or other non-verbal information cannot be rendered via
CART. This type of accommodation may be beneficial during platform type of forums in
which audience participation is not expected but this does not benefit Deaf employees
who desire to participate in meetings. Because of this sign language interpreters are
greatly valued by Deaf professionals (Woodcock, Rohan, & Campbell, 2007).
According to Schlesinger (2000), the general population has been found to hold a
presumption that the person’s deafness limits their ability to interact and receive
feedback, but with the availability of communication such interaction is possible,
especially when written communication and use of sign language interpreters are
accommodations that allow for participation, interaction and written communication
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Biser, Rubel, and Toscano
59
(2007) pointed out that when Deaf people’s writing includes ASL syntaxes, it may be
interpreted as grammatical errors and therefore impede a hearing person’s understanding
of what the Deaf person intended to state. This might explain why hearing persons might
assume that the Deaf person is illiterate or not possessing intelligence. Hearing people
may not realize that English is often the second language for many Deaf people (Brice et
al., 2013; Luft, 2000) and further, ASL is often overlooked as a language that has its own
grammatical structure and sets of rules. Further, ASL is designed to be an unwritten
language that uses hand motions to communicate (Stoke, 2005). There are some Deaf
people who write in English using the grammatical structure the way the sentence is
spoken in ASL, which is different from standard written English.
Deaf people who are not bilingual experience additional struggles when they are
expected to rely on written English to communicate and businesses often expect good
literacy skills (Garberoglio et al., 2013; Smith, Mikulecky, Kibby, Dreher, & Dole,
2000). This is a persistent issue faced by many Deaf people. In addition to the difficulty
with writing, Deaf people rely greatly on facial expressions, as ASL utilizes a lot of facial
expressions to convey emotions and linguistic information in addition to hand motions
(McCollough, Emmorey, & Sereno, 2005). Examples include that facial expressions are
used for are grammatical constructs such as topics, agreement, ‘wh’ questions, rhetorical
questions and yes or no questions (Grossman & Kegl, 2007). Deaf people cannot hear
the tones and inflections through sounds.
Sign language interpreters are hired by employers to help facilitate
communication between Deaf and hearing individuals (Foster & MacLeod, 2003). The
60

goal of professional sign language interpreters is to provide an effective interpretation
that is dynamically equivalent between two unique languages and cultures, ASL and
English (RID.org). However, Deaf employees can still face challenges in participating
despite the presence of a professional sign language interpreter, especially considering
lag time or when the dialogues are in rapid succession (Kroll & Groot, 2005; Long et al.,
2007). Additionally, when the Deaf employee tries to participate regarding a specific
topic, the group might have moved on to the next topic. A possible solution to this is to
remind the hearing people to slow down and talk one at a time. The person modulating
the meeting also could also check in with the Deaf employee to give opportunities to
participate.
Some employers have been willing to provide sign language interpreters for
meetings or training but they do not hire interpreters for the interoffice social
engagements (Luft, 2000) or one-on-one meetings with employers. In the event that the
interpreter does not arrive due to illness or personal emergency, agencies often cannot
find replacements on a short notice leaving the Deaf person without an interpreter (Craig,
2009).
A huge barrier to providing accommodations is the cost associated with providing
sign language interpreters (Fusick, 2008), which might impede the Deaf employee to
successfully perform their required tasks or assimilate at work. Rosengreen et al. (2009)
noted that employers seek to hire those who possess skills necessary for the particular
job; accommodations should be provided for Deaf employees who demonstrate the
necessary skills for the job. Foster and MacLeod (2003) offered a solution by
61
encouraging employers to consider a co-worker providing mentorship to acclimate the
Deaf employee to the job, although they acknowledged that communication barriers
might make it difficult to do so. Their findings suggested that mentorship was credited
for the successes of the participants, as mentorship also allows both the Deaf and hearing
co-workers to develop a relationship on a personal level. Kramer (2008) wrote that
people live in a world where physical and social outlooks, and attitudes of the general
population play a role in their lives. Through mentorship and working closely with the
Deaf employee, attitudinal barriers may be broken down when the Deaf person is viewed
as a competent worker when accessibility and accommodations are provided.
Rosengreen et al. (2009) noted that employers seek to hire those who possess skills
necessary for the particular job; accommodations should be provided for Deaf employees
who demonstrate the necessary skills for the job.
Accountability
Foster (1987) found that Deaf employees felt that the responsibility to educate
hearing co-workers on how to communicate with them such as talking slowly or by
articulating clearly and teaching them basic sign language falls on the Deaf employees.
Additionally, Deaf employees have reported positive communication outcomes depended
greatly on a willing attitude on part of the hearing person to take the suggestions into
consideration that would improve communication. Backenroth (1998) suggested that
employers who hire Deaf people should be responsible for setting the climate by
promoting a bi-cultural work environment, which in return boosts the reciprocity and
understanding of the needs of both sides. Achieving success in a workplace depends on
62
the managers’ repertoire of making sound and effective decisions in the best interest of
the organization and the community (Wooten & James, 2005).
Henderson (2009) provided specific examples of modifications that hearing
people can adopt in order to effectively interact with their Deaf co-workers, such as:
tapping the person on the shoulder to get his or her attention before speaking; if the
person has the capability of lip-reading use visual aids such as chalkboards, overhead
projectors, films, and diagrams; include him or her in what is going on; use written
memos for them to read; rephrase what was said if the Deaf person did not understand the
person the first time; encourage the team to learn some sign language; and use assistive
listening device or interpreters when needed.
Although the ADA holds employers accountable for providing reasonable
accommodations and bans discrimination (Blanck, 2005; Kruse & Schur, 2003; Lee,
2003; McMahon & Shaw, 2005; Randolph, 2004; Sheridan et al., 2010), The United
States Department of Health and Human Services along with different organizations
received reports regarding barriers to employment and reports of discrimination indicate
that Deaf people have been denied higher levels of occupation (Woodcock & Pole, 2008).
Discrimination may be intentional or unintentional (Woodcock & Pole, 2008) and
without the accessibility opportunities for advancement cannot be attained. Yet, while the
law can impose accommodations, the pejorative attitudes of people remain a barrier
(Shannon, Schoen, & Tansey, 2009).
Synthesis of Research Findings
The struggles that Deaf people experience in a hearing workplace impact their
63
sense of self-worth, satisfaction with employment, perception of equality and lack of
social exchange (Foster & MacLeod (2003), Fusick, 2008; 2004; Rosengreen et. al, 2009;
Woodcock & Pole, 2008). Fusick (2008) pointed out that a person’s hearing loss impacts
different areas of their lives, including occupation. According to Sparrow (2005), Deaf
people were viewed as being incapable or limited in their potentials and that deafness has
been thought to be a disabling condition preventing them from fully achieving their
potential in a workplace. While some hearing people with disabilities can pass by
without being obviously seen as an individual with disabilities (Seibers, 2004), this might
not be the case of a Deaf person who uses ASL, as the difference in communication
becomes apparent and at times creates discomfort and strain. Responses from hearing
people with the mindset that deafness is disabling often are of dismay and pity (Sparrow,
2005), while Deaf people who affiliate with Deaf culture often do not perceive their
deafness as disabling. Deafness and the disadvantages associated with deafness are not a
result of their deafness per se, but rather as a result of society not allowing assimilation
and accommodations. Lane (2008) concurred that this label is frequently given to Deaf
people and disability rights activities have been asserting that the labels are what hurts
them (Sparrow, 2005). As early as 1994, Shapiro stated that civil rights movement for
inclusion in education and community resulted in positive impact for individuals with
disabilities, with the goal of changing peoples’ attitudes and perceptions about
individuals with disabilities. This has been beneficial, as society has become more open
and accepting towards individuals with disabilities (Cummins & Lau, 2003).
A quantitative study conducted by Hergenrather and Rhodes (2007) found
64
participants expressed high level of comfort working side-by-side and interacting with an
individual who has a disability. As suggested by Livneh (2012), favorable attitudes
towards those who are different tend to come from people who experienced positive
upbringing along with those who are in the higher social economic class and education.
Battling discrimination required individuals with disabilities to take the initiative
to establish an organization called, Center for Independent Living. Service delivery and
advocacy are controlled by, and largely operated by, people with disabilities (DeJong,
1979). This service organization mandates that more than 51% of employed staff have
some type of disability. This applies to the board members as well (White et al., 2010).
Individuals with disabilities view themselves as deserving of happiness. What Putman
(2005) calls enjoyment is when a person goes beyond what he or she was. Such
enjoyment leads to personal growth and long-term happiness. Contributing to the labor
force for exchange of happiness, pride, and satisfactory influences a person’s well-being.
Being treated with equity along with having reciprocity of satisfactory value can
be a reality for participants working in an agency with a predominately-disabled
workforce (White et al., 2010). This applies to the deaf population, and many Deaf
people take a strong stand that they belong to a community where ASL, their primary
language, is spoken and valued (Lane, 2008; 1996; Padden, Padden & Humphries, 2005;
Reagan, 1995; Senghas & Monghan, 2002). There is a plethora of literature of the
struggles faced by Deaf employees such as oppression, discrimination, exclusion from
socialization at work, denied promotions, unequal pay, communication barriers, denied or
limited accommodations at work, and ignorance on the part of the majority faced by Deaf
65
employees (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007; Foster, 1998, Foster & MacLeod, 2003;
Fusick, 2008; Lane, 2005; Luckner & Stewart, 2003; Punch et al., 2007; Shaw, 2012;
Sheridan et al., 2010; Tyler, 2004).
Ever since the Deaf President Now movement started, Deaf and Hard of Hearing
people started to see increasing equality in workplaces, starting with having a Deaf
president at Gallaudet University and 51% of the Board of Trustees being made up of
individuals who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Kensicki, 2001). Deaf people want to be
viewed as professionals (Sheridan et al., 2010) and since the protest at Gallaudet, Deaf
people have become more confident about their abilities (Holte & Dinis, 2001). Deaf
leaders began to emerge as a result of increased opportunities (Kramm et al., 2008).
Bateman (1996) wrote that the emergence of Deaf leaders promotes improving the lives
of Deaf people as a minority group by attempting to eliminate inequalities created by the
majority. Bateman further added that the primary focus of Deaf leaders is on deaf-related
issues surrounding inequality. The leaders understand what the Deaf community needs to
be given. The majority does not always understand or show willingness to accommodate
the unique needs, which might explain why deaf people prefer the company of other Deaf
people including in their places of employment (Holcomb, 2012; Lane, 2005).
The literature reviewed for this study repeatedly demonstrated the struggles faced
by Deaf employees due to inequity and lack of reciprocity such as limited or no
accommodations, discrimination, denied promotion, denied positions, missing out on
interoffice socialization, lower pay, and perceived as being limited in their potentials
(Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Lussier et al., 2000; Punch et al., 2007; Rosengreen et al.,
66
2009; Schrodel & Geyer, 2001). However, on the contrary, there are factors that are to be
considered that may strongly impact the Deaf person’s ability to integrate in the
workplace, such as the degree of their hearing loss, age, preferred language, etiology and
onset of the hearing loss, and psychosocial issues (Meader & Zazove, 2005) in addition to
their educational backgrounds and their ability to read and write English (Pollard &
Barnett, 2009). Rosengreen et al. (2009) stated that the more profound the hearing loss,
especially for pre-lingual Deaf individuals, the more struggle the Deaf worker has with
teamwork because they became deaf prior to the development of language. The authors
stressed the importance of considering every possible variable that may impact the
struggles.
Qualitative Research Designs
Ethnography as a Possible Methodology
Ethnographic research involves the researcher studying the behaviors, lived
experiences, and social constraints of a group for a long period of time in its natural
environment (Creswell, 2009; Wilson & Chaddha, 2009). This study does not allow for
such research since studying deaf-service environments often are human service agencies
or educational institutions and confidentiality of the clients/students served is of utmost
importance. The focus and purpose of this proposed study does not justify using
ethnographic research since 10 Deaf employees cannot be studied over a period of time.
Case Study as a Possible Methodology
A case study is a research modality that involves an in-depth exploration by of a
person, culture, program, event, activity, neighborhood, or process (Cozby & Bates,
67
2012; Creswell, 2009). Unlike ethnography, case studies do not always require
exploration in the natural environment (Cozby & Bates). They elaborated that a case
study can come from examination records, reports; however, this type of research can
involve direct observation, telephone interviews, or library research. Conducting a case
study for this research will not answer the six research questions.
Phenomenology as a Chosen Methodology
Qualitative research using phenomenology as an approach is designed for the sole
purpose of understanding a phenomenon first hand from the person who experienced the
phenomenon of interest (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). Collingridge and Gantt elaborated
that the goal of phenomenological studies was to “live” the experiences from seeing it
from the viewpoints and perspectives of the participants. There are three types of
research designs: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Creswell; 2009) and
qualitative studies are meant to be subjective meaning that data are generated by the
stories of the participants resulting in the researcher interpreting the stories. The goal of
any research is to gain more knowledge, and gaining knowledge does not always need to
be by way of identifying cause and effect or being able to make predictions, but rather to
understand how the person describes and interprets the experiences (Merriam, 2009).
Researchers analyze the data from the recorded interviews of participants that
typically are conducted face to face (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Mertens, 2010).
Qualitative research allows for an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of
individuals with disabilities. This might open doors for a greater understanding and more
studies in the future aimed to improve their lives (O’Day & Killeen, 2002). O’Day and
68
Killeen explained that qualitative studies greatly impact the field of disability in a social
context.
Qualitative studies are conducted to understand the perceptions, thoughts and
experiences of Deaf employees. For example, Foster (1987) used qualitative
methodology to research Deaf employees working in hearing workplaces and Mowry and
Anderson (1993) used a qualitative research design to better understand the presence of
barriers to upward mobility, lack of sensitivity on part of supervisors and job
accommodations in regard to communication accessibility for Deaf employees. Holcomb
(2010) wrote that the epistemology of deafness has been studied for some time being and
the goal of deaf epistemology to answer the question “How do we know what we know?”
Holcomb (2010) added that studies included topics of communication and linguistics
along with how Deaf people learned to offset their hearing loss with alternative methods,
ways, and technologies; solution-based strategies to integrate successfully in the
mainstreamed society; and family dynamics. Phenomenological research is a way to
learn about how and what is known about Deaf employees and gain knowledge about an
unchartered area which is gaining insight about the experiences of Deaf employees
working in a predominately deaf workplace.
Summary
The review of the literature clearly demonstrates that there are plenty of studies
regarding the struggles Deaf employees face with employment (Bowe et al., 2005; Foster
& MacLeod, 2003; Punch et al., 2007; Rosengreen et al., 2010). Examples of struggles
include: lack of communication and socialization accessibility; lack of upward mobility;
69
discrimination of some form; oppression; and difference in wages. The reviewed
literature also demonstrates the importance for employees of equality and fair reciprocity
for their input at work (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964a, Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958).
There have been extensive studies on organizational leadership and how fairness in
exchange and reciprocity benefits the employee and the employer (Eisenberger et al.,
1986; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002; Settoon et al., 1996).
Although social exchange theory and equity theory can be applied in other areas
as well, they appear to be mostly applied to workplaces. White et al. (2010) favored the
concept of inter-dependence by the person and the community as the more the person has
in the circle of support, the more his or her quality of life improves and literature has
demonstrates that Deaf people in a predominately hearing environment generally do not
have a strong circle of support. Relationships matter according to Parrington (2005)
since people produce more when they work together than alone.
Although the ADA was passed nearly 25 years ago, and despite there has been
research conducted with regard to the struggles that people with disabilities in general
experience, the experiences of Deaf people in places of employment appear to be
understudied. This review demonstrates a gap in the literature and research concerning
Deaf employees working in a predominately deaf environment.
There is an increase of deaf-services organizations that hire many Deaf employees
such as schools for the deaf, human services agencies, and companies providing video-
relay services. Nevertheless, the experiences of Deaf people are not yet fully understood.
70
Given that “Deaf people can do anything except hear” (Holte & Dinis, 2001;
Kamm-Larew et al., 2008; Marschark & Spencer, 2003; Sarti, 1993), this study will
address the gap in the literature. The hope is to impact the field of deafness by
conducting a new study for those who work in the field, and those who do not but employ
Deaf workers, by providing a better understanding of the experiences of Deaf people
which might lead to a better understanding of creating workplaces that not only provide
accommodations for Deaf people but also allow employers and co-workers to view their
Deaf colleagues as individuals who can perform as well as their hearing counterparts.
This research will attempt to learn about the experiences, perceptions, and
thoughts of Deaf employees in regard to social exchange and equality in both deaf and
hearing workplaces and their relationships with their supervisors and co-workers through
phenomenological research. Phenomenological studies involve interviewing the
participants where the researcher becomes an active listener and a big part of the process
(Moustakas, 1994; O’Day & Killeen, 2002). Qualitative studies allow the researcher to
be part of the process by engaging with the participants during the interview. The use of
phenomenology allows the researcher to learn about the experiences of Deaf employees
working in both environments. Each individual experience is unique and may help yield
a better understanding of the present challenges and successes in light of the ADA and
allow more opportunities to expand on studies of Deaf employees in a deaf workplace.
Methodology of this study is presented in Chapter 3, which includes the rationale
for phenomenological study, sample size, criteria, recruitment process, and data analysis.
Findings from this study are presented in Chapter 4. Furthermore, Chapter 4 includes
71
discussion of the themes transpired as a result of the analyses of the data. Discussion of
the implications of the study for Deaf employees working in hearing and deaf workplaces
is addressed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 also discusses the limitations of the study and
recommendations for future studies. Appendix A outlines which participants utilized the
pre-recorded interview questions in ASL. The mode of communication between the Deaf
participants and their non-signing supervisors in their hearing workplaces is included in
Appendix B. A description of each participant is covered in Appendix C.
72
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This phenomenological study is designed to investigate the perceptions, thoughts,
and experiences of Deaf employees working in predominately deaf workplaces and
hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction, relationships with hearing supervisors
and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or Deaf supervisors and co-workers who
know sign language, and overall success in employment. In order to achieve this
phenomenology was a selected since this methodology is designed to help better
understand the experiences of the participants and also their perspectives as a whole
rather than in segments (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Mertens, 2010; Moustakas,
1994).
Qualitative data is gathered through interviews, observational notes, participant
journals, focus groups, autobiographies, archival materials, videotaped social situations
including e-mails from the Internet (Creswell, 2009; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010; O’Day &
Killeen, 2002; Smith & Firth, 2011). Moustakas explained that phenomenology searches
for meanings and essences of the participants’ experiences generated from the interview,
rather than measuring or explaining a phenomenon. This type of process is called
inductive reasoning and this type of research involves subjectivity (Glicken, 2003).
Induction occurs when researchers analyze the data and work upward to identify general
perspectives, themes, and dimensions (O’Day & Killeen, 2002).
This study was guided by two theories: equity theory and social exchange theory.
These theories are the foundation of this study. The theories are the ones that guide the
development of the research questions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). After the
73
development of the research questions, the researcher contemplates how evidences will
be gathered along with identifying procedures to utilize to gather the evidences
(Randolph, 2009). In order to better understand the experiences and perspectives, the
participants for this study were asked to answer the following research questions, which
were aimed gain a better understanding of Deaf people working in deaf and hearing
workplaces:
Primary Research Questions
working in a hearing workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
working in a predominately deaf workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
Secondary Research Questions
working in a hearing workplace regarding their relationships with hearing
supervisors and co-workers?
working in a predominately deaf workplace regarding their relationships with
supervisors and co-workers, deaf or hearing who may or may not know sign
language?
5. What are the perceptions, thoughts and experiences of Deaf employees
working in a hearing workplace regarding their overall success in
employment?
74
working in a predominately Deaf workplace regarding their overall success in
employment?
Qualitative studies are the based on symbolic interactionist theory. Symbolic
interactionism is designed to learn about human behavior shared by the participants and
how they interpret their world (Foster, 1987; Smith & Firth, 2011). For the purpose of
this study, the qualitative data collection approach was used, specifically
phenomenology. Doing so allows us to gain a better understanding of how Deaf
employees interpret their experiences in deaf and hearing workplaces regarding job
satisfaction, their relationships with hearing supervisors and co-workers, their
relationships with hearing/Deaf co-workers who know sign language, and successes with
employment.
Moustakas (1994) argued that the task of the researcher is to gather information
from participants who use “I” statements and describe in words what the participants see
and experience. Further, the researcher should also identify the relationship between the
participants and the phenomenon. Moustakas added that doing this involves constant
reviewing of the data, a necessary part of the process. Researchers begin analyzing the
data by looking at a larger picture and then identifying information piece by piece to
create themes. Listening skills are believed to be an essential skill for a researcher
(Moustakas, 1994).
Qualitative studies are challenging, especially for those who are new in this type
of research (Caelli, 2001). Caelli found that most new researchers had great difficulty
75

with the concept of reduction such as breaking the big pictures into themes. This requires
use of imagination such as seeing various possible meanings, perspectives, positions,
roles, or functions (Moustakas, 1994). The benefit of describing the meanings,
perspectives, positions, roles, or functions is to help those associated with the study to
understand the social structures and social systems related to the phenomenon (Glasser &
Strauss, 1999). Understanding the social structures and social systems related to the
phenomenon studied is accomplished when the researcher conducts the final step of
formatting the meanings and essences of the participants’ experiences and perspectives
(Moustakas, 1994).
The purpose of qualitative research is not about finding the cause and effect or
predicting the outcomes (Merriam, 2009) but rather to understand experiences and
perspectives. During the process, the researcher takes on the role of an active listener and
establishes a value-free environment; however, the researcher does not attempt to
distance himself or herself from the participants (O’Day & Killeen, 2002). Qualitative
studies allow the researcher to be part of the process by engaging with the participants
during the interview. The use of phenomenology allows the researcher to learn about the
experiences of Deaf employees working in both environments.
Target Population, Sampling Methodology, and Related Procedures
Sampling
Purposeful sampling is designed to select participants that meet the criteria of the
study (Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010) and purposeful sampling in qualitative studies
narrows the eligibility of the participants by establishing criteria based on the purpose of
76

the study (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). In order to achieve that goal, the researcher
needs to clearly define the rationale of the study and develop a specific criterion sampling
to recruit participants who experience the phenomenon that is being studied (Collingridge
& Gantt, 2008). In order to study a phenomenon, the experiences of Deaf employees
working in deaf and hearing environments, purposeful sampling allows for the
phenomenon to be studied (Sandelowski, 1996).
Targeted Population
Identifying and clearly describing the targeted population is critical for the
research to ensure that the intended population participated in the study (Mertens, 2010;
Yancey, Ortega & Kumanyika, 2006). For this study, the target population was Deaf
individuals between the ages 30 and 65 who use American Sign Language (ASL) as their
primary language and mode of communication and have worked in both deaf and hearing
workplaces. The Deaf individuals had to have at least worked one year in each
workplace with a total of six years of work experience. The individuals had to be
currently employed to participate in this study. The participants were from two states in
the northeastern part of the United States. All the participants were given pseudo names
and places of employment, in order to protect the identity of the participants. If any of
the participants gave out any identifying information, it was later omitted from the
transcription to protect their personal information.
Sample Size
Unlike quantitative research, qualitative studies do not demand the same number
of participants, as long as the researcher gathers sufficient data for the study (Mason,
77
2010; Mertens, 2010). Mason explained that interviewing a high volume of participants
does not necessarily generate more data and the researcher needs to monitor for
saturation. Saturation occurs when the participants yield no more new information
(DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006; Mason, 2010). Mertens (2010) recommended
approximately six participants for phenomenological studies while Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson (2005) listed 12 as a feasible number to reach a level of saturation. Sandelowski
(1995) perceived that the sample size is contingent on the type of qualitative study and
the researcher determines the sample size based on saturation. For this study 10 Deaf
participants who met the inclusion criteria for this study volunteered to be part of this
study.
Setting
The participants and this researcher met either at a local library or an office
utilizing a traditional setting which is a private setting (Carpiano, 2009). The place to
meet was mutually agreed upon by both the researcher and the participants. The
interviews that occurred in an office took place before and/or after office hours to ensure
that the privacy of the participants was protected. The participants deemed that the
privacy of the interview was to their satisfaction.
The interviews proceeded without any interruptions with exception of one as the
librarian wanted to know how much longer the interview was going to last. Two
interviews took place at the same library on different days. One interview took place in a
corner of the library while the other one took place in a room with a window. In the
room with a window, the researcher and the participant faced the wall blocking the view.
78

The participants were fine with that since the people in the library did not know sign
language. The other library provided a private room with no windows to conduct the
interview. Privacy is essential in research and protecting the privacy of the participants is
of utmost importance (Cozby & Bates, 2012).
Recruitment
Complying with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board by
developing a recruitment method to protect the safety and privacy of the participants is
the first step the researcher needs to take (White, 2007). After receiving approval from
the Capella University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher developed a
flyer to advertise the study and created a website describing the study in American Sign
Language. The researcher reached out to deaf-services organizations to assist with
dissemination of the flyers to the people they had on their e-mail list. Word of mouth and
snowball effect occurred for this study.
Snowball effect, a common tactic in qualitative studies, occurs when a participant
recommends names of potential participants (Mertens, 2010; Noy, 2008). After the flyer
was disseminated, Deaf people approached this researcher to inform her that they shared
the studies with other deaf people even if though they did not meet the criteria of the
study. Some of the participants shared that they spread the word about the study. Most
of participants initiated contact with the researcher and expressed their interest to
participate in this study. Yancey et al. (2006) proposed using incentives to attract low
incident populations for studies. Since this was a low incident population, the
participants were given a $20.00 gift card for their contribution to the research and for
79

their time.
Field Testing
Validity is an important component of any study, and in relation to qualitative
studies the researcher is responsible for ensuring that the methods are in alignment with
the type of research (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). For phenomenological studies, the
interview questions need to be designed in a way that will help streamline the dialogue
during the interview with questions that are clear to be able to gather the data needed for
the study (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008).
Before the data collection, the researcher conducted two field tests. Mertens
(2010) wrote that it was important to conduct the testing with a small sample that has
similar characteristics to the group of potential participants. Field-testing enables the
researcher to review and revise the questions based on the feedback of the people
reviewing the questions (Neuman, 2006). The first one was to test the interview
questions in English to assure that the questions were clearly written and understood.
Four Deaf individuals were involved in the testing and three of them were experts in the
field of deafness who had master’s Degrees while one has not yet completed college but
has worked as a direct care staff in a deaf workplace. The four Deaf people
recommended that the researcher compartmentalize the questions into two separate
segments to make it easier for the participants to read the questions. Each of them
recommended that the researcher ask the participants questions about the hearing and
deaf workplace separately. After revising the questions and the way the questions
appeared on paper, the researcher showed the revisions to the same four Deaf people.
80
They recommended no further changes.
The second field-testing occurred after the researcher pre-recorded the interview
questions in ASL. The rationale for prerecorded interview questions was two-fold: One
was to assure that the questions were asked the same way for each participant to prevent
translation errors and inconsistent interpretations to avoid inadvertently change the
meaning of the questions. Stoke (2005) wrote that the sentence “I know him” can be
interpreted in sign language 16 different ways as sign language involves a complex
system of linguistics. Three of the four Deaf people along with two other Deaf people
reviewed the interview questions in English and reviewed them in ASL. The goal was to
evaluate whether the way the interview questions were translated in ASL conveyed how
it was written in English as accurately as possible. The second reason for pre-recorded
interview questions was to give the participants the choice of selecting the videotaped
questions or reading the written interview questions. One of the field testers did not have
strong written English skills, as ASL was his primary language. In order to give the
participants the option of reviewing the interview questions in English, or watching the
interview questions in ASL, translating the questions as accurately as possible into ASL
is important.
Based on the linguistic and cultural feedback of the pilot participants, edits and
corrections were made to better adjust the linguistic and cultural accuracy of the
questions. Jones et al., (2006) explained that the process of translating, especially from
English to ASL instruments, requires diligence, as translations can alter how the
questions are rendered. The instrument in this study was translating the research
81

questions from written English to ASL. Translating from English to ASL requires that
the person change the language and the modality of the questions (Jones et al., 2006).
They added that videotapes are considered a way to provide consistency. Jones et al.
vouched that if the questions were not formalized and documented in a static way, bias
and inconsistencies could be introduced due to the fact that ASL does not have a written
component.
Data Collection
Videotaped Interviews
Demographic data were collected at the beginning of each interview and the
consent form was reviewed with the participants. The interview started when the
demographic data collection and signing of the consent forms were completed. This
study gathered data by interviewing each participant. The one-on-one interviews were
both in-depth and semi-structured and conducted in ASL. The researcher developed a set
of interview questions and was able to ask more questions during the interview making it
a semi-structured interview (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).
Mertens (2010) wrote that interviewing someone who speaks a different language
can pose complications in the study and a translator would have been necessary. This
issue is eliminated in this study as this researcher is Deaf and fluent in ASL which
eliminated the need for a third party, a sign language interpreter.
Direct interaction without an interpreter also eliminates any potential for
interpreter/translation error. Audiotapes are the most common usage (DiCicco-Bloom &
Crabtree, 2006). However, due to ASL being a visual language, videotaped interviews
were necessary. Each of the interviews was videotaped with permission of the
82

participants. Each participant was given an explanation of the reason for videotaping of
the interviews. Videotaped interviews allowed the researcher to observe the behaviors of
the person (Haidet, Tate, Divirgilio-Thomas, Kolanowski, & Happ, 2009) as well as both
verbal (ASL) and non-verbal cues (Latvala, Vuokila-Oikkonen, & Janhonen, 2000).
Another benefit of videotaping these interviews was that the researcher was able
to review the interviews frequently (Haidet et al., 2009; Latvala et al., 2000). According
to Latvala et al., this helps to reduce the likelihood of self-reporting on the part of the
researcher. Additionally, the subjectivity of the videotapes allows the researchers to rely
on the videotapes rather than memory and this process increases creditability (Latvala et
al, 2000). Interviews can last from 30 minutes to several hours (DiCicco-Bloom &
Crabtree, 2006). Interviews for this study lasted between one hour to one and half hours.
The interviews were translated and transcribed from ASL into English.
Translating from one language to another requires vigilance on the part of the researcher
because translating from one language to another is not a simple task (Temple & Young,
2004). Temple and Young added that the researcher has to pay attention to the way the
information is translated, because as Ladd stated, successful translation from ASL to
English is only possible if the deaf researcher or the translator share a common culture of
the participants. Dean and Pollard (2001) pointed out, that translating between two
languages, ASL and English, requires the person to be fluent in both languages. Fluency
in sign language is exemplified by the ability to clearly and eloquently utilize spatial
signs and ASL is unique, as there are no other languages like ASL (Liddell, 2003). ASL
has very little resemblance to English. ASL “is a dynamic language of movement, time,
83
spatial dimensions and has no written form” (Jones et al., 2006, p. 76).
During the transcription process, the researcher used two laptops at the same time.
One was to watch videotaped interview while the other one was to transcribe the
interview. Translating one interview was a very lengthy process. The process required
watching the participant sign in ASL, pausing the video and typing in English. For some
sentences, the researcher had to rewind to watch the sentence in ASL repeatedly to get an
English equivalent meaning. Not only that, the researcher had to read the facial
expression since ASL uses a lot of facial expressions to convey meanings, tones, and
emotions (McCullough, Emmorey, & Sereno, 2005). Furthermore, this researcher had to
include all possible information verbatim, body language, as well as behaviors and
mannerisms while transcribing (McLellan, MacQueen, Neidig, 2003) and the authors
added that translating audiotaped recording into English is already challenging and
laborious let alone translating from ASL to English.
Language comprehension involves multifaceted processes such as speech process,
lexical access (recognition of isolated words, access of information associated with
them), sentential processing (extraction and combination of syntactic information to
create a sentence), and discourse processing (integrating all the sentences to interpret for
meanings) (Macizo & Bajo, 2004). Macizo and Bajo explained that normally the
translator conducts executive interpreting, which means that the interpreter waits until the
person finishes the sentence before translating. For this study, this was often necessary to
do so as ASL has its own grammatical structure that is different than English (Stoke,
2005).
84
Temple and Young (2004) cautioned that bias on part of the researcher may
emerge, and in order to reduce such bias, they recommended an inter-rater reliability.
They explained that to clearly render the meaning of the story shared in ASL to English is
often complicated. They added that sign language is a language consisting of constant
movements and to translate sign language into English is like freezing each movement
into words.
For this study, the researcher had a research assistant who was Deaf and fluent in
ASL and English to review the interview and the transcription notes. The research
assistant reviewed three transcriptions and found the translation to be accurate. During
the consent process, the participants were briefed on the fact that a research assistant
would be involved in verifying the accuracy of the transcriptions. The data will be kept
locked for seven years per the requirements of the Institutional Review Board and
destroyed thereafter.
Data Analyses
Analyzing data from the transcriptions is the foundation of qualitative research.
As Collingridge and Gantt (2008) emphasized, it is important to use the appropriate data
analysis for each qualitative method. For this phenomenological study, data analysis
includes tearing the information apart to make a story (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Moustakas,
1994; Smith & Firth, 2011). The transcriptions were reviewed and key words/statements
were coded and placed in the margins of the paper (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008).
Idiographic themes were identified for each participant. Idiographic themes pertain to
each participant to help the researcher understand the participant from a holistic
85
perspective (Ponterotto, 2005). After the transcriptions have been coded with idiographic
themes, the researcher searched for nomothetic themes which are described as general
patterns of behaviors among the participants (Ponterotto, 2005). Nomothetic themes for
the 10 participants were based on common denominators and those patterns (Smith &
Firth, 2011) were analyzed. Smith and Firth compared this type of analysis to a detective
with a magnifying glass as themes in qualitative studies can lead to theories in qualitative
studies (Bradley, Curry, & Devers, 2007). Data analysis is an ongoing process and
coding occurs during and after data has been collected (Bradley et al., 2007). Coding is
like a jigsaw puzzle and given the wide array of data, the researcher has to separate them
by categories and piece them together later (Boyatzis, 1998). Recommendations by
Smith and Firth (2011) included using printed version and go line by line to capture
themes and meanings. Furthermore, Bradley et al. (2007) pointed out that writing on the
sidelines allows the researcher to compartmentalize and break down the information.
Themes are necessary to make a story (Ryan & Bernard, 2003) and once the
pieces are complete, a story is told about the phenomenon of interest that Boyatzis (1998)
calls “a way of seeing” (p. 1). Thematic analysis is a process rather than a methodology
(Boyatzis, 1998). Themes come to light as a result of the in-depth disclosure by
participants leading the researcher to generate themes, ideas, and patterns (Bradley, et al.,
2007). The end result of qualitative research occurs when the data analysis yields
“meaningful and useful results” (p. 386). The analysis has to be conducted in a very
systematic method (Attride-Stirling, 2001). For this study, this researcher used the
analyzed data to convert into individual stories of and for each participant (Boyatzis,
86
1998).
Validity of the Data Analyses
There is an increase concern for the need for validity in qualitative studies (Cho &
Trent, 2006). Validity is achieved when the researcher demonstrates conducting the
study by following the rigor methods expected of the research (Rolfe, 2006). Some argue
that the term validity should not be utilized in qualitative studies and Leedy and Ormrod
(2010) found that some researchers use different terms such as credibility, trustworthy, or
conformability. Morrow (2005) wrote that creditability used in qualitative studies is
comparable to how internal validity is used in quantitative studies. Triangulation
according to Morrow is to assure consistency of findings.
For this study, validity of the findings was established by means of triangulation.
In order to assure consistency and accuracy of the findings, an outside auditor reviewed
the transcripts to compare the idiographic and nomothetic themes, which was necessary
for this part of the data triangulation (Flick, 2009). Triangulations are utilized in
qualitative studies (Flick, 2009) as a way to reduce researcher bias (Onwuegbuzie &
Leech, 2007). Carlson (2010) added that triangulation increases trustworthy especially
when two or more people review the data that yield the same results or interpretation.
Reliability and dependability are used interchangeably in qualitative studies (Golafshani,
2003). When two or more people engage in triangulation process which result in similar
interpretation of data or transcription, thus demonstrating reliability of the findings.
Ethical Considerations
The topic of ethical conduct in terms of power has been debated within the deaf
87
community (Harris, Holmes, & Mertens, 2009). Historically, researchers who studied
Deaf people had unequal power, as researchers in the past did not conduct the study from
a cultural or linguistic perspective and they did not work to develop trust, a vital part of
the process (Harris et al., 2009). They added that past researches did not accurately
describe the deaf population and some researches portrayed the deaf population
negatively without considering the psychosocial, cultural, and linguistic aspects.
In this study, the participants were adults who were capable of giving informed
consent. In addition, the researcher was knowledgeable about the cultural and linguistic
uniqueness of the population, thus creating a sense of equality between the researcher and
the study participants. Some of the Deaf people qualified for the study or who expressed
a desire to take part were not chosen to participate because they worked under the
supervision of this researcher.
Ethical conflicts were explained to them in terms of the conflict of interest and
potential bias on part of the researcher (Cozby & Bates, 2012). The researcher is Deaf,
so there were no communication barriers during the process. Cozby and Bates stressed
that the researcher analyze the risk of loss of privacy and confidentiality. The researcher
emphasized that the information as well as the identity of the participants will remain
confidential and that only the researcher and the research assistant will be the ones who
will know who the participants were.
The researcher is a Licensed Professional Counselor and the research assistant is a
Licensed Clinical Social Worker. The research assistant watched three videotapes to test
for inter-rater reliability. Thus, the researcher assistant only saw three of the ten
88
participants. The participants were informed that the confidentiality of the participants
was no different from the confidentiality of the clients that the researcher sees in her
practice as a counselor.
Because the deaf community is small and close knit (Lightfoot and Williams,
2009), there is a potential that some of the participants might know each other. Extreme
precautions to protect their confidentiality were taken when determining times and places
to meet to conduct the interview.
There was another ethical issue that the researcher was mindful of which was the
issue of bias. Bias can stem from the researcher’s views, opinions, values, and
perspectives about the topic (Mehra, 2002). Entering the interview with the mindset that
there were new things to be learned and that the experiences of each individual were
unique to their own life and experiences was an attempt to reduce the bias. Striving to
separate her knowledge about deafness during the interview by questions to gain new
knowledge from the participants helped elicit more information about each of their own
personal experiences. This meant taking the role of a researcher rather than a counselor.
The ethical obligation of the researcher was to separate herself as much as possible from
the experiences of the participants.
Another possible bias is the researcher’s affiliation with the type of group that is
the subject of the research (Mehra, 2002). The researcher is part of the Deaf community.
However, this researcher does not have a personal relationship with any of the
participants. In addition to external validity triangulation was utilized to further
minimize the possibility of bias.
89
Summary
This chapter discussed the methodology of this study. Chapter 3 outlined the
framework of the study including research design, targeted population, sample size,
means of data collection and analysis, validity of the study, and ethical issues.
Phenomenology was deemed to be the most appropriate methodology to answer the six
research questions for this study. Phenomenological studies allow for in-depth
exploration of the lived experiences of the participants in regarding to a phenomenon
(Collingridge & Gantt, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Mertens 2010; & Moustakas, 1994). 10
Deaf employees who worked in the hearing and deaf workplaces were the selected
targeted samples. Chapter 4 presents discussion of themes resulting from symbolic
interactions and deductive processing. Chapter 5 discusses the implications of this study
in regard to Deaf employees working in hearing and deaf workplaces. Appendix A
outlines which participants viewed the pre-recorded interview questions in ASL on the
laptop. Appendix B lists two modes of communication that was utilized by the Deaf
participants when communicating with their non-signing supervisors in the hearing
workplaces. Appendix C provides a description of each participant.
90
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The Study and the Researcher
This study addresses problem such as job satisfaction, relationships with hearing
supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or Deaf supervisors and co-
workers who know sign language, and overall success in employment. The purpose of
this phenomenological study is to gain a better understanding of the perceptions,
thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in both predominately deaf
workplaces and hearing workplaces. The phenomenological study design allows the
researcher to learn from the participants by way of semi-structured interviews, including
open-ended questions to elicit elaborated narratives regarding their experiences (Chenail,
2011). Very little was known about the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf
people working in a predominately deaf workplace. Findings from this study are based
on the experiences of 10 participants who voluntarily contribute to this study by sharing
their journey working in both environments to bring new understanding of a gap in
literature.
The Researcher
This study is important to this researcher who currently is a supervisor at a deaf-
services organization. The goal of this study is to close the gap in the knowledge base
about the lived experiences of Deaf employees working in a predominately deaf
workplace including the current perspectives and experiences of Deaf employees working
in a predominately hearing workplace since accommodations and technologies such as
videophones and other devices have become more prevalent for Deaf people (Butterfield
& Ramseur, 2004; Hintermair & Albertini, 2005; Shaw, 2012; Tyler, 2014; Woodcock &
91
Pole, 2008). The researcher, Deaf herself with fluent signing skills, is a licensed
professional counselor for individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing with 20 plus
years of experience in working in the field of deafness. This researcher currently holds a
supervisory position where she operates and supervises several programs.
Throughout the years, she has observed the emergence of more deaf-service
organizations that are operated by Deaf leaders who hire Deaf employees. Deaf-service
organizations include human service agencies, video-relay businesses, and Schools for
the Deaf. The researcher found sufficient literature on experiences of Deaf employees
working in hearing workplaces where Deaf employees have experienced successes along
with struggles. Literatures concerning this issue often suggests problems with
communication, accessibility of accommodations, lack of understanding about deafness,
misconceptions about deafness, lack of promotions, and difficulty integrating socially at
work, along with some positive experiences such as obtaining promotion, support from
supervisor and co-workers, and access to accommodations (Foster & MacLeod, 2003;
Fusick, 2008; Harder, 2009; Luckner & Stewart, 2005; Luft, 2014; Punch et al., 2007;
Shaw, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2010; Vogel & Keating, 2005; Walter & Dirmyer, 2013).
Due to the gap in the knowledge base about Deaf employees working in Deaf
workplaces, the researcher as a supervisor and a counselor feels it is important to study
this topic to better understand the experiences of Deaf employees. As a supervisor and a
counselor closing the gap of knowledge base may enable her as well as others to better
understand the Deaf employees and provide information to clients she provides
counseling for along with the Deaf staff she supervises. Additionally, findings from this
92
study may enhance the knowledge for other supervisors in multiple areas of employment,
who hire and supervise Deaf employees especially in areas of job satisfaction and
employee motivation (Herzberg, 2003; Ruthankoon and Ogunlana, 2003). Furthermore,
with increased knowledge, it is the hope of this researcher to identify whether or not more
training on specific topics based on the findings of this study would benefit the Deaf
employees along with supervisors who supervise deaf-service organizations in
understanding the positives along with the struggles Deaf people face working in
predominately deaf workplaces.
Research Methodology Applied to Data Collection and Analysis
This phenomenological study was guided by Moustakas (1994) who wrote about
the essence of understanding the experiences of the participants by breaking down
information provided by the participants to gain a picture of their perspectives. The aim
of this phenomenological study is to understand and learn about the experiences of Deaf
employees in relation to how they interpret their experiences in deaf and hearing
workplaces, to answer the research questions regarding their job satisfaction, their
relationships with hearing supervisors and co-workers, their relationships with
hearing/Deaf co-workers who know sign language, and successes in their respective
fields of employment. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and the
interviews were videotaped. All interviews were transcribed word for word after each
taping of each interview. Due to the fact that the researcher herself is Deaf, two laptops
were necessary: one to watch the videotape and the other to type up the interviews from
sign language to written English. During this process, the researcher applied Moustakas’
93
(1994) recommendation of studying and analyzing the statements made by the
participants, who use “I” statements. This procedure enables the researcher to identify
the relationship between the participant and the phenomenon.
Analysis and Findings
Rigorously studying the participants’ interviews separately by reviewing the
transcriptions one by one was one of the steps to assure all information were captured
(Rolfe, 2006). Each transcription was typed using a Word Document and each
transcription has page numbers, line numbers, and comments on the side along with
highlighted themes, codes, meaning units, as well as repeated phrases/word choices. Like
the qualitative study conducted by Putman (2008), the themes were documented in Excel.
In the Excel document, each tab consists of one research question, and there were six tabs
for that particular Excel sheet. The first column labeled “Theme Number” and the
second column is the theme identified. The columns after that are each participant’s
names. In order to easily find the origin of the themes in the transcription, they are listed
under the participants’ column with page number along with their corresponding line
number (e.g. P5 L400).
The researcher also used triangulation (Farmer, Robinson, Elliott, & Eyles, 2006)
to increase the validity of this study. An external auditor, an expert in qualitative studies,
was utilized for this study to increase the validity of the findings. Investigator analysis
was employed in this study, since this involves two or more researchers in the analysis
(Farmer et al., 2006) and in this case two researchers were involved in reviewing the data
with the researcher primarily analyzing the data.
94

The researcher identified themes that emerged from repeated responses and
meaning units shared by the participants. After the identification of themes and unit
meanings through a coding process were complete, the transcription with comments on
the sidebar was sent to the external auditor who reviewed the transcription to determine
that appropriate themes were assigned and to make sure that no other emerging themes
were overlooked. Phone conferences took place with the external auditor to review each
transcription. During the final conference call, the researcher shared her findings with
the consultant, especially her findings were nomothetic and sub themes emerged
frequently.
Findings of this Study
The lived experiences of 10 Deaf employees were explored in this study to close
the knowledge gap regarding their perceptions, thoughts, and experiences related to job
satisfaction, relationships with hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with
their hearing or Deaf supervisors and co-workers who know sign language, and overall
success in employment. Equity and social exchange theories were the foundation of this
research guided by six research questions. The two primary research questions focused
on how the Deaf employees perceived their job satisfaction working in deaf and hearing
workplaces. The four secondary research questions were aimed to learn about their
relationships with Deaf and hearing supervisors along with Deaf and hearing co-workers
and their overall perception of overall success in employment. The semi-structured open-
ended interview questions were designed to elicit in-depth responses (Collingridge &
Gantt, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Mertens, 2010; Moustakas, 1994).
95

The following segment of this dissertation lists the research questions and outlines
the themes found for each research question. The themes are outlined in an organized
presentation to illustrate the in-depth responses from each participant. Each participant
provided a very rich insight that closed the gap in the knowledge base of this study.
Table 1
Frequency of Themes: Nomothetic Themes

Nomothetic Theme Frequency/Participant #
Pride in completing tasks ahead of others 8/10 (80%)

1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Positive compliments and recognition by supervisor 8/10 (80%)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10
Communication was a challenge 10/10 (100%)
Feeling alone/excluded 6/10 (60%)

1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10
No feedback from supervisors 7/10 (70%)

1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Missed information from co-workers and supervisors 7/10 (70%)

1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10
Received Promotions 4/10 (40%)

3, 5, 8, 10
Research Question 1
What are the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working
in a hearing workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
Theme 1: Pride in completing tasks ahead of others. Eight out of 10
participants mentioned that their ability to complete tasks ahead of others was a result of
96
their inability to socialize and work at the same time. Some of the participants noticed
that their hearing co-workers are able to talk and work at the same time, whereas they did
not have the same advantage since their co-workers often did not know sign language.
(Lucy) I completed my duties fast more than others. This was because there was
no communication because I did not talk to anyone. This allowed me to finish
what I was supposed to do.
(Lance) I was a hard worker so I focused on doing my job instead of -- there was
no communication.
(Darcy) I could focus, which was awesome. I was left alone and was able to finish
my tasks.
Theme 2: Positive compliments and recognition by supervisors. Receiving
positive feedback from supervisors is a theme that was shared by eight out of 10 of the
participants. The participants smiled when they shared that they have received good
evaluations, positive comments, and recognition from their supervisors. Johnny was the
only one who reported receiving no recognition or compliments of any sort, except for an
occasional “thumbs up” when he finished pulling water out of the lake. Some were
recognized through evaluations, while for others, the supervisor communicated directly
with the participants about their skills and performance. One participant heard of the
positive compliments through his co-workers.
(Ellory) My supervisor evaluates me every six months. I think he is very pleased

with my work. He gives me positive evaluations. We do not see any area I need
to improve to do my job well.
(Claudia) They felt I did a great job. They were surprised that I completed the
tasks earlier than expected… For my tasks, I was always on time with my tasks
and they liked that. They wanted to keep me there.
Theme 3: Communication was a challenge. As the review of literature in
Chapter 2 indicated, Deaf employees frequently face communication barriers when

97

working in a hearing workplace (Backenroth, 1997; Foster, 1998; Foster & MacLeod,
2003; Fusick, 2008; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Woodcock & Pole, 2008). The responses
from the participants coincide with the literature findings. All 10 of the participants
reported that communication with others/hearing co-workers often was a challenge for
them, as most of their co-workers did not know sign language. Some are able to
communicate effectively on a one-to-one basis; however, communication in a group
setting became a barrier.
(Johnny) I experienced struggles. I remember communication and teamwork …

and the supervisor sat and talked with his co-workers or talked with someone on
the radio. It was a struggle because of communication. They did not learn sign
language. I remember when I interviewed for the job they said they would learn
sign language. They did not make any effort to learn.
(Frankie) Really the biggest challenge I had was communication, obviously. I

was the only one that was deaf, well, I also can speak and lip-read, it takes time.
But I felt the time I spent with my co-workers, I was able to develop comfortably
understanding them more … I used that skill to really to make things smoother.
But there were times when I was standing over there and the co-worker was
standing on the other side. He wanted to yell to get my attention and I was like
‘sorry’… So, the disadvantage is communication as you miss information. When
I lip-read, I going to only catch half of what they say. So, part of me being a
survivor, I would take a word they said that I understood and the topic of
discussion, and with that, I was able to figure out what they were saying.
(Ellory) In my team, there are 11 of us. That was before another Deaf person
came on aboard. For a long time I was the only deaf person. Employees do not
sign. My boss does not sign either. Most communication is through writing or
internal instant messaging. We have office IM where we IM on computer or e-
mail among each other. I have seen employees who talk with each other
throughout the day. I can hear sounds of the conversation but cannot comprehend
what they are saying.
Ellory shared that having another Deaf co-worker in his department helped his boss
become more serious about obtaining sign language interpreters for office meetings, but
he conveyed that having a Deaf co-worker did not necessarily take away the
98

communication challenges.
(Ellory) A new Deaf employee moved to my department. That move … boss is

more aware and realizes he has to be more serious to provide accommodations.
With just me, they were lax about it but now with two of us they are more serious
and bring in interpreters for different things which helps with communication as
now there are two of us. But of course the two of us are deaf and can
communicate with each other, but her level is not the same as mine.
Lucy’s challenge was not only a result of co-workers not knowing sign language
but also a result of working with co-workers who do not speak English.
(Lucy) Communication was one [a disadvantage]. I think that if hearing people

made effort to communicate with me, I think that would have improved
everything. But communication was hard. English was not their first language as
they spoke in a different language. I could communicate with them by gesturing.
Some were Vietnamese, Hispanic, and some were … (pointed ... indicating other
cultures). Accents - that’s right. Lip-reading was a hard because of
accents. Generally I am good at lip-reading … But with the accents, it was a
nightmare. I could not understand and had to ask for multiple repetitions.
Theme 4: Feeling alone/excluded. Of the participants, 60% reported feeling
alone and/or excluded by their hearing co-workers. Many of the participants regarded
communication barriers to be a factor for feeling this way. Participants also expressed
that they have the desire to socialize with their co-workers and want to be part of their
socialization.
(Johnny) I noticed that they talked with other people involving personal
conversations. I tried to engage by saying hi good morning and what’s up. I did
not get a response. I sat down and waited until it was time to get to the location
… I was not even invited to go out to a bar to have fun with them. I just left work
and went home only to return in the morning. I do not like to sit quietly while
they chatted. I like to know what is going on. What if they were talking about
football and I like football. I would have liked to banter about my team being the
best team.
(Torie) Sometimes I felt lonely. Sometimes I would approach the workers to ask
what was happening. Like, during lunch break, or during our regular breaks. The
common responses I got were “Nothing much” or “I will tell you later..” I did not
like that and I was lonely at the first job. I was very isolated.
99
(Gwen) It feels isolating, a little bit isolating. I miss the conversations and if they
are laughing, I am like “what is funny?” But I am lucky as I am assertive and I
say, “What did you say?” They are used to me saying “what, what?” They make
fun of me (in a nice way) when I lean over to my ear (I wear hearing
aid). [Demonstrated how she does that]. So, my co-workers adjusted to my
assertiveness of saying “What did you say? What did you say?” That is one thing
that I appreciate about them. Some are hard to follow and I miss out come
conversations.
Theme 5: No feedback from supervisors. This theme may seem contradictory
to Theme 2, where the participants received compliments and recognition by their
supervisor. However, while being recognized for good work was felt to be important, the
participants voiced their desire to receive ongoing feedback, especially on areas of
improvement. Some simply did not receive any feedback from their supervisors.
Receiving recognition and receiving ongoing feedback were different for seven out of the
10 participants.
(Lance) I had to take the initiative to ask how I was doing and if there was
anything I needed to improve. I would do that maybe every few weeks when I
did not hear anything from my supervisor. He only left me notes, a list on my
desk every week ... I started to feel (showed on facial expression -- no words --
comparable to like … unsure), I approached him and asked. He said, “If I do not
talk to you, you are fine”. I was like okay, fine. At the same time, I wondered ...
I want to do better, what can I do to do better? He says, “Do your job and you
will be fine..” I was like “Ok, fine..”
(Torie) If she [supervisor] would just wander around and see the work I do and at
the end of the day I would have liked for her to come to me and say to me “This
person said to me you did this and that … good job and keep it up.” I got nothing.
Theme 6: Missed information from co-workers and supervisors. Seven out of
10 of the participants acknowledged missing out a lot of information from co-workers
and supervisors. Again, this appears to revert to communication barriers and working
with co-workers who do not know sign language. This is what Pollard and Barnett
(2009) referred to, when they discussed Deaf people often lacking fund-of-information,
100

which results from limited access to the ongoing bombardment of information including
people around them speaking. Some of the participants shared that at their hearing
workplaces overhead speakers are utilized as a means to communicate with the staff, and
that information from overhead speakers was lost to the Deaf employee. Another factor
is the inability to obtain interpreters especially on a last minute notice.
(Ellory) Secondly, as for interpreters, I work for the federal government and they
are mandated by the ADA to provide interpreters. But there are times when
meetings were called at the last-minute and last minute meetings can happen on
the same day. It does not give enough time to get interpreters and they go ahead
and have the meeting to announce something. I have to assertively ask what
happens and they filled me in. Even if they filled me in, the other employees
discussed it and asked questions and I am not able to receive this information. I
cannot participate in that.
(Gwen) If I had last minute meetings, there are times when there are no
interpreters and it is hard to follow. I have to stand close but sometimes I still do
not understand. After the meeting, I asked them to please write down what was
said and email to me.
(Claudia) I see people talking and I had to be assertive. One of my friend would
tell me what is going on. Few hearing came to me because they loved to gossip
and they asked us questions about our deafness. But really, we did not talk in
depth and I did not get 100% of the messages and I missed a lot.
Willie also shared that last-minute meetings were announced via overhead speakers
and when inquired if he felt he missed out a lot of information that was transmitted
though the overhead speaker, Willie’s response was (sigh), thinking ”I feel strongly I
missed pretty much of it. Yes.” Willie had to rely on his hearing co-workers to fill him
in on what they heard though the overhead speaker. Willie was uncertain if he received
all the information. Willie worked there long enough to know the pattern of the
announcements especially around the holidays.
(Willie) Honestly, I cannot tell if they told me often. I am not sure if they heard it
but did not tell me. But I know around holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas,
101

Easter, something like that, I knew the company’s pattern such as going home
early. I was expecting that and I asked the co-worker if they heard it over the
loudspeaker. The co-workers asked me how I knew. I told the co-worker that
they do that around the holidays. The co-worker told me it was not announced
yet. I asked the co-worker to let me know.
Theme 7: Received promotions. Four participants were awarded promotions at
work. Out of the four, only two of them involved being promoted to supervisory
positions.
(Lance) Yes, I got promoted several times. First I started out as a factory worker-
assembly line with machines where I had to take the boxes off the machine and
pack. That was the bottom. I moved up to machine operator. Then, I got
prompted to forklifting. I remember I tried to forklift. Umm, let me explain some
more. My father worked there too, which is how I started to work there. I was
18. My dad always said that I could drive the forklift. He knew what I could do
and he saw me operate heavy machines at home. People always told us “Deaf
people cannot drive forklifts. I was like “Oh, please.” I can see and look around
and I know what do. It did not matter if I could not hear. They had a flashing
light.” After that, they still thought I could not. One day, I went ahead and drove
the forklift. They saw that I could do it. I took the training class on forklifting.
Lance was eventually promoted as a supervisor where he supervised hearing
people. Lance described the difficulty he experienced at first supervising his hearing
workers and he felt the pejorative attitudes on part of the people he supervised were the
reason.
(Lance) At first they thought I was an idiot and did not know what I was
doing. Then, it came to a point where it was where I used to work and I would
jump in and do the work to show how I expected the work to be done. They were
like “Wow, he works fast”. I told them it was what I expected from them. They
seemed to be taken back and they shut up and did their job.
(Darcy) I was hired without an interview. I was told to start any time. It was
based on my resume and application. They saw that I had the experience. Two
months later, they asked me to become an assistant manager … if there was a
manager position opened at another site, they asked me if I was interested. That
time I was not sure if I wanted it or not. So, I declined the offer and told them I
was not interested at that time. They were like “Shucks that is fine.”
102
Lance and Darcy were the only ones whose promotion includes supervising hearing
people. Darcy however did not elaborate about her experience supervising hearing
people and what the assistant manager position included. Willie and Torie’s promotions
involve upward positions; however, they were not managerial positions that involve
doing more challenging and advanced tasks. Torie shared that she did not have
confidence in her ability to do the task, but that her supervisor had faith in her and
continued to push her until she succeeded doing the difficult tasks. Torie described the
promotion the following way: “it was regarded as doing more work and it was equivalent
to someone who was licensed in the field which I did not have..”
(Torie) The second job, wow, they put a lot of effort on me. They had the
knowledge that I could do the job even though I told them repeatedly that I am not
able to do the job … They encouraged me a lot. If I did not grasp the concept,
they encouraged me to keep trying until I got it. One day, I tried one difficult task
and they told me to try it on my own without help. I tried it and gave up and said
I was a failure. They told me I was not a failure and to try again. They gave me
another pair of glasses and told me to try again. I had to do it a couple times
before I mastered the task. They pointed out that I was capable of doing it. It
made me realize that things take time but it really made me feel good that they
really believed in me.
Willie shared his experience with his promotion and although the promotion did not
include a supervisory level, to his chagrin, he was put in a position where he provided
support to his co-workers. Willie shared that this was not enough since he desired to do
more.
(Willie) After a while, they decided to change my rank from data entry to senior
technician. This means I remained with my co-workers. But whenever I noticed
their areas of weaknesses, I came to them to show them what they needed to do to
finish the tasks … I wanted to know more. I felt the job I had was too easy for
me. I was like “come on, I need challenges.” After working there for almost 18
years, I told my supervisor that I did not feel there was a challenge and the work
was stagnant. I explained I would not mind staying if they promoted me to a
103

Senior Assistant working under the supervisor. That way I could learn the ropes
of the role of the supervisor … The supervisor told me it was not possible because
I could not talk on the phone. That was when I lost motivation. I even talked to
the branch manager, I was told the same thing that the concern was my not being
able to use the phone. I explained my case and the supervisor said he understood
but they were afraid to lose businesses with agents as they can back off from the
company which will create loss of revenue. This is where I started to really lose
(emphasized it) my motivation. I, purposely, like the hearing co-workers,
wandered around, chatted and they noticed the difference in my behavior. My
unit even told me about deadlines that they needed to finish and wanted my
help. I told the person to figure it on his own. I became tired of helping, being a
nice, and fixing thing for them. This is when I said, “You are on your own” as I
did not care anymore. My productivity decreased. No one recognized me by
praising or promoting me. I served my 18 years and my salary was not enough. I
saw other people who appeared comfortable and happy. This caused me to
become frustrated. They worked for a short time and got promoted. I worked for
18 years and by then I should have been in the senior level.
Table 2
Communication was accessible 10/10 (100%)
Received feedback from supervisor 8/10 (80%)

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Accommodations were already in place and readily available 10/10 (100%)
Supervisor provided positive recognition 8/10 (80%)

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Able to share knowledge and experience 6/10 (60%)

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
Research Question 2
What are the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in a
predominately deaf workplace regarding their job satisfaction?
104
Theme 8: Communication was accessible. Contrary to Theme 3 for Research
Question 1, all of the participants reported that communication was accessible for them.
The accessibility of communication involves being able to see and engage in
conversations with co-workers, supervisors, and individuals that they served.
Communication was accessible for 100% of the participants.
(Willie) I believe I performed above my job duties because I was able to do those
things because the more communication there is, the more I understood my
expectations. This helped me do my job better … Working with all deaf, feels
good because you can communicate with anyone you want to … Whenever
someone was talking from afar, I could see what they were saying … While
hearing could hear what other hearing said even if a little distance was there. That
is what the difference was … I would go out, chat everywhere. We sit in the car
and chat, sit and eat lunch outside. I would stop by and say, “What’s up?” and
talk. If I’m in the bathroom and someone walks in, we talk in the bathroom. I
meet and socialize with them everywhere. (Chuckled).
(Lance) No communication barriers and umm … I noticed that during crisis, it

was easy to communicate and we understand each other and what each person
needed to do. As opposed to hearing, I had to try and communicate and if they
did not understand me, it was like [expletive word].
(Frankie) OHHHHHHH (emphasis with facial expression). At first, well, it was

a group meeting and everybody signed. I had access to everything. I was able to
sign and they understood me with no barriers. There was no “What did you say?
I missed what you said” again and again. It was very fluent. So, yeah, it was a
culture shock for me. I have never been in that situation before.
Theme 9: Received feedback from supervisor. According to 80 % of the
participants, job satisfaction was important as it relates to getting feedback from
supervisors:
(Johnny) I got praise, and positive comments. My supervisor and I sat a lot and
talked and she gave me feedback. Sometimes I would go to her office and ask for
help and she gave me feedback and I had an idea and we compromised on how to
meet the needs of the people I served.
(Torie) Oh yes. My supervisor really sees my skills. I just got an evaluation from
them. They gave me high scores and I surpassed my expectations, goals, I mean
105
their goals for me. That felt good. They gave me negative feedback too so that
way I could work to improve myself especially my weak areas. They want to
help me work on those skills.
(Lucy) She [supervisor] said I am doing fine and she gives me feedback
especially with paperwork. At the beginning I asked her for help with
paperwork. I have supervision once a week to talk about my work with
individuals served and how I can improve. Sometimes I expressed my frustration
and I need that because that job is a highly stressful job. I am able to express
frustration and receive feedback.
Theme 10: Accommodations were already in place and readily available.
Review of the literature in Chapter 2 has found that Deaf employees often struggle with
feelings of oppression, discrimination, exclusion from socialization at work and lastly,
accessing accommodations either due to being denied accommodations or provided with
limited accommodations only (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007; Foster, 1998, Foster &
MacLeod, 2003; Fusick, 2008; Lane, 2005; Luckner & Stewart, 2003; Punch et al., 2007;
Shaw, 2012; Sheridan et al., 2010; Tyler, 2004). All of the participants, 100%, reported
accommodations were not an issue, since the accommodations were already in place and
they did not even have to ask for them. Some of the participants did not consider
videophones, interpreters, or flashing lights to be “accommodations” because those
devices are designed for Deaf people. Some of them perceived accommodations to mean
adapting the environment to meet the needs of a person. Since what they need were
already part of the environment, thus they were not accommodations.
(Ellory) [Shaking head.] None. Everyone signs, so, well – [thinking]. Well, if
they have a hearing presenter, of course, they call an interpreter. Any deaf to deaf
dialogues there are no accommodation needed.
(Frankie) Yea. We had access to videophones, interpreters for training, all staff
were fluent in sign language, so the meetings were smooth without [interpreters].
IEP meeting with parents who speak there was an interpreter there. Umm.. Fire
alarm lights were there. It was really accessible.
106

(Johnny) [Looking at researcher as if it was a strange question] I did not ask for
accommodations. They know deafness and they provided accommodations
without asking us. This was common sense because they worked in a deaf
environment.
Theme 11: Supervisor provided positive recognition. Similar to Research
Question 1, participants reported valuing receiving positive feedback from their
supervisors, which contributed to their job satisfaction. Eight out of 10 participants
looked back on their experiences of receiving positive recognition from their supervisor.
(Claudia) I got complements about my good work … They told me I was a good
worker.
(Torie) Sometimes I get more recognized such as “You were good at dealing with
specific behaviors” and they asked me to help the student when other staff could
not. When the situation deescalated, I went back to my area.
Theme 12: Able to share knowledge and experience. Of the participants, 60%
reported finding gratification in being able to contribute by sharing their knowledge and
experiences to their workplace and to the individuals that they served. This involved
utilizing their critical thinking skills as well.
(Ellory) Criminal Justice. Yes, BA criminal justice, and Masters 1 year of

counseling. Plus I used to be RA at a dorm doing a lot of peer advising. Also I
was a peer advisor in HS that involved one-to-one counseling, discussion. Those
experiences contributed to my work at that place. So I think I contribute more
there than where I work in the hearing workplace because my experiences match
my job. I work with the clients and counsel them. I have a lot of patience.
(Frankie) Uhh.. [Thinking] … Well, it is interesting because in the hearing

environment, it was more hands-on. In the deaf environment I contributed more
with my intelligence because the job requires like being a supervisor. It requires
you to think make decisions, less hands on, more. Umm - using my skills I
learned in college, what I learned growing up and applying it to something more
meaningful. I felt with that contribution was a lot.
(Lance) Okay, I was easily adaptable. I used to work as a para RA (at other
job). I contributed my knowledge, I was able to understand the system and able
to work with students very well. I understood what they needed. I used my
107
experience to help them. I worked a lot with behavioral issues and students with
autism, I was a quick learned. I was able to understand what they needed so I can
help them.
Table 3
Infrequent encounters with supervisor 9/10 (90%)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Minimal or no socialization with hearing co-workers 8/10 (80%)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Socialization with other Deaf co-workers was available 5/10 (50%)

1, 2, 7, 8, 10
Research Question 3:
in a hearing workplace regarding their relationship with hearing supervisors and co-
workers?
Theme 13: Infrequent encounters with supervisor. Participants discussed the
level of interaction they had with their supervisors, and 90% of them found their
interaction with their supervisors inadequate. Some of the interactions were limited to e-
mails or instant messages with sporadic face-to-face interactions, while for some there
was practically no interaction at all. Some of the interactions were on an as needed basis,
as the participants felt that the nature of their job really did not mandate frequent
interaction.
(Ellory) Officially every six months … every day though IM

system. Questions, feedback, I use IM. Many times my cases need his approval
108

anyway so I contact him on a daily basis by IM, Email or in person.
(Frankie) [Thinking.. eyes looking up]. Umm, at the university, umm - I would
say once a month. Really [half signed] ... really, I had an issue or wanted to
comment on, I tend to inform the co-workers or foreman. For the higher up
supervisor, once a month. He tended to ask me how everything was going or if I
needed anything. I told him how everything was going … Once a month [that
one- pointed meaning supervisor from the University]. The other supervisor
(foreman), I had access to him every day.
Theme 14: Minimal or no socialization with hearing co-workers.
Socialization is a vital part of employment and many participants desire to fit in with
their colleagues (Allen & Shanock, 2013). 80 % of the participants stated that
socialization with their co-workers was minimal.
(Johnny) There was no socialization.
(Claudia) I do not socialize with them at all. One lived in the same town. We
talked during work but not home. I rather socialize with them only at work. I
talked with the deaf co-workers. If hearing came to sit down, I would talk to them
to be nice. I do not approach them to talk.
(Torie) My socialization with co-workers, umm. Like I said I was

alone. Sometimes, I made an effort to talk to them. The responses were
terse. Then they would get back to whoever they were talking to. I just accepted
it.
(Lucy) I had none … [shook head.] None. None. The furthest I know, back then
we had AIM, they communicated on AIM and told me to let them know if I
needed help. That was it. That was the furthest it went.
(Ellory) Hearing environment? Umm. The only official socialization

unfortunately happens once a year. My team often has a get together and goes out
to eat at a restaurant. I bring an interpreter with me this is my social time and I
can socialize. While working all day without an interpreter, I cannot unless I
write back and forth. Some co-workers are willing to write back and forth while
some do not want to and prefer to talk (using mouth). Or do not feel like writing
back and forth as it takes a lot of time … For unofficial socialization, say one co-
worker is pregnant, there is a baby shower, there is a baby shower and we get
together.
109
Theme 15: Socialization with other Deaf co-workers was available. Some of
the participants worked with other Deaf people. They did not necessarily work in the
same department, but they met up during break time, as five out of 10 participants have
the advantage of socializing with other Deaf colleagues during break time.
(Willie) Most of the time I socialized with the secretary. Because the secretary
was older and she knew one Deaf person before me then I came in. The other
Deaf person was involved too and I helped interpret if the secretary did not
understand the other deaf person.
(Ellory) I socialize with them during lunchtime, and break time. We do have a
table that is right behind the TV in the cafeteria where Deaf people gather during
lunch and socialize. This happens every day during lunch … for half hour.
Table 4
Direct communication with supervisor using sign language 10/10 (100%)
Supervisors were easily accessible 7/10 (70%)

3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,10
Supervisors encouraged professional growth 9/10 (90%)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
in predominately deaf workplaces regarding their relationship with supervisors and
coworkers, deaf or hearing, that know sign language?
Theme 16: Direct communication with supervisors using sign language. Each
of the participants recalled their ability to have direct communication with their
110

supervisors. The supervisors were either Deaf or hearing and some supervisors signed
fluently while others did not. One Deaf supervisor did not sign fluently, especially in
ASL, but she took the time to learn ASL from Claudia.
(Lance) He could sign well. He was Deaf. [thinking] My recent supervisor was
not deaf but he worked in the deaf world for a long time. He worked in another
program at [ ] to set up a program and he knew a lot of deaf people. He became
older and slower, but ... I understood him fine.
(Claudia) Signing, of course. Sign all the time. All supervisors sign. For
example, one supervisor, I observe her use both sign and voice the same time and
her sign language skills have improved over the years … Yes, she is deaf. I
watched her sign. She grew up oral and signed in English. She has gotten better
over the years. I teased her about her how she signed in English. I helped her
and enjoy teaching her ASL ... Yes, and she requests it and asked me.
(Darcy) [Reading the question- made a facial expression as if puzzled about the
question and why it was asked]. Through sign language. Deaf environment, all
signed.
Torie’s immediate supervisor was Deaf and they communicated using sign
language. This is what Torie said about her supervisor’s boss.
(Torie) Did she understand us? I do not know that because sometimes she seems
to give us the “deaf nod” and I had to ask if she understood. She tells me yes. I
find out later she had the wrong information [chuckle]. She worked there for
many, many years. I am talking about 35 years. [chuckle]. It is important to
remember their signs back then were different from what it is now.
Theme 17: Supervisors were easily accessible. Despite every participant
reporting the ability to have direct communication with their supervisors, only 70% of
them found their supervisors to be easily accessible in person. Some of the encounters or
meetings took place over the videophone while some correspondences occurred through
e-mails.
(Lance) They would tell me it was time for the 3-month evaluation and gave me
feedback- both positive and negative. It was good and I liked that. I would say if
something happens, we discussed the situation. Sometimes they say good job.
111

Yeah, his office was always open.
(Frankie) Two different supervisors. The hearing one was more accessible and I
met ... well. Let’s go back to the deaf one. I was a front line staff and one-to-one
meetings rarely happened. I moved up and became a supervisor; I had more
meetings with her and another supervisor. It was a supervisory meeting. The
one-to-one with her occurred once a month. Then, when I moved up again, it was
more like once a week. It depended on my position. [Pointed at a space- hearing]
So, once a week, once a month. [Pointing to another space-Deaf] - rarely and it
was more of a group thing.
(Torie) [Facial expression brightened]. I met with her everyday (emphasis) for
any reason. It could be related to the students. We met for evaluations, or when I
had complaints. When there was nothing going on, sometimes I would go in and
chat with her.
Theme 18: Supervisors encouraged professional growth. Ninety percent of the
participants discussed their experiences receiving feedback from supervisors. Encounters
to receive feedback took place via various means, such as in person, videophones,
texting, or e-mails. Gwen was the only one that avoided her Deaf supervisors and she did
not feel comfortable interacting with them. During the interview, she quickly moved on
to the next question when discussing this topic.
(Claudia) I insist on a meeting one time per week must one hour when I meet
once a week. If I am not at the office, the supervision takes place over
videophone. The supervisor makes sure I take notes, which helps me. It is good
and wonderful. My English is not that great. Sometimes, I have to read what I
type and sometimes it takes me an hour to review it and I do not have time for
that. If it’s a simple matter, I can handle it. If it is a more complicated matter, I
write the e-mail but send it to my supervisor to review and give me feedback. Any
business related e-mails I am not very good at it as I say things too bluntly at
times. I have to be careful. My supervisors prefer me to have them edit and they
are good about it and there is no limit on how many they have to edit for me. My
supervisors are wonderful at editing and giving me feedback.
(Johnny) A lot. Met for feedback about individuals I served and how I can
improve myself. I got feedback on suggestions and ideas. I was willing to help
Jenny and Jenny was willing to help me. For example, Jenny did not know how
to do one computer program and I helped her fix it. Jenny gave me feedback on
how I could help an individual who was struggling. We communicated well.
112
(Lucy) At the second deaf workplace, I meet one hour every week. And I actually
get a very thorough feedback both negative and positive. I can express my
frustrations in general too. I can do that whereas in the past I could not. Now I
can and know it will be kept confidential, at least it is supposed to be that
way. That supervisor is neutral too.
Table 5
Literacy skill makes a positive difference 8/10 (80%)

Importance of literacy Skills 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
Assertive is necessary to get needs met 7/10 (70%)

Assertiveness is necessary 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
What are the thoughts and perceptions of Deaf employees regarding successful
employment in hearing workplaces?
Theme 19: Literacy skills make a positive difference. The review of the
literature in Chapter 2 discussed the struggles Deaf people face with regard to literacy
skills impacting their ability to integrate in a hearing workplace (Bélanger & Rayner,
2013; Bowe, 2002; Luft, 2014; Miller, 2010; Pollard & Barnett, 2005). Most of the
participants perceived their literacy skills to be sufficient and 80% of them viewed
literacy skills as an essential factor to successful employment in a hearing workplace.
The importance of literacy skills is not limited to understanding anything they read on the
job regarding their duties, but also to communications when writing back and forth with
hearing people. This study found that 100% of the participants relied on writing back and
forth as a mode of communication and this involves literacy skills. One has to have
113

sufficient literacy skills to relay his or her thoughts, requests/questions, ideas, or simply
engage in discussion on top of comprehending what the hearing person writes down.
(Frankie) I felt that writing or typing was in his [supervisor] native language,
English, and I had that too. This is my primary language and this is what I am
strong at. It worked out well. OHHHHH Definitely [when inquired if his literacy
skills helped him navigate in the hearing workplace]
(Gwen): Yes. I feel if I did not get the education I got, I probably would not be
more motivated to try things more. It is very important to be able to write
correctly and to read correctly as expected for most jobs and if you do not have
that you would have more of a challenge to succeed. My position requires
reading and writing.
(Willie): [Facial expression emphasizing yes]. Yes, very much to function in the
hearing world, yes. I believe I would be lost. L-O-S-T [signed it first, then
fingerspelled it as a form of emphasis]. I probably would not have been able to
understand one world at all.
Theme 20: Assertiveness is a necessity to get needs met.
Literature finding in Chapter 2 and the experiences of the participants revealed that Deaf
employees face various challenges in a hearing workplace. Those challenges come in
terms of communication, socialization, or accommodations. Seventy percent of the
participants experienced that being assertive has been beneficial for them to get their
needs met.
(Claudia) I see hearing people engage in conversation, and of course I am curious

what they are saying. I have to take the initiative to write down on paper and ask
them to share with me.
(Frankie) I found that approach [assertiveness] to be very, very effective …

because from my experience, people [hearing] do not initiate it as they freeze as
they do not know what to do. They may feel if they talk, the deaf person won’t
understand them. They are limited to their options and they do not know what
they can do to help. So, the deaf person should initiate it and help that person feel
comfortable because obviously they feel nervous because they do not want to
offend or discriminate them or whatever.
114
Table 6
Mixing personal and work lives creates problems 8/10 (80%)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10
Socialization impacts completion of job duties 6/10 (60%)

3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
What are the thoughts and perceptions of deaf employees regarding successful
employment in predominately deaf workplaces?
Theme 21: Mixing personal and work lives create problems. In the hearing
workplace the participants reported that they were not involved in the office gossip or
drama and with that, that not being able to hear was beneficial for them (getting work
done in a timely fashion). However, in the deaf workplace, 80% of the participants
experienced gossip and drama and they could not avoid it. Sign language was
everywhere and they understood what was going on. Some of the participants suffered
serious repercussions as a result of that. For instance, Lance shared too much and in turn,
the information was used against him resulting in being terminated from his job. Some of
the participants also experienced neglecting their work due to co-workers discussing
personal things during work.
(Ellory) DRAMA!!!! [With a smile and shaking head]. I think deaf is a small
world so when I come to work, you have the sense of being around those who
already know you through different means. Maybe, for example, I got into a fight
with another person and left. The word of mouth gets out and when I show up to
work, my co-workers already know the story. So that makes my job
115

uncomfortable I cannot get away from what happened. In hearing, no one would
have known. Deaf small world, gossip, it can pull you down.
(Torie) Wow. It was a bit overwhelming because we need to learn boundaries

between job and outside of job. For example, on the weekends, we, my co-
workers, get together and hung out and partied or did something together. Then
we came back to work on Monday, one would discuss the weekend activity to
another staff. I had to let them know to try not to talk about it at work. They keep
telling me it was not big deal. [Look of hesitation]. Maybe to them it was not a
big deal but to me it is something that bothers me.
Frankie shared that his struggle in the deaf workplace was related to lack of
boundaries among Deaf co-workers. Frankie felt that this collided with his work ethics.
His attempts to point this out were met with resistance. Resulting from his hard work, he
rose to a supervisory role where he supervised direct-care workers and they did not
regard his attempts to teach Deaf employees ethics and boundaries.
(Frankie) I. -- umm. really separate personal like out. It is hard because like you
said they eat live breathe together. They are their friends and their culture. That is
their life. I respect that but a job is a job. The program needs to achieve
something. When you work, are hired, you should be able to support that.
[Shrug]. Umm (shrug) … The big struggle was at first, involved with other deaf
worker in deaf culture, it was cool, then it would become, after working long, you
could say that it is like a small town mentality started to develop and started to
become obvious. Meaning, gossiping, drama, being involved with that. That was
a challenge for me because I am not used to that. I - really, it affected me because
I am a man of respect. Do not backstab people, but again, after they finish
working, they are always together. That is their world. I understand it is hard to
live with that. They were used to it. For me it was a challenge as both were
different, [him and co-workers] and we grew up differently with different beliefs
and values, different umm behaviors. So, there were some days where it was hard
to work with that. It was hard for them to work with me. And with my work
ethic and my perspective of work, some of those behaviors, I was like it is not
professional. Talking about personal things during work was not the right time to
do that so every time I would point it out, they would ignore it and went ahead
with that. I realized it was not worth pursuing it. It was not worth it as nothing
would change. So, that was my biggest challenge because we had a hard time
working together.
Gwen was another one that really struggled with this issue. Gwen shared that
116
because of what happened to her in the deaf workplace related to gossiping,
backstabbing, and co-workers invading her personal life, she no longer socializes with
Deaf people, except for her Deaf significant other and his friends. Gwen recalled making
friends and at the end the friendships were ruined. Gwen values her privacy and
explained that she leads a private life now since no one at her current place of
employment in the hearing environment who knows her outside of work.
(Gwen) Just go in and do the job and leave, that’s it. Do not stay after hours to
chat. Do not go out after work. They will end up talking about work which will
bring more aggravation. Just focus on what is important to you. It was impossible
to avoid it, you wanted to do this and that but it only ended up in chaos because
working together and personally and professionally ruins friendships and it ruins
relationships. It ruins -- really, it does. [Nodded sadly]. It is very sad because
you want to make friends and you want to interact with someone like me who
understands my struggles, but at the same time, uhh.. uhh [loss of words]. I do
not know why. I do not know why … Plus the deaf community is very very
small. It is almost impossible to meet a new deaf person no one knows … it is
very hard to be a private person.
Theme 22: Socialization impacts completion of job duties. While the
participants were enthralled with the availability and accessibility of communication with
co-workers, supervisors, and individuals that they served, this was not without
repercussion. Sixty percent of the participants admitted that socialization impacted their
job duties either by not completing their tasks in a timely manner or not fully paying
attention to their tasks. While in the hearing environment, the participants reported their
co-workers were slow to complete tasks resulting from socializing while working. They
explained that this was the reason they were often ahead of their hearing co-workers, they
did not socialize as much as their hearing co-workers. In the deaf workplace, their
socialization impacted their ability to complete work the same way it impacted the
hearing workers. This researcher asked an unstructured interview question to get their
117
perspective on how they view the ramifications of having access to socialization at a deaf
workplace since most of them reported being ahead of their hearing co-workers.
(Lucy) [Facial expression says OH YES]. Nodded. Yes, it is different. Yes, that
is why I arrive to work very early to do the work such as paperwork. That type of
paperwork, I cannot afford distraction. A little is okay but I cannot afford
distraction which is why I arrive to work early. Normally nobody is here so I do
my work. This is how I manage my time.
(Lance) Socialization. Umm.. I socialized with my co-workers a lot at work,

talked a lot. Sometimes we neglected our work because we talked a lot.
(Johnny) [Thinking, then smiled], yes...I got behind with paperwork. Behind in
my paperwork, I admit it. But I brought it home to finish. I brought it home and
worked from home at my own time. That time, I could do some work
online. That was perfect.
Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample
Participants involve 10 Deaf adults who voluntarily contributed to this study and
shared their experiences working in both deaf and hearing workplaces. Each participant
brings his and her own unique experiences and perspectives. Each participant was
assigned a pseudonym name and great care and thought was given to naming each
participant to protect his or her privacy. The findings of Lightfoot and Williams (2009)
in their qualitative study indicate that the deaf community is small and Deaf people’s
connections are frequently intertwined and they often know each other. Each name was
intentionally chosen since they have no relevance or reference to the researcher’s
personal and professional network in the deaf world. In addition, places of employment
have been excluded in the study.
Each participant filled out a demographic questionnaire and some participants put
down their actual age while some participants selected an age range. Each participant
shared both positive and challenging experiences about working in each workplace. All
118
the participants were relatively fluent signers. Most of them used Pidgen Signed English
(PSE) and ASL. Some sign in English order and mouth every word while signing. As
mentioned in Chapter 3, the interview questions were available in written English and in
ASL. The researcher pre-recorded the interview questions in ASL and the videotaped
interview questions were on the researcher’s laptop that was set up and readily available
during each interview. During the interview it was explained to each participant that they
had the option of reading the interview questions on paper provided to each participant
and they could read the questions in ASL by clicking the icon of each interview question.
The purpose was to provide the participants with the choice of which language they were
the most comfortable with. Not all participants chose to view the questions in ASL and
furthermore, some chose to view some of the questions in ASL (see Appendix A). The
following section has four segments for each participant: background of the participants,
their experiences in the hearing workplace, their experiences in the deaf workplace, and
their choice of reading the interview questions in English or pre-recorded in ASL.
Detailed description of each participant is outlined in Appendix C. The following
describes the participants’ experiences in the hearing and deaf workplaces.
Participant 1: Claudia
Experience at the hearing workplace.
Claudia worked at three different hearing workplaces for a total of three years.
Claudia’s occupations in the hearing workplaces were keypunch, data entry, and data
clerk. At her first job, there were four other deaf employees who worked within the same
company and only one worked within her department. Claudia reported that she enjoyed
119
her first and third job, but she did not have good experience at her second job. The
company closed and she had to transfer to a southern state.
“That company decided to close and move to [Southern state]. In [ ], they

treated us very fairly, gave us the same raises. I communicated by lip-reading and
using my speech, including writing. I found many ways (to communicate). I
enjoyed it [animated facial expression] and they were very friendly. Ahhh I
enjoyed it … When the company closed, I cherished my job that time and my
husband was not working, I had to support him, as he was a college student so I
decided I needed that job and transferred to [southern state].
Claudia shared her experiences with discrimination and she shared that the
discrimination she felt was not a result of her deafness, but rather her religion affiliation.
I found out that most of them, I mean high percentages of them were religious of
Baptist faith. I am Catholic. They talked about church and asked if I attended
church. I told them “No.” I am not interested in church … They keep telling me I
should join the church. I keep telling them no and to respect me. I felt they
picked on me constantly.
Claudia sought for another employment opportunities and was able to find a new
job doing the same duties. Her experience there was better and she worked with only
three employees. Her husband had graduated from college and was offered a job back in
their hometown. She at that time decided that she wanted to work with Deaf people.
Experience at the deaf workplace.
Claudia has 15 years of experience working in the deaf workplace. She took a
break for some time to raise her children. Her work experiences include substitute
teacher, dorm supervisor, ASL instructor, Communication Specialist, Deaf team
interpreter, and a case manager. Being a Deaf team interpreter involves working with
and assisting the hearing interpreter when providing interpreting services for Deaf
individuals with language dysfluency (Crump & Glickman, 2011). Claudia works with
Deaf and hearing supervisors in the deaf workplace and her hearing supervisor knows
120
sign language. Claudia states that she works with a lot of Deaf co-workers and that there
are too many to count - her best guess is that there are approximately 90 Deaf employees
in her workplace. Claudia’s experience working in the deaf environment has been a
positive one for the most part.
I love it, I miss out on nothing … I see everyone sign and do not see people not
sign. I see a lot of facial expression. I will admit, sometimes it can be distracting
which is why when I work in the office I pick a corner. Sometimes I am tempted
to talk and not work. I have to force myself to leave. Sometimes I do not see
someone for a while and I want to catch up, but sometimes the moment to talk is
wrong. Later I find out that if I do talk when I shouldn’t I get behind in my work,
which is my consequence. When I go home, I have to finish the work. Every
where I go at where I work, sign language is there and it is amazing. Wow, yes.
Participant 2: Ellory
Ellory works for the government doing tax examinations and has been working
there for seven years. In the hearing workplace, Ellory works with approximately 10
other Deaf employees and only one of them works in the same department. Ellory eats
lunch with the other Deaf co-workers on a daily basis. Ellory is generally satisfied with
his job although he perceives that he has more skills in his repertoire and the type of job
he has is what anyone with high school diploma and those with adequate reading skills
can do.
Really the work itself and my skills are incongruent/do not match. The work
itself -- anyone can do it. My education and background is not related to the job I
do. So skills I have from another job for example typing skills, reading skills, and
a few others I can apply that to what I do at work. It is not like I studied to
become a scientist and worked as a scientist. I have skills from college and other
jobs in which I apply to my job.
Ellory shared that he was accustomed to being different. Ellory grew up being the
only black person in his class.

121
It is like being Black in a White environment. My upbringing I was the only
Black person in my class. I am used to being different. When I go to work, it is
the same, I feel different because I am the only deaf in a hearing environment ...
At work it is mostly Black. My team - 75% is black, [as for the] whole campus, I
am sure the whole campus, it is mixed. My boss is Black. Most are Black and
there are about 2 or 3 that are White.
Ellory has been a caregiver for individuals with behavioral challenges including
those with intellectual disabilities for approximately four years now. In the deaf
workplace, Ellory’s supervisor is Deaf; therefore, he has direct communication with the
supervisor. Ellory works with about 50 other Deaf co-workers. While Ellory described
some advantages of working in a deaf workplace, he also described some of his struggles.
I grew up in a deaf school, my classmates were deaf, my roommates were deaf, so

I do not see any difference. One thing that is awesome is the communication.
Signing is my primary language and I can sign all the time. My struggle is new
staff; they have different expectations. I know the number one priority to work
with individuals being served is patience. For many other staff, it is about
money. That means their approach is different. They do things on the roll and do
things fast ... not sit and process [with individuals beings served]. That is my
struggle with new staff. I want to teach them [individuals being served]
something and they [staff] do not teach them. This is a conflict.
Participant 3: Lance
Lance worked approximately six years in a hearing workplace. Lance’s positions
in the hearing environment include dishwasher and cook at a restaurant, where he worked
with another Deaf individual. Later, as a machine operator in a warehouse, he was the
only Deaf person, where he was eventually promoted as a supervisor, where he also
supervised hearing workers. Not all hearing workers were receptive to having a Deaf
supervisor, while some of the workers accepted and respected his supervisory position.
122
Most importantly to Lance, his direct supervisor supported his authority by terminating
those who did not show respect to him.
At first, maybe first few weeks and they blew me off. Then my supervisor fired
them. We kept one or two. We got rid of those who had a bad attitude and did
not work hard and treated me as if I were an idiot while the two knew who I was
as it was a small town. Then, we moved people from the other floor to my
department and they knew what I expected and it went well.
Prior to becoming a supervisor, Lance had to prove himself constantly. He felt he
could do forklifting as he worked with a lot of machines at home. His father, who also
worked at the same place, felt he could do it. At first, he was not allowed to operate a
forklift until he proved them he could.
[I had] people thinking I could not do the job as well as they expected. I always had
to prove myself. For example, forklifting, loading trucks, with forklifting as it
requires a lot of skills. Some trucks, you have to put one pile on the forklift and use
the specific machine to put it in the back. People said, “You cannot do that. You
cannot do that” because you cannot hear as when the machine moves to a specific
area, it sends off loud beep. Eventually I learned a truck trick where it was repetitive
and I knew exactly how far I needed to go and I hit the line perfect every time … It
took me a while to figure out where to go and how to make things work. They rely
on doing things based on sounds. I did not and I relied on what I saw using my vision
to make things work.
Lance worked in two different deaf workplaces for a total of four years. At the
first deaf workplace in another state, he was a direct care worker for individuals with
behavioral challenges. He was employed there for three years. He got promoted to a
team leader, which he was not satisfied with. Lance felt that some of his co-workers got
promoted without any merit.
I would say they recognized my work but when it came to time to move up, they
played favorites. I hated that because I felt my education and my experience
would merit promotion but they always picked someone who worked there the
longest but had less education or because they were best friends outside of
123
work. I did not like that, and that was not a proper procedure, in my
opinion. [Shaking head]. It was a turn-off. The deaf community there was very
small and they knew each other from growing up and they used it to other
advantage and lot of people did not like that. I felt some of them did good but I
did not feel they did hard work to merit promotion as they did “good enough”
work to get by. At the same time the supervisor did not see that. The supervisor
only saw the part they did well.
At the first job, his supervisor was hearing and knew sign language. Presently,
Lance works as a case manager for a human services agency. Lance’s current supervisor
is Deaf and he works with Deaf individual along with 40-50 Deaf co-workers. Given his
detrimental experience with gossiping and backstabbing at the first job, Lance explained
that he learned to keep information to himself to maintain his integrity.
I got fired after two years because the gossip led to one thing. I have always been
able to keep to myself, but in the deaf world, I shared too much. They used it
against me. I was like wow. When I moved to [ ] I knew I had to keep to
myself and keep the boundaries and stay neutral.
Participant 4: Frankie
Frankie worked at an oil drilling company and for the maintenance department at
a University where he was the only Deaf worker in both places. Frankie has 11 years of
experience working in the hearing workplace. Frankie stated that overall he had a good
experience with hearing supervisors and co-workers. He felt he was one of them and that
they did not treat him differently.
They knew I was deaf and they knew I had unique ways of communicating but
they did not take that into consideration as they viewed me as equal as everyone
else. We all got along well. We did not hang out outside of work but there were
times when we went for happy hours, played baseball. We did things like that
together. I felt I was one of them.
124
Frankie has a total of nine years combined experience working in the deaf
workplace. Frankie’s position in a human service agency was initially as a direct
caregiver, working alongside about 30-50 other Deaf co-workers and eventually moving
up towards a supervisory position. In the deaf workplace, Frankie’s first supervisor was
Deaf and when he got promoted, his direct supervisor was hearing who signed. Frankie’s
experience with the Deaf supervisor was not positive. Frankie felt his ability to advance
forward was a result of his hearing supervisor’s constantly encouraging and pushing him.
The deaf [supervisor], I think she was more stuck on her world. She did not think
of other opportunities she could give her staff. I felt stuck and limited with her ...
even though [pointing to indicate a Deaf supervisor at a different space] was not
motivating me, I was able to find ways to motivate me and kept going because I
enjoyed the work I did. There have been times where she challenged my
decision. I think it was because she felt it was her role but I went ahead and did it
because someone needed to make a decision at that time. So I went ahead and
used my gut feeling. The hearing supervisor is the one who pushed me for
advancement because she noticed that I was ... able to do the work good. I was a
hard worker. So I felt I got more praise from the hearing.
Participant 5: Darcy
Darcy has nine years of experience working in a hearing environment as a
veterinarian assistant, medical supply assembler, cabinetry, assistant manager at a
restaurant, data entry, and office administration. In her years working in the hearing
environment, Darcy worked with approximately five other Deaf people. Darcy reports
that her overall experience working in the hearing environment was good, except for two
situations where she was let go without any explanation and where one employer told her
that they could not hire her because she was Deaf and would not be able to hear safety
125
features if she provided one-to-one to an non- verbal adolescent with Autism. The
advertisement indicated the mother wanted someone with sign language skills to work
with her son. Darcy said what while the mother was pleased with how she interacted
with her son providing the one-to-one support to him, the agency did not seem to have
the same perspective.
I applied and they called me in for an interview. I informed them that I was
Deaf. They did not provide an interpreter and I had asked them to do that. They
said to me “I cannot hire you because you are Deaf.” I was shocked
“Wow.” You actually said that to my face. I asked them why. They told me it
was because I could not hear … I was angry and they asked me “Do you
understand us?” I replied, “I understand but it does not mean I accept it. You did
not provide an interpreter and that was one which is a discrimination. Secondly
you said to my face which is a discrimination.” I walked out and the mother
asked me what happened. I explained to her and the mother was livid …The next
day, they called me back in and I told them no as I was already distressed and
they really made me feel “small, inflated.” That was my first time I was turned
down because I was Deaf. I never had a problem until that one. I was shocked
and did not know how to react to that. That is how I got into the deaf workplace.
Darcy shared that she used to have residual hearing and that with use of hearing
aid she could hear some. Darcy explained that her hearing loss was a progressive,
meaning she gradually lost her hearing to the point where she could not depend on any
auditory means to understand speech anymore.
And with other hearing in hearing environment up to that one I was taken back. I
realized if it was related to the progressive loss of hearing as my hearing was
going down which made me wonder if it would hinder me from fitting in the
hearing world now. I decided it was easier on me to just stay in the deaf field. It
was easier for me. I can interact with hearing on a short-term basis most of the
time, but not on an all day basis and I cannot do that. Not anymore.
Darcy has 23 years of experience working in the deaf environment. She narrated
having many different positions such as a teacher’s aide providing one-to-one support to
126
students, substitute teacher, secretary, case manager, residential advisor, supervisor of a
program, and she moved up to a director’s position. Darcy’s supervisors at the deaf
workplace are both deaf and hearing and her hearing supervisor knows sign language.
Darcy wrote in the demographic questionnaire that she worked with approximately 500
Deaf co-workers and this is an accumulation of 23 years of experience rather than 500
Deaf employees in one workplace. Darcy notes a difference in the amount of work
contributed by her and the exchange she received.
Sometimes I feel I am overworked ... because, I worked a lot with little pay. In
the hearing environment, it was different. They had more money because it was
how it worked, I do not know. Their rate here [pointing- deaf] was small.
Sometimes I would just take my time to do the work due to lower pay… they
recognize I am good at multi-tasking so they took advantage of that as they knew
I could do that...They would ask me for help. I was like sure. Fine.
Darcy was in a supervisory role and one of her struggles was to maintain a
professional image inside and outside of the workplace as Darcy stated the deaf
community is small.
Sometimes it’s hard to be yourself. If you be yourself, they will be like “That is
who she is” which may be different than their image of me. I had to be
professional at all times. It was annoying and I did not like that as I wanted to be
myself. Professionally, I had to constantly think for others. That was hard to
maintain that 24/7.
Participant 6: Johnny
Johnny worked in a hearing workplace for two years and he was the only Deaf
person working at his department. He reported that there was another Deaf person
working at another department, but they did not have the opportunity to interact or meet
up. After working at his job, he realized he did not want to work in a hearing
127

environment and that prompted him to return to school to get his master’s degree. He
perceived his work at the hearing workplace to be very rudimentary and he was not
allowed to do more despite repeatedly asking his supervisor to allow him to do more. His
work involved testing the water to see if chemicals were dumped.
I contributed to the job at [ ] superficially like, I felt because I was deaf they gave
me the most basic job which was extracting water … Environment ... related to
environment you know that long time ago my company produced the world’s
largest pollution by dumping chemicals in Lake [ ] and for each section in [city] I
had to pull out water from the underground water. There is a pipe and I just
extracted and extracted water. Then I gave the water to the hearing people who
worked in the lab as they tested to see if the water pollution improved or
increased to meet EPA requirements. I argued with them and explained about the
American Disability law and explained that I can do this and why are you
preventing me? I was told that I was deaf and could not hear the alarm. I
explained I could watch the machine and take it out when it was done. There was
nothing else to do but watch the machine.
Johnny recalled that the pay was extremely good even for doing something as
simple as extracting water and the pay is double to what he is presently earning.
However, the amount of pay received did not appear to satisfy Johnny.
I had a BA degree and the main thing is ... Sometimes I liked it because the pay
was good and I took advantage of it and did the extraction but after a while I got
tired of it. It was the same and same every day. I wanted more challenge. This
job did not challenge me enough. This is why I only lasted two years and I got
fed up and I went to [ ] for graduate school to become a teacher of the Deaf.
Johnny worked in a deaf environment for six years and he currently works with
approximately 25 other Deaf co-workers. Johnny admitted that he was willing to work at
a deaf workplace even if the pay is less. When inquired by the researcher if he felt he
gave up earning good money to go back to school to obtain his Masters, Johnny’s
response was “To be involved with the deaf school or the deaf world. yeah. From a good
128
pay to a fair pay. Now my pay is even less [in his current workplace].” Johnny worked
at a facility where he taught students and he left that facility to work in another deaf
workplace because his experience especially towards the end was not so positive. When
Johnny first got the job, his immediate supervisor was Deaf and the Director for the entire
facility was also Deaf. Johnny states that those years working with them were very
positive. Johnny feels he contributed a lot by working with students he served and he
had a very good working relationship with his Deaf supervisor.
People I served looked up to me as a role model. Before I worked there, there

were people that I served that never went to college, and I exposed them to
college and encouraged them to go and used myself as an example. [Counting
how many students went to college] ... eight of them went. Some are still in
college but some are about to graduate from college. I ran into one of them about
two or three years ago and that person approached me and thanked me for
convincing him to go to college … he was very motivated in college and he met
other Deaf people.
Both of the Deaf supervisors left the facility and according to Johnny, the system
went downhill afterwards. He attributed that to two hearing people who took over the
position. According to Johnny both hearing supervisors sign fluently.
Johnny shared some of the struggles he faced when the two new supervisors took
over. Compared to his first supervisor, who provided him with a lot of positive feedback
as well as areas to improve, Johnny felt he got more criticism regarding his work
performance. On top of that, Johnny’s frustration was that the two supervisors did not
use sign language in the presence of other Deaf workers when they conversed with
hearing co-workers, which made him feel left out.
Each time I approached the head supervisor to talk and it did not seem that the
head supervisor made an effort to sign. She did not sign in front of other Deaf
people who walked by. The head supervisor was talking with other hearing staff
without signing. Every time, I had to remind her to please sign as this was a deaf
129
environment. She emphasized that to other staff but never followed through. We
had staff meetings, and I was talking in ASL and my immediate supervisor was
talking to another co-worker using her voice. I had to stop what I was saying,
please pay attention and not use your voice and please sign. I reminded her that
she had 2 languages while I only had one. Well, I mean I do have two languages -
- writing and reading in English, ASL, but I meant spoken language. I had one
and when my immediate supervisor talked, I could not understand what she was
saying.
Despite his joy in working with the students and his fellow co-workers, both Deaf
and hearing, he left the facility as he became extremely unhappy. He presently works at
another deaf workplace even if that meant earning less than the previous facility.
Participant 7: Gwen
Gwen has 17 years of experience working in hearing workplaces. Her current
position involves data entry operation where she enters data of people’s application to
patent their inventions. Gwen reports loving that job and that she has a good working
relationship with her supervisor. Gwen is given a lot of opportunities to learn how to
perform in different positions even though she only worked at her current place of
employment for a short time. This opportunity is normally given to workers who have
worked there for 5-10 years. Gwen works with four other Deaf co-workers who have
been there 20 plus years. Gwen does experiences some struggles, which are more with
her Deaf co-workers than with her hearing co-workers.
It is because they were there for 20+ years and they have their own [pause]
issues. When I came in, it was like “You sit with me”, other say “You sit with
me.” I said that it is my decision to stay neutral because I am nice to everyone. I
try to stay out of it, like if we have a meeting, I will sit with them as we share
interpreters, but during lunch, I try to step away a bit as I do not want to make one
person feel bad. I am nice to everyone. We are a team here and no one here is an
enemy. We are one team.
130
Gwen expressed her gratitude towards her current supervisor whom she felt
supports and encourages tremendously whereas her experience working at a grocery store
in the past was not a positive one. She had to wear a nametag that said, “Hello, my name
is ___________. I am hearing-impaired and I love to give beautiful smiles.”
The reason for that was because I had bad experience with one customer and she
was talking to me while I was not looking and I looked up and saw her yelling at
me “What are you Deaf and stupid?” I burst into tears and it was the first time
someone ever labeled me “deaf and dumb” and I was not used to that. I went to
my boss the next day and his solution was for me to wear that nametag. He did
not want to make the customers agitated with me ... The other person that had to
wear it had intellectual disability and the customers associated me as being
intellectually disabled as well. They would gesture “Thumbs up” or gesture
“You-Thumbs up.” It was very degrading- very degrading. It was a job I had to
have until I found something else.
Gwen’s position as an office assistant where she worked with 30 or more Deaf co-
workers was not a positive one. Although her supervisor was also Deaf, she stayed in
this position for only one year and she describes it as an awful experience, to the point
that she cried each day before heading to work. This prompted her desire to return to
work in a hearing workplace. Gwen felt she was in the middle in regarding to her sense
as a Deaf person but felt like she belonged in the hearing world.
I felt lonely because either I am not Deaf enough or I am not hearing enough. I
grew up mainstreamed so I felt I am in the middle. Where do I go- deaf world or
hearing world? What am I? [signed hearing on forehead]. Whatever. Okay I can
speak. At the same time why take advantage of me to order for you? Or get me to
ask me if I would not mind talking for them. But at the same time, they should not
insult me because I am not deaf enough. Make a decision -- Deaf enough or
hearing enough? Make a decision.
Gwen felt lonely in both environments even when she was around other Deaf co-
workers who could communicate with her.
131
It feels isolating, a little bit isolating. I miss the conversations and if they are
laughing, I am like “what is funny?” But I am lucky as I am assertive as I say
“What did you say?” [Hearing workplace]. Of course there will be
cliques. There were people that knew each other a long time or they preferred to
hang out with specific people. Someone like me who came in new, I felt “Where
do I belong?” Who do I sit with? Lunchtime -- who can I talk with? It became
isolating because something can become a personal talking time instead of
professional talk time. That was why I felt isolated because they made it a
personal time to have conversations instead of about work [Deaf workplace].
Another struggle that Gwen experienced was invasion of her privacy and that
everyone knew her business. She stressed that even if she misses out on information in
the hearing workplace, she is content that no one knows her business.
It was awful. Awful, awful, awful … Friendships because many of them were
friends before they came to work. Oh we went to school together ... Friendship --
that is the key- friendship. Oh, I am friends with this person for so many years-
so I can do this for you [Making a gesture/body language of like hush/hush
agreement- colluding] and this person [thumbs down]. Plus with my personal life,
like people I dated, they knew. I am like..”what” [used facial expression to
convey that] -- ‘okay, because you are on my ex’s side, does that mean you have
to take it out on me?’ It is work! Come on! We are here to work! What if I got
into an argument with a friend, they were the type of people that would reject you
if they did not agree with you or side with another person. That was not nice, not
nice. I do not like it. I do not like it … [Deaf workplace]. That is why I prefer
hearing company where I just come in and go out [covered eyes and ears] “Thank
you and bye” and that would be it. No one bothers me. My own personal life,
nobody knows me. Nobody knows my life. [Smiled]. Its like [covered her ears
and closed her eyes la-la-la]. The privacy -- that’s the key, privacy. [Hearing
workplace].
Participant 8: Willie
Willie worked at the same place for 18 years as a data clerk. Willie was rewarded
a promotion twice which meant he was given different duties. Willie worked with
another Deaf co-worker and one co-worker was hard of hearing. Willie reported that he
was able to assist his hearing co-workers with their job duties as well as offering listening
132
“ears” when they came to him to vent. Feeling he could do more since he had the ability
to help others and finish their incomplete work, Willie desired to be promoted to a
supervisory role; however, he was informed that such a promotion was not possible.
The only barrier I see is the inability to be promoted. I wanted to know more. I
wanted to show them that I can. That was what I was trying to achieve because I
wanted different positions. I felt the job I had was too easy for me. I was like
“come on, I need challenges.
Experience at the deaf workplace
Willie has worked at his primary place of employment for approximately nine
years. He previously worked on weekends at another deaf workplace for about four and
half years. Willie reports that he worked with at least 100 Deaf employees from two
different facilities. Willie works as a residential supervisor where he supervises deaf
adolescents who stay in the dorm during the week. At his previous place of employment,
he was the supervisor of the direct care workers. His immediate supervisor at the dorm is
hearing, but signs fluently and the next immediate supervisor is Deaf. At the previous
facility, his supervisors were all Deaf. Willie felt that he could do his job effectively as a
result of the accessibility of communication.
We communicate by using sign language. I taught them life skills in the [ ] as if it

was like home. I talk with my supervisor who is also Deaf. I could communicate
with the supervisor in sign language. I have worked at that job for almost 9 years.
I contributed a lot. I gave all of my time and I focus on the job … I other former
side job at [ ], I was a part-time supervisor. I checked on the staff and people I
served to make sure everyone was okay. All were Deaf so it was easy to
communicate. I believe I performed above my job duties because I was able to do
those things because the more communication there is, the more I understood my
expectations. This helped me do my job better.
133
Participant 9: Lucy
Lucy has one year of experience working in a hearing workplace. She worked at
a fast food franchise and a video store. For this study she discusses her experience at the
fast food franchise. Lucy explained that she worked in the back with all male workers
and many of them did not speak English. She was unable to work in the front to take
orders due to her inability to communicate and she was the only Deaf individual working
at that franchise. Lucy described feeling discriminated and oppressed as a deaf person
and as a woman.
That [food franchise] was in a large diverse city and many of English was not
their first language. This was even harder because some of them could not write
and read English. I could communicate with them by gesturing. The men were
more – umm -- domineering, I am not sure of the word, I mean they were more
[signed controlling], and dictating. It was part of their culture for some of them. I
think it is double [oppressed as a woman and deaf person] because I noticed them
talk amongst themselves when I was cooking and then they asked me to do this
and that, the extra work that I did not know. I thought it was expected of my
job. Later, it took me a few months, but I figured out that it was them that were
trying to put extra work on me ... I noticed this, as it became a pattern of them
asking me to clean this and clean that. They also asked me to get more
hamburgers from downstairs. I had to climb 16 steps as I counted them.
The experience working there was very traumatizing for her. Lucy recalled a time
when she and a male co-worker got into a physical altercation. A male co-worker kept
getting into her workspace by pushing her out of the way and after repeated attempts to
remind him to stay at his workspace, Lucy became angry and pushed him back. The
male co-worker spat at her face and she threw sauce at him. This resulted in her as well
as the co-worker getting in trouble. Another experience that continues to haunt her to this
day is when her supervisor yelled her at her -- not only in front of her co-workers but also
134
in front of customers.
When I decided to quit because of school, I wrote a letter to my boss giving him
two weeks’ notice. I was accepted at [ ] University. I let my boss know I am
going to college and that I needed to quit my job in a few weeks. My boss
bawled me out. He yelled at me for -- I do not know, but he yelled at me talking
fast and yelling at me. He told me to get out. I do not know why he yelled at
me. I left … But, why was he mad, I have no idea. I was really clueless about
that. Even to this day, I still wonder why I was yelled at. Everyone looked at me
including customers when he was yelling at me … [Pained facial expression]. I
did … I did not even have to be two weeks. It could have been longer because I
did not have to go to college until the fall and this was like in the spring. But
when he yelled at me and I left that day and never returned.
According to Lucy, the experience working in a hearing place for nearly a year
made her determined to return to college to complete her degree. She previously had to
leave college to pay off the tuition that she owed. Lucy felt she was capable of doing
better career-wise and she knew f she wanted to work in a deaf workplace.
Lucy has two years of experience working in the deaf workplaces after graduating
with her master’s degree and this is her second deaf workplace. During college, Lucy
had part-time jobs as a note-taker and desk assistance. Upon graduating from college,
Lucy started her career as a counselor at an intuition that educates Deaf children in
another state. She was the first Deaf counselor to ever work at that institution. Lucy
adds this was a small religious educational institution. There were approximately 15
Deaf co-workers; her direct supervisor is hearing but had sufficient signing skills, but she
did not see him a lot. Hearing co-workers there were reported to sign mainly English and
often times she was pulled into situations to help facilitate communication between the
teachers and the students due to their inability to sign fluently.
135

Lucy shared that her struggle was the conflict of what the institution believed
which conflicted with her own beliefs and ethics. For instance, they terminated a teacher
who was gay and he had a stepchild who was deaf. Lucy said that this particular teacher
was the one of the few hearing teacher that signed very fluently and did exceptionally
well with the students. This led her to decide to seek other employment opportunities.
The religion beliefs played a role and it was challenging. There was one gay
teacher at that place and it was a big issue. The gay teacher’s stepdaughter was a
student there. One of the reason I quit was because religion and deaf issues. It
was complicated because the 2015 contract for the school year where all teachers
must sign said gay marriage was not permitted, abortion was not permitted, and
many more. Before 2015, they were more flexible. It seemed like their upper
head church mandated the changes. That caused a conflict with my role.
Lucy mentioned that another reason for her departure is due to the inaccessibility
to full communication with others. Even if all of them could sign, many chose not to sign
in front of their Deaf co-workers. She also shared that her attempts to get to know the
hearing teachers were not reciprocated. Although Lucy would sit with them during
lunch, Lucy was not able to follow the conversation because they did not sign much by
choice. As such, Lucy ended up socializing with her Deaf co-workers. At her current
place of employment, she works with over 100 Deaf co-workers. At the first job she did
not have a colleague to discuss her cases due to confidentiality. Lucy presently works
with a group of counselors and they share mutual clients and this provides Lucy with
opportunities to grow professionally. Lucy states that she thrives on receiving ongoing
feedback. Although her direct supervisor is hearing, she signs well enough for Lucy to
comprehend and for them to engage in turn taking dialogues. Lucy receives weekly
clinical supervision from a hard of hearing clinician who signs very fluently.
My other jobs, I was never able to share my feedback, my opinion, my thoughts,

136
and now I finally can. I like that. I am given supervision hours once a week to
talk about my work with individuals served and how I can improve. Sometimes I
expressed my frustration and I need that because that job is a highly stressful
job. I am able to express frustration and receive feedback. It helps me have sense
of confidence in my work. I am able to express and receive and that is very
important. I work in an office with other staff. I would solicit their
feedback. There are 5 people in my office as opposed to one in the office at my
old job which made it harder to reach out to people for feedback. I work better
with other people around me because this provides stimulation. I got to know
them and their skills.
Lucy added that she enjoys the diversity at her second job, which is also giving
her the opportunity to work with individuals from various backgrounds. In addition,
Lucy presently has peers she can relate to professionally. Lucy admitted that there is a
downside of working in a condensed deaf workplace, as she feels that Deaf people tend to
be too open about things to the point where it blurs work ethics. Lucy also stated that in
order to protect her privacy, she had to be very mindful of what she says around people.
Participant 10: Torie
Torie worked both in retail and as a home health aide. She worked for eight
months as a home health aid while she worked in retail for four years. Torie shares that
she enjoyed working with the elderly population and that they really loved to work with
her and specifically asked for her.
The senior citizens loved me. They always called for me. Sometimes I was not
assigned to them that day and they became upset. I had to go to them to let them
know it was okay and I will see them tomorrow. If they wanted to, they had to fill
out a special request to ask for a specific person to work with them. Like, they
can say tomorrow I want to work with so and so. Some of them expressed their
feelings to me about the other aides and I had to report it to the boss.
Torie recalled her frustration with her supervisor who called her in the office to do
filing given that she was a fast worker and completed her tasks in a timely manner.
137

According to Torie, her co-workers did not do any filing. She became frustrated and
decided to take her time in completing the tasks and stayed with the individual until she
was due to work with the next individual. She spent quality time with the senior citizens
and they showed her pictures of their families. She enjoyed the quality time she had with
them and this helped her avoid doing filing. Torie left the agency and went to work for a
retail company that did optometry. The new supervisor called her to request her to return
to work as the senior citizens kept asking for her and they even offered her a raise. She
declined the opportunity to work there again despite the prospect of a raise and admits
she felt flattered that they even asked for her to return. Torie explained at the new job,
the owner’s daughter was Deaf so he learned sign language and the co-workers were very
willing to learn sign language as well. In addition to that, she worked with three other
Deaf co-workers. She was pushed by her supervisor to learn new tasks, which normally
are done by licensed optometrists. After a couple trials, she was able to master what her
supervisor wanted her to master, even when she lacked confidence to in her own abilities.
Torie enjoys the memories she had from the second job and the reason she left was
because they had to cut hours; she did not like to work alone and she had to financially
support herself. Torie decided to seek alternative employment that ultimately led her to
her current place of employment.
Torie works in an educational institution with an accumulated 10 years and four
months of experience. When inquired in the demographic questionnaire about how many
Deaf co-worker she works with, her response was “too many to count.” Her duties
138
include providing one-to-one support to students with behavioral challenges in an
academic setting. Torie enjoys working with the students and furthermore, she enjoys the
teamwork for which she has developed appreciation.
Sometimes I realize I was used to having people help me, but in the hearing
environment, I worked alone and did almost everything myself. In the deaf
environment, they offer their assistance. At first, I was not used to it and it felt
strange. In fact, I felt it interrupted me and I explained I was capable of doing it
myself. They kept offering their help. Perhaps I never had that experience of
having teamwork and collaboration because of the hearing environments that I
worked at. While at the Deaf workplace I noticed there was more teamwork,
more communication, more accessible, more of everything. [It] was
overwhelming.
In addition, Torie enjoys the reciprocal feedback that she receives from others at
work, which she did not feel she had while working in a hearing environment.
They give me feedback such as trying this and that, like for example, when one
student displayed behavioral challenges and that time it was hard to find an
intervention that worked, and someone who had more experience than me, say I
worked 10 years, while that person worked for 15 -20 years. This person would
give me feedback and advice to try certain interventions. When I applied it and I
found it to be effective… I learned new strategies, paths, and so forth. On top of
that, I ask others for feedback too and they give it to me.
Torie found that being around Deaf co-workers is distracting at times. For
example, she has experienced difficulty fully paying attention to her job duties. Torie is
uncomfortable when that her Deaf co-workers discuss personal information at work and
she feels that some topics should be discussed outside of work.
Conclusion
The participants brought their own unique experiences, perspectives, and thoughts
related to working in hearing and deaf workplaces. Phenomenological studies are
intended to learn from each individual and the researcher studied the data individually
and as a whole.
139

Reliability
Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers (2002) explained that research studies
become worthless if there is no rigor involved. They added that over the years, through
debates on the validity and reliability of qualitative studies, procedures were developed to
ensure qualitative studies have reliability as well as validity. Reliability in qualitative
studies revolves around the researcher’s dependability and consistency with the
techniques utilized (Morse et al., 2002; Neuman, 2006). Neuman elaborated that
consistency in utilizing several avenues to record data. In this study, face-to-face semi-
structured interviews were conducted by videotaping the session. The same questions
were used for all participants with exception of questions asked by the researcher
pertaining each participant. The researcher also provided pre-recorded question in sign
language. The purpose of this was to provide consistency in how the questions were
rendered in sign language. Stoke (2005) reasoned that one sentence can easily be
transmitted in sign language 16 different ways. Providing reliability, especially, when
rendering information in sign language was essential to this study to maintain
consistency.
Another technique to record the data is by transcribing the data (Gibbs, 2007).
Like Morse et al. (2002) explained about the lengthy process of transcription, coding
requires more scrutiny on part of the researcher as well as and repeatedly reviewing the
data. Transcription process according to Gibbs requires repeatedly reviewing the
recording and comparing them with the transcription to check for accuracy.
Furthermore, reliability means using the same methodology and procedures for all
140
participants.
This study followed the qualitative reliability procedures outlined by Creswell
(2009), and Gibbs (2007). The researcher followed all recommendations to ensure that
this study was reliable based on qualitative protocols. Chapter 3 outlines the procedures
this researcher followed from the beginning until the end. The researcher transcribed and
coded all interviews the same fashion for each participant. Thus, this study is deemed to
be reliable and consistent with the qualitative standards.
Validity
Validity in qualitative research according to Creswell (2009) means that the
researcher reviews the data including transcripts for accuracy. Gibbs (2009) explained
that the process of transcription is very cumbersome and a long process especially for
those who are writing dissertations. Gibbs added that there is a higher chance of making
mistakes due to exhaustion on part of the researcher hence the importance of reviewing
one’s work to check for accuracy. Neuman (2006) explained that the term validity as
well as reliability is used differently compared to quantitative studies. He explained that
validity in qualitative studies is comparable to truthful meaning that the researcher seeks
for authenticity. Authenticity according to Neuman provides a social construct of a
phenomenon based on the lived experiences of the people sharing their stories. To deem
the research study to have validity, the researcher followed following strategies designed
for qualitative studies.
Creswell (2009) provided strategies to do ascertain the research has validity:
triangulation of data, member checking, long terms and repeated observations at the
141

research site, peer examination, clarification on researcher bias. A research assistant was
utilized in order to test for this researcher’s effectiveness in transcribing the interviews
from American Sign Language to English. Prior to the interview, the participants were
made aware that a researcher assistant would be utilized to assure accurate translation of
the interviews from sign language to English. All participants reported they understood
the necessity of a research assistant and signed the consent form. In addition to a
researcher assistant, the code and themes was analyzed by an external auditor who did
what Gibbs (2009) called intercoder agreement. The external auditor reviewed the
transcriptions that had codes and themes on the comment section. Weekly phone calls
took place with the external auditor where each identified code and theme were reviewed.
The themes were intensively and systematically reviewed with the external auditor. As a
result of following the protocols of conducting qualitative studies outlined by Creswell
(2010), Gibbs (2009), Morse et al. (2002), Moustakas (1994) and Neuman (2006) this
study would be deemed to have validity as well as reliability.
Chapter Summary
In Chapter 4, the researcher provided a summary of the results of data collection
and data analysis utilizing the phenomenological methodology. For this study,
phenomenological methodology allowed the researcher to examine, analyze, and
disseminate the lived experiences of Deaf employees working in both hearing and deaf
workplaces. Through face-to-face videotaped interviews conducted in American Sign
Language, the researcher had the advantage of observing the body languages, facial
expressions, emotions, and behavioral indicators of each participant when she transcribed
142
the interviews. Each perception, thought, and experience was unique to the participants
although some of them had some common experiences. Insightful and rich data resulted
from in-depth interviews and this study was guided by Moustakas’ (1994)
phenomenological methodology using in-depth interviews, coding, and thematic
grouping along with description of the data.
This study consisted of six research questions that were explored by using open-
ended semi-structured interview questions. A set of questions that were asked of all
participants along with additional questions asked by the researcher during the interview
helped elicit in-depth responses (Chenail, 2011; DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). As
more interviews took place, the researcher identified idiographic themes from the
meaning units. Nomothetic themes emerged when repeated idiographic themes were
observed and the themes told a story (Ponterotto, 2005; Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Smith &
Firth, 2011).
Regarding the first research question on job satisfaction in the hearing workplace,
the main themes that emerged were: pride in completes tasks ahead of others: positive
compliments and recognition by supervisor; communication was a challenge; feeling
alone/excluded; no feedback from supervisors; missed information from co-workers and
supervisors; received promotions. Regarding the second research question job
satisfaction in the deaf workplace: communication was accessible; received feedback
from supervisor; accommodations were already in place and readily available; supervisor
provided positive recognition; able to share knowledge and experience.
The third research question on their relationship with hearing supervisors and co-
143

workers in the hearing workplace demonstrated: infrequent encounters with supervisor;
minimal or no socialization with hearing co-workers; socialization with other Deaf co-
workers was available. The fourth research question discussed their relationship with
Deaf or hearing supervisors that signed and co-workers who know sign language in the
deaf workplace and themes emerged were: direct communication with supervisor using
sign language; supervisors were easily accessible; supervisors encouraged professional
growth. The fifth research question for the hearing environment was about their overall
success in employment revealed: literacy skill makes a positive difference and assertive is
a necessary to get needs met. Lastly, the sixth research question regarding overall
success in employment in the deaf workplace demonstrated two themes: mixing personal
and work lives creates problems; and socialization impacts completion of job duties.
Chapter 4 provided an in-depth summary and presentation of the data collected
from the interviews of the10 Deaf participants who candidly shared equally positive and
negative experiences in both deaf and hearing workplaces. This chapter also provided a
detailed summary of the themes that emerged throughout the interviews providing
insights into their lived experiences regarding job satisfaction, relationship with their
and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in employment. Chapter 5
discusses the findings in depth including recommendations for future studies based on
this research. Appendix A identifies the interview questions viewed in ASL by the
participants. Appendix B discusses the mode of communication between the participants
and their hearing supervisor. Lastly, the description of the participants is in Appendix C.
144
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS
This phenomenological study is conducted to understand the lived experiences of
Deaf employees who worked in deaf and hearing workplaces (Moustakas, 1994). This
type of study allows for in-depth understanding of the thoughts, perspectives, and
experiences of the Deaf employees. This chapter discusses the findings based on the data
collected and will provide an analysis to answer the research questions. The remainder of
this chapter provides a summary of the study, discussion of the results, conclusions, and
recommendations.
Review of the Research Problem and Purpose
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to examine the perceptions,
thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in both predominantly deaf
workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction, relationships with
and co-workers who know sign language, and their overall success in employment. Past
studies discuss the struggles that Deaf employees face in predominately hearing
workplaces (Backenroth, 1997; Foster, 1987; Foster, 1998; Foster & MacLeod, 2003;
Fusick, 2008; Gussenhover et al., Hintermair, 2008; Luft, 2000; Punch et al., 2004; Punch
et al., 2007; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Rosengreen & Saladin, 2010; Shaw, 2012; Sheridan
et al., 2010; Tyler, 2004).
Intensive review of literature throughout the whole process (Bowen, 2005) was a
vital process. This yielded a gap in knowledge was found when a review of literature
came up with no studies about Deaf employees working in predominately deaf
145
workplaces. Therefore, this study also serves to bridge the gap in knowledge concerning
Deaf employees working in predominately deaf workplaces, especially from the
perspectives, thoughts, and experiences of the Deaf employees themselves. It is hoped
that findings from this study help those employers hiring Deaf employees either in a
hearing workplace or a deaf-services organization, as well as those who work with Deaf
employees, to better understand the challenges as well as the rewards of working in a
predominately deaf and hearing workplaces and alongside deaf co-workers. Lastly, the
researcher hopes that the findings from this study will benefit other professionals who
work in the field of deafness such as vocational rehabilitation counselors, leaders of deaf-
related organizations/institutions, guidance counselors, teachers of the deaf, career
counselors, or any deaf-related professionals.
Discussion of the Results
The findings from this study are based on the thoughts, perspectives, and
experiences of the 10 Deaf participants. There is a high possibility that interviewing
different Deaf people may yield different thoughts, perspectives, and experiences,
especially in different parts of the region and type of workplaces. Nonetheless, the 10
participants provided valuable information that contribute to this study and each of them
shared how their experiences shape their thoughts and perspectives about themselves, the
hearing environment, and the deaf environment. What are the perceptions, thoughts, and
experiences of Deaf employees working in a predominately Deaf workplace regarding
their overall success in employment?
The interviews were guided by 26 interview questions, which also allowed the
146
researcher to ask unstructured questions during the process. The face-to-face interviews
took place in private settings. The mode of communication during the interviews was
sign language. Videotaped interviews allowed the researcher to transcribe from sign
language to written English. A thorough analysis of the themes includes finding meaning
units, phrases, ideas, and word choices yielded hundreds of general themes. At the end of
the analysis, 22 themes answer the research questions for this present study.
Research Question 1
The first question concerned the participants’ perspectives, thoughts, and
experiences regarding job satisfaction in a hearing workplace. A total of seven themes
emerged resulting from data analysis. The themes are outlined as pride in completing
tasks ahead of others; positive compliments and recognition by supervisor;
communication was a challenge; feeling alone/excluded; no feedback from supervisors;
missed information from co-workers and supervisors; and received promotions.
Participants were observed to proudly shared their positive experiences. The participants
shared their appreciation for the positive experiences especially receiving positive
compliments and recognition from supervisors. Frankie reported, “I felt my supervisor
was very appreciative of my skills. He trusted me enough to let me work independently.”
On the other hand, the participants shared the challenges they faced in the hearing
workplace.
The struggles included communication challenges, feeling alone/excluded, no
feedback from supervisors, and missing information from co-workers and supervisors.
All of the participants shared the challenges they experienced with communication.
147

Claudia’s comments, “I felt alone and there were no communication and no feedback.
When I was stressed, I had no one to talk to.” Johnny described his disappointment with
communication and teamwork, “It was a struggle because of communication. They did
not learn sign language. I remember when I interviewed for the job they said they would
learn sign language. They did not make any effort to learn.”
While the participants shared about the communication challenges, it was found
that one common denominator among the participants was that they grew up in a hearing
household. They explained that they were accustomed to the communication challenges.
This study did not have any participants who grew up in a predominately deaf household.
This could lead to future studies related to Deaf adults who grew up in a predominately
deaf household who work in a hearing workplace and learn about their thoughts, feelings,
and perspectives on job satisfaction in a hearing workplace.
Research Question 2
This question generated five themes regarding the participants’ perspectives,
thoughts, and experiences regarding job satisfaction in a predominately deaf workplace.
Themes that transpired from the participants were that communication was accessible,
that they received feedback from supervisor, that accommodations were already in place
and readily available, that their supervisor provided positive recognition, and that
participants were able to share their knowledge and experience. The accessibility of
communication and accommodations were available for all the participants. The
participants explained that they appreciated and enjoyed the accessibility of
communication. For example, Darcy shared, “Communication access is awesome. It is
148
easy and it's easy to communicate.” Despite Gwen’s negative experience in the deaf
workplace, she explained, “In the deaf environment, communication was easy.” While
communication was accessible, all of participants explained that they did not have to ask
for accommodations since deaf-service organizations readily provided them. Some of the
participants did not view them as accommodations. Their view was that since they were
readily available, they did not need accommodations. Lance remarked, “No. [shaking
head.]. Already provided interpreters, provide everything we needed, VP.” Willie
concurred, “No, I did not require anything because both of my workplaces provided VP,
interpreters and they have all the accessibilities we needed.”
Findings from this study indicate different opportunities were available for Deaf
employees working in a deaf environment where people use sign language, yet this study
demonstrates that barriers and struggles do exist. A predominately signing environment
has its merits. With deafness not being a factor in a deaf workplace, the employees
interact with each other as people. In the hearing workplace, the interaction revolves
around the Deaf employee’s deafness since communication is often a factor when a non-
signing person and the Deaf person interact with each other. Whereas in the deaf
workplace the interaction is between Person A and Person B, who are both deaf.
Therefore, deafness is not a factor.
Research Question 3
Three themes emerged for this research question: infrequent encounters with
supervisor; minimal or no socialization with hearing co-workers; and socialization with
other Deaf co-workers was available. This research question was regarding the
149
relationship the Deaf employees had with their hearing supervisor and co-workers in a
hearing workplace. The participants shared that communication usually took place by
writing back and forth and further, that such communication was necessary in order to
have a dialogue with their supervisors. Many of the participants were also able to utilize
their speech and lip-reading skills to communicate with their co-workers and supervisors.
This study found that despite being able to talk by communicating or writing back and
forth, the employees still had minimal encounters with their supervisors and the
socialization was limited or non-existent for some of the participants. Lucy explained
that she rarely met with her supervisor except for when he approached her to give her a
raise. Lucy said, “Just when there were raises, I think it was like every 2 months. He
told me I got a raise and that was it. He wrote it on paper and how much the raise was. I
was like oh ok ... The reason for the raises, I have no idea.” Johnny shook his head and
explained, “I never met my supervisor for feedback.”
Research Question 4
The participants shared their perspectives, thoughts, and experiences in a
predominately deaf workplace regarding their relationship with deaf or hearing
supervisors and co-workers who may or may not know sign language. Their narratives
generated three themes: direct communication with supervisors using sign language;
supervisors were easily accessible; and supervisors assisted with professional growth.
Some of the supervisors were Deaf while the hearing supervisors knew sign language.
Since all of their supervisors knew sign language, this study finds that having a common
language enables more interactions between Deaf employees and supervisors. The
150

participants in this study also reported that they enjoy having a barrier-free
communication with their supervisors. Darcy narrated, “I get more feedback from the
deaf supervisor. We speak the same language. When I needed to ask questions, it was
immediately available.” Willie who reported his interaction with his supervisor was so
frequent to the point where it felt like the interaction took place every minute and he
added, “Anytime I see my supervisor, I could go in and talk and then proceed with my
work.” The accessibility of communication allows the participants to grow personally
and professionally and this was possible through feedback.
Research Question 5
Two themes emerged for Question 5. The participants shared their perspectives,
thoughts, and experiences with regard to successful employment in a hearing workplace.
Two themes emerged to which the participants attribute to successfully being able to
navigate in the hearing workplace. One theme finds that having literacy skill makes a
positive difference. This research notes that having good literacy skills, like the
participants reported, enabling them to communicate by writing back and forth and
completing their tasks successfully, especially the ones that involved reading and writing.
Majority of the participants voiced their appreciation for having sufficient literacy skills.
Torie explained that her reading and writing skills were good and added, “If not, then,
perhaps, I would be stuck and struggle more.” Ellory reported that his job requires
adequate reading skills, “My position requires me to read manuals instructions and those
have big vocabulary. I think my education background gave me enough skills to read the
manuals.”
151

The other theme is that assertiveness was necessary to get their needs met.
Results of this study also indicate that when Deaf employees took responsibility by going
forth to get their needs met, for example by initiating conversations, discussions, and
socializations on top of letting their supervisor know of their needs, some of their needs
were met. Although not all of their needs were met the way they desired, the study notes
the burden fell on the Deaf employee by their own drive and determination.
Research Question 6
Lastly, two common themes that emerged was that the impact of successful
employment in a predominately deaf workplace is that mixing personal and work lives
creates problems; and that socialization impacts completion of job duties. Some of the
participants found from their own experiences that trouble happened when they allowed
their personal lives and work to mix. Some of the participants perceived that mixing
personal issues and work was unprofessional and that doing so created feelings of
uneasiness and discomfort when they witnessed their co-workers blurring the line
between work and personal. This study finds that drama results from the blurring of
home and work lives that spills over to and from home and work. Darcy cautioned, “
Do not get involved in other workers’ businesses. Have boundaries and keep personal
and business separated.” Sharing of these particular experiences the participants resulted
in identifying a successful means to maintain the integrity of their professionalism by
keeping their personal lives and work lives separated. While they reported that
availability of socialization impacted their work, they found socialization was a plus. For
some of the participants this was an important part of their work life.
152
Summary of the Findings in Relation to Literature
This qualitative study generated findings that were foretold by the stories of the
participants allowed for an in-depth analysis of the social structures (Glasser & Straus,
1999; Moustakas, 1994) experienced by Deaf employees working in deaf and hearing
workplaces. Participants in this study experienced both positive and negative perceptions
of working in both hearing and deaf workplaces. The participants were forthcoming
about their experiences and they provided examples of their perceptions of their
experiences of equity or inequity and their relationship with their supervisors and co-
workers. The next section discusses the findings of the thoughts, perspectives, and
experiences of Deaf employees working in hearing workplaces and predominately deaf
workplaces.
Hearing Workplace
Deaf employees experienced both equity and inequity in hearing workplaces and
both experiences impact their perception of their own job satisfaction. Furthermore, the
relationships they had with their supervisors and co-workers varied among each other and
also varied depending on where they were employed. The employee’s emotional well-
being, productivity, interpersonal relations with co-workers and supervisors, and
motivation are contingent on job satisfaction (Adams, 1963; Adams, 1965; Buegré, 1998;
& Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003).
Receiving recognition.
Eight of the participants proudly shared their pleasure of the positive compliments
and recognition they received from their supervisors. Receiving recognition for their
153
input concurs with the work of Adams (1965) as positive recognition and compliments
provided encouragement to the participants and for some of them their motivation
enhanced. Receiving recognition seems to be important for all 10 participants although
not all of them report receiving such recognition. Two participants, Johnny and Lucy,
shared that they received pay raises and Johnny said the pay for the little work he done
was astounding. However, they both voiced that they would have very much liked to
have received recognition for the work they did and the pay was not enough for them to
feel satisfied. For eight participants feelings of equity was experienced when their
contribution to the job was repaid with recognition, whereas Lucy and Johnny
experienced inequity despite having good pay or receiving pay raises from time to time as
Lucy did. Adams (1965) claimed that relationships with supervisors were essential to
many workers. Lucy shared that she very much would have preferred to hear from her
supervisor regarding her work, rather than receiving occasional pay raises without any
explanations. Lucy and Johnny appeared to have reported absent relations with their
supervisors, and it further appears that their desire to have a relationship with the
supervisor appears to supersede the pay they received.
Promotions.
Four participants experienced receiving promotions based on the quality of their
work. The promotions include being given different positions involving more complex
tasks, rather than a supervisory position. This study finds that Deaf people are capable of
supervising hearing people. Lance was promoted to a supervisory role where he
supervised hearing subordinates. Herzberg (2003) and Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003)
154

explained that one factor to boosting motivation is recognition, the type of work given,
sense of responsibility at work, upward mobility, and income. Darcy, Willie, and Torie
were recognized for their capabilities resulting in promotions. While some Deaf
employees have been promoted to supervisory positions (Foster & MacLeod, 2003),
promotion might not be attainable for some Deaf employees, and supervisors have told
this to the Deaf employees (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Punch, et al., 2007).
This study revealed both spectrums – receiving promotions and having been
denied promotions. The perspectives and experiences of the participants exemplify that
the decision to promote or not to promote relates to the attitudes and mindsets of the
managers and their perception of the capabilities of their Deaf employees. For instance,
Torie’s supervisor pushed her towards achieving what Torie thought was an impossible
task and as a result of the faith in the supervisor, Torie mastered the task resulting in
being promoted. On the other hand, while Willie was pleased with the upward
promotions he received, feelings of resentment emerged resulting from the existence of
what he perceived to be inequity after being denied promotion to a supervisory role
despite repeated requests. This correlates to the discussions by Herzberg (2003) and
Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003) regarding motivation to work and the employee’s
perception of fairness. Their findings and this present study find that motivation to work
is greatly impacted when employees do not feel they are given fair opportunities. Crowe
(2003) wrote that when feelings of inequity arise, negative attitude emerges. This also
creates cognitive dissonance leaving the person trying to create equilibrium (Adams &
Rosenbaum, 1962) by either decreasing input (Adams & Jacobsen, 1964) or terminating
155

the relationship (Huseman et al., 1987). Willie’s loss of motivation was manifested by
doing minimal work instead of usual above and beyond work and displaying an outright
negative attitude toward his co-workers. The loss of motivation resulted in Willie’s
leaving his workplace of 18 years. Ellory had similar experience, yet his response to the
situation differed. Ellory also shared that he applied for internal promotions that were not
of supervisory roles several times. To this day, he was denied the opportunity due to not
having enough experience or skills in the job for which he applied. This experience did
not impact Ellory’s motivation to work and Ellory shared that in the future he desires to
attain a supervisory role and he has yet made any steps to achieve the goal.
Missing information.
Interactions with co-workers and supervisors are an essential component of the
workplace and Deaf employees often struggle with the social aspects of the workplace
(Foster & MacLeod, 2003). Findings from this present study concur with the findings of
literature about workplace isolation for Deaf employees in a hearing workplace. Some
participants of this study shared their struggles of not receiving feedback from
supervisors and missing information from their supervisor and co-workers. This struggle
applies to both theories since Adams (1963, 1965), Herzberg (2003), and Ruthankoon
and Ogunlana (2003) discussed the importance of employer/employee relationship
alongside the relationship with feelings of equity or inequity and the fact that humans
generally yearn for relationships with people that include professional recognition,
challenges, and social life (Blau, 1964a). Seventy percent of the participants shared their
desire to receive feedback from their supervisors, including areas to work on and to
156
improve. Being recognized for their good work is one thing, and to be challenged to do
more or work on areas of deficits is yet another phenomenon.
The participants reported observing their hearing co-workers have ongoing
dialogues with the supervisors and due to communication being a challenge and with no
interpreters provided for the one-on-one meetings with their supervisors, the Deaf
participants were unable to have the same type of interactions and discussions with their
supervisors as their hearing colleagues do. In addition, 70% of the participants
acknowledged that they did not have equal information as their hearing co-workers.
When sharing about missing information or missing out on information, the
participants shared their stories as a matter of fact that missing information was
something they were accustomed to since they grew up with hearing families and thus
were familiar with such a phenomenon. Literature explained that 90% of deaf people
typically are born to hearing parents (Golden-Meadow, 2006) and reports of missing
information by the participants are consistent with the writing of Pollard and Barnett
(2009) who explained that fund-of-information deficits are a result from limited access to
ongoing bombardment of information.
Pollard and Barnett gave examples of how information is typically bombarded
onto hearing people such as hearing people talking or by other auditory-emitted
information and in some of the cases overhead speakers. Some of the participants
narrated that they are not privy to the messages transmitted over the overhead speakers.
Observation made by this researcher identifies that feeling of inequity along with
frustration with limited benefits from the exchanges Deaf employees had with their
157

supervisors and co-workers were more related to lack of feedback rather than missing
information. Being accustomed to missing out information from growing up around
hearing people who do not know sign language might play a role for this finding.
Socialization challenges.
Deaf and hearing employees alike have the same perspective that socialization is a
large part of their work life. Socialization is an interactive process that takes place
between two parties (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008) and one that also takes place in
workplaces. Social exchanges include information sharing, developing interpersonal
relationships, and engaging in simple chitchats since humans desire such exchanges
(Blau, 1964a). Each of the participants of this study reported experiencing challenges in
communication, and writings of Backenroth (1997), Foster (1998,) Foster and MacLeod
(2003), Fusick (2008), Rosengreen et al. (2009), and Woodcock and Pole (2008)
discussed the socialization challenges experienced by many Deaf employees in hearing
workplaces.
Six of the 10 participants reported feeling alone and excluded at work, while eight
of the 10 participants indicated that there is either minimal or no socialization with their
hearing co-workers. The experiences of socialization all depend on the people they work
with and the willingness of their hearing co-workers. For instance, Torie did not have
any interaction with her hearing co-workers despite her repeated attempts to reach out to
her hearing co-workers at an elderly care facility. However, at her other place of
employment, her hearing co-workers were willing to learn sign language and they
included her during break times. Willie primarily socialized with a secretary and his
158

Deaf co-worker during break but did not socialize with other hearing co-workers. Willie
explained that the availability socialization helps him get through the day. Lucy and
Johnny did not have any socialization with their co-workers and this bothered Johnny
more. He shared that he would have loved to have debate on sports with his co-workers
and his attempts to socialize were either ignored or not reciprocated. On the other hand,
Gwen did not seem to have a problem socializing with her hearing co-workers and she
describes herself as being assertive and jumping into conversations unafraid to ask what
they are talking about. This goes back to taking on the role of the initiator by
demonstrating assertiveness. Gwen reported currently being satisfied with the
socialization she has with her co-workers and their willingness to fill her in with what
was being discussed at that time. However, Gwen had her share of experiencing limited
socialization at a previous job at a supermarket, which was not a positive one and where
her hearing co-workers did not treat her well. Frankie felt “one of them” when he
described the socialization with his hearing co-workers, however admitted that group
discussions were hard to follow and that he did well with one-on-one interactions with his
co-workers. Frankie even went out with his co-workers after work and got to know them
on a personal level. Lance was the one that opted not to socialize with his hearing co-
workers during work. This was due to their constant talking what Lance described as
“trash” and he did not want part of that kind of socialization. He reported that he
socialized with them outside of work since he knew them given he at that time lived in a
small town where people knew each other.
Although, this was not analyzed in details since the information was not part of
159
the study, the researcher notes that those who report having little difficulty socializing
have good oral skills and grew up mainstreamed. This opens up for future studies to
determine if having good oral skills and/or growing up mainstreamed impacts the quality
of their socialization at work.
Nonetheless, communication challenges seems to be an inevitable phenomenon
for many Deaf people when communicating with hearing people who do not know sign
language. Typically, communication is a barrier for Deaf employees working in hearing
workplaces (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Punch et al., 2007; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Tyler,
2004).
This study brought to awareness that communication is not always faulted for the
socialization barriers. Religion was found to be a factor for one of the participant as she
felt that religious differences separated her from her co-workers. This demonstrates that
assumptions that Deaf people’s limited socialization due to communication barriers may
not always be the case.
Deaf co-workers in hearing workplaces.
Review of literature found that Deaf employees often struggle with socialization
at work (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Rosengreen et al., 2009). While the participants
reported minimal or limited socialization during work with hearing co-workers, 50% of
the participants explained that they had access to socialization since they work with other
Deaf employees and they socialized during breaks. Claudia recalled having other Deaf
co-workers at her first job to socialize with during break and she reported she enjoyed the
socialization. Findings from this study demonstrate that simply because two people who
160

are Deaf does not mean that they are socially compatible. For instance, Ellory works
with another Deaf person in his department, but he does not describe that person as
someone he typically socializes with and he socializes with other Deaf employees in the
lunchroom daily.
Another avenue a person can socialize is through texting and use of social media.
Angster, Frank, and Lester (2010) explained the new way of socializing is through
texting, e-mail, and use of social media on one’s cell phone. For one of the participant,
Ellory, texting during work replaces the limited socialization he has throughout the day.
Hearing co-workers are reported by many of the participants to have the capability of
socializing and working at the same time whereas for the Deaf individual texting requires
them to interrupt their work to be able to text, which might not be acceptable in a
workplace. Ellory’s supervisor spoke with him about being on his cell phone throughout
the day.
The satisfaction the Deaf employees received from having access to socialization
concurs with the writings of Blau (1964a) who stated that humans rely on social outlets
and the importance of having socialization at work whether it be hearing or Deaf co-
workers (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008). While Foster and MacLeod (2003) and Rosengreen
and Saladin (2010) reported not all Deaf employees had positive experience with
socialization, especially when no benefits are reaped by the exchange (Homans, 1968), or
when the efforts of the Deaf employee are not perceived to be of equal value (Blau,
1964b).
The participants in this study expressed their appreciation towards their hearing
161

co-workers who willingly reached out to them and made efforts to socialize with them.
The efforts the Deaf employee puts forth in socializing result is in tangible outcomes,
such as having social interactions is possible, as long as their efforts are reciprocated, as
Foster and MacLeod (2003) found in their qualitative study. Attitudes and willingness to
socialize with Deaf co-workers seem to play a role on part of the hearing co-workers in
this study. Some were willing and some simply were not. The rationale for their
unwillingness may be a good future study. For some of the participants, desire to have
equal fund-of-information and socialization led to desire to work in a deaf workplace.
Deaf Workplace
The participants shared their perceptions of equity and inequity as well as their
views regarding benefiting from social exchanges in a predominately deaf workplace and
intangible outcomes resulting from the social exchanges in the deaf workplace. Adams
(1965) explained that satisfaction or dissatisfaction depends on what a person perceives
the presence of equality or inequity. The participants’ voiced experiencing inequity in
the experiences in a hearing workplace such as missing information, lacking feedback
from supervisor, lacking socialization, or struggling with communication. When
compared with their experiences at the hearing workplace, this was the opposite at the
deaf workplace. Since there is no known literature of any studies conducted regarding
the perspectives, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees in a deaf workplace, there
is no present literature to compare the findings with.
Communication accessibility and supervisor relationship.
Every one of the participants reported being enthralled with the accessibility of
162
communication. All of them shared that they work with almost everyone that sign
relatively fluently. While some of the participants’ hearing supervisors or co-workers do
not sign fluently, they still had sufficient signing capabilities to carry on a dialogue.
Deaf people often cherish being among people that share the same language, ASL,
(Holcomb, 2012) and this study found that this often transpires in deaf-service
organizations where predominately of the employees use sign language. Communication
accessibility allows for direct interaction with their supervisors and 70% of the
participants shared that they felt their supervisor encouraged professional growth and
80% of the participants report receiving feedback including areas to work on.
Engaging the employee is very critical to the success of employment since
engaging employees has been found to enhance their satisfaction as well as their work
performances (Lockwood, 2007). Seventy percent of participants stated that they had
accessibility to their supervisor and further that they felt they are able to approach their
supervisors at any time during work. Not all of this was found to be true for some
participants, and the reason they do not have access their supervisors varied. Ellory
works primarily on weekends and Claudia described how her supervisors tend to be very
busy and her job duties have her out in the field most of the time. Both Ellory and
Claudia are able to reach their supervisor via text, videophone or e-mail at any time.
Claudia has weekly meetings with her supervisor, so she technically has access to her
supervisors. Although Gwen could easily communicate with her supervisors in sign
language and her supervisors were easily accessible to her, she avoided them at any cost.
When communication barriers are no longer presiding, Deaf employees become
163

regular people with their own personality, characteristics, habits, and ways of conducting
their affairs and interacting with people who may or may not have similar personalities or
characteristics. Wong, Gardiner, Lang, and Coulon (2008) wrote about the impact
personality has on a person’s behavior, hence impacting the relationship with others.
Gwen did not feel comfortable being around her supervisor for a couple of reasons: Gwen
had one direct supervisor but she worked with other supervisors in the department. She
reported that she shared something in confidence with one of the supervisors and that
unbeknownst to her, the supervisor shared it with another supervisor, resulting in loss of
trust. Gwen also shared that she did not like how the supervisors handled themselves
professionally and she perceived that the supervisors played favorites and treated their
favorite staff better than others, including Gwen. The two experiences demonstrate that
Deaf employees can have either positive or negative interactions with the their supervisor
or co-workers. With deafness not being a factor in a deaf workplace, they become
employees who happened to be deaf. Glass (2007) described how each person’s
individual upbringing developed his or her views, values, expectations, and how he or she
interacts with other people. The different personalities have been known to elicit
conflicts.
Feedback is an essential part of the learning process involving an interaction
between the supervisor and the learner to help learners gain insight into their performance
and abilities as well as areas of improvement needed (Clynes & Raftery, 2008; Chur-
Hansen & McLean, 2006). The benefits of feedback outlined by Clynes and Raftery
include promotion of growth, receiving direction, boost of confidence and increasing
164

motivation along with self-esteem. In addition, the authors explained that feedback is the
backbone of teaching and learning. This study shows the importance of receiving
feedback from supervisors, because it also helped the participants to learn to identify
areas where they need to improve. Participants who reported receiving feedback and
those who had access to their supervisors, including Claudia, shared that they benefit
from the interaction with their supervisors. These benefits include personal and
professional growth, and many of them received feedback on areas to improve and some
were even reprimanded or received write-ups for their performance. Despite getting
critical feedback, reprimands, or write-ups, the participants perceived the outcome that
they desired from the exchange between them and their supervisors to be beneficial
overall. This concurs with the writing of Blau (1964a) that discussed the importance of
social exchange and reciprocity. However, Gwen’s interaction was met with an
undesired outcome and this transpired more than on one occasion, thus she avoided
interacting with the supervisors and this ultimately led to her resignation from the agency.
Receiving feedback is not the only source of satisfaction for the participants.
Sixty percent of the participants reported experiencing gratification from giving feedback
to others by sharing their own knowledge and experiences. Lin (2007) described the
alignment between employee motivation and employees having the opportunity to share
their knowledge at work. According to Lin, sharing knowledge is a way employees
contribute to the workforce. The Deaf participants also discussed feeling useful when
they were able to contribute by sharing their knowledge and experience. Furthermore,
participants explained that they enjoy giving feedback to their co-workers, supervisors,
165
and individuals that they served. Availability of communication allows for the Deaf
employees to share their knowledge and experiences and the participants felt that this was
their way of contributing to the workplace and the individuals they served.
Socialization Challenges.
The experiences of Deaf employees in a predominately deaf workplace
demonstrate that working in a deaf workplace has two spectrums: the positives and the
negatives. This study indicates that even if communication and socialization are readily
accessible, there are still downfalls. While in the hearing environment Deaf employees
face communication challenges as a result of their hearing co-workers not knowing sign
language (Foster & MacLeod, 2003; Rosengreen et al., 2009; Woodcock and Pole, 2008),
the deaf workplace brings a different set of dilemma. Participants shared the
disappointments they experienced working in a deaf workplace. Gwen shared that open
and availability of communication had downsides and for her one was the loss of her
privacy. Frankie struggled with the enmeshment of his co-workers’ personal and
professional lives and he felt that this impacted their ability to do their job.
Sixty percent of the participants admitted that the availability of socialization
affected their completion of duties. They compensated for this by coming in early,
bringing work home, or asking others to refrain from socializing with them during work.
Gwen and Willie provided a different perspective by pointing out that even discussing
work-related subjects, use of sign language takes up a lot of their time. They cannot do
their work and talk at the same time like many of their hearing counterparts can. They
explained that they literally have to put their work down and face the person they are
166
communicating with and use their hands to talk. Nonetheless, the accessibility of
communication reveals another downside shared by the participants about working in the
deaf workplace, which was that they felt that the lines between home and their Deaf
workplace was often blurred. The participants explained that the deaf community is very
small and further, that most of the Deaf workers know each other inside and outside of
work. This finding corresponds with the writings of Lightfoot and Williams (2009) and
Sheppard and Badger (2010). In this study explained that in order to refrain from
becoming involved with the gossip/drama was not to share much about themselves, keep
to themselves, or turn away from negative discussions.
Lance was fascinated with the accessibility of communication and an increase of
socialization, but ultimately was terminated for sharing too much about another co-
worker. At his new job, Lance is extra careful about what he shares and with whom he
shares information with and saves socialization for outside of work.
Lucy has a different experience with socialization. Lucy previously worked at
one institution alongside hearing co-workers who had sign language skills. Lucy wanted
to broaden her horizons and socialize with hearing and Deaf co-workers alike. During
lunchtime, Lucy attempted to have social interactions with her hearing co-workers
several times. Eventually Lucy terminated the interactions because there was no outcome
from her attempts to have reciprocal interaction with her hearing co-workers. Lucy
reported feeling disrespected and not acknowledged by her hearing peers. This concurs
with the studies by Homans (1964) who explained people tend to terminate their attempts
to engage in social interaction if no outcomes were reaped. Furthermore,
167

acknowledgement and respect are examples of intangible outcomes defined by Meeks
(2003). The lack of reciprocity was manifested, according to Lucy, by the fact that her
co-workers either did not sign at all or not signing in full sentences thus leaving her out
of the conversation. In the hearing workplace, Lucy understood and accepted the
difficulty her hearing co-workers had in terms of socializing with her since they do not
know sign language nor did many of them speak English. Lucy perceived the responses
from her hearing co-workers who know sign language to be an outlandish rejection of her
since she felt that her hearing co-workers who could sign deliberately chose not to engage
her in their discussion during lunch. This resulted in her ceasing pursuing socializing
with them and socialized with other Deaf co-workers instead.
Limitations of the Study
Qualitative studies are not intended to be scientific but rather philosophical in
nature (Giorgi, 1997) as these types of studies are designed to be of interpretive nature
using data that has been gathered from participants who subjectively narrate their
experiences (Creswell, 2009). Phenomenological studies are intended to help understand
institutional and social practices and to bring about changes by bringing to awareness of a
phenomenon to others and to share successes or failures of interventions that were shared
by the participants of any qualitative studies (Starks, 2007). Starks explained that in
order to achieve the aforementioned goals of phenomenological qualitative studies, the
best way is to learn from the experiences of the people and capture the essences of their
perspectives, meanings, interpretations, and thoughts regarding a phenomenon. Each
individual brought his or her own unique perspectives, thoughts, and experiences to this
168

study, yet they may share similar or different experiences from the other participants.
While the possibility of learning from qualitative studies is boundless, there are
also limitations. This study has its own limitations. Studies are comprised of a small
sample, especially when sampling was purposeful, create a lack of generalizability
(Sandelowski, 2005). For the purposes of this study, only 10 Deaf individuals from a
certain region participated in this research, and therefore, the experiences of this small
sample of 10 Deaf employees cannot account for the rest of the population of Deaf
individuals, since the deaf community is comprised of a much larger and much more
diverse group (Benedict & Sass-Lehrer, 2007). Nine out of 10 of the participants’
experiences are generated from human services organizations while four of the nine
shared their experiences of working in an educational setting. There are more
predominately deaf human services and educational settings across the United States that
cater solely to Deaf and Hard of Hearing children, adolescents, and adults. Furthermore,
this study did not have the opportunity to include those who work in a predominately
Deaf business sites such as video-relay providers. Nor does this study include Deaf
employees working at predominately deaf Universities.
Participants from this study were equally divided between men and women (five
each). Only one African American Deaf male participated in this study. The rest of the
participants were Caucasian, and one was bi-racial.
In the hearing workplace, six of the participants’ work experiences were prior to
either the existence or in the early stages of videophones, e-mails, and texting, thus
limiting the study regarding the hearing workplace. Use of technology such as
169
videophones allows Deaf people to communicate with each other directly, even at a
distance (Power, Power, & Horstmanshof, 2006) and videophones also enables the Deaf
person to communicate with hearing people by using sign language interpreters provided
by the relay providers (Warnicke & Plejert, 2012).
Another limitation is the bias on part of the researcher although this researcher
took precautions to remain separated from the phenomenon. Mertens (2010) explained
that bias may emerge when a researcher belongs to the same group as the participants.
Although challenging, this researcher took great care to ask interview questions from a
researcher standpoint rather than that of a clinician. This required the researcher to assess
how her unconscious bias that could be transferred to the participants during the
interview process. Transferences of bias can be transmitted through behaviors and
attitudes. If the researchers are not careful, their behaviors, attitudes, and experiences
may contaminate the study (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Onwuegbuzie and Leech also
added that bias can occur prior to the interview as well as during the interview and extend
into the data analysis and interpretation phases. This is very a common phenomenon
requiring the researchers to constantly assess their own thoughts and feelings as a
researcher.
Recommendations for Further Research
Based on the findings from this study, there are recommendations for future
research. A quantitative study could be conducted to find an association between where
the Deaf employee went to school and their preferred place to work. This study found
that those who attended mainstreamed school had less difficulty socializing with hearing
170

co-workers, whereas those who attended a school for the deaf reported having more
difficulty socializing with their respective hearing co-workers who did not sign. For
example, participants who grew up attending a regular high school for majority of their
school years shared they would consider returning to the hearing workplace. The rest of
them who attended a deaf school reported difficulty socializing with hearing co-workers
who do not sign and this group shared they preferred to remain in a deaf workplace.
As mentioned previously, the findings from 10 participants are not generalized to
the rest of the population; however, some findings are intriguing. A search of literature
found no studies conducted to determine if there is an association between the types of
school the Deaf person attended and the level of their socialization with hearing co-
workers who do not sign. Thus, a future study could be conducted to determine if an
association exists. Findings may help understand the social challenges and successes
Deaf people experience.
Since this study was comprised of 10 participants who all grew up in a hearing
household, this researcher also recommends a future study to include Deaf employees
who grew up in a predominately deaf household who work in hearing workplaces. All of
the participants reported being accustomed to working in a hearing environment since
they grew up around hearing family members whom some had difficulty communicating
with.
This study exemplified that Deaf people in managerial positions in a
predominately deaf workplace experience challenges in respect to their social and
professional lives. A qualitative study could be comprised of Deaf managers to gain new
171

knowledge about their perceptions and experiences regarding their role as a manager and
their involvement in the deaf community. Woodcock and Pole (2008) shared that there
are not many executives who are Deaf, but 90% of participants had supervisors who were
deaf.
Gossip and drama are inevitable part of a workplace environment, since many of
the participants reported that this happens in hearing workplaces too. From the
participants’ experiences, the problem appears to be exacerbated in the deaf workplace
given that many of the Deaf employees know each other outside of work.
Based on the reports of the participants the issue appears to occur more with front-line
workers. Most of the participants in this study have college degrees, excessive work
experiences, and have professional positions; they seemed to develop the ability to
separate themselves from the drama and gossiping. They reported understanding the
importance of work ethics.
Little is known whether the front-line staff members are aware of professional
boundaries, work ethics, and keeping personal and professional lives separated. Future
qualitative study could include front line staff to determine their knowledge base
regarding professional boundaries, work ethics, and keeping personal and professional
lives separated.
Participants from this study stressed the importance of receiving feedback and
having ongoing interactions with their supervisors. Communication barriers, especially
in hearing workplaces, often hinder the Deaf employee from receiving feedback and
information and also interacting with their supervisors and co-workers. Future studies
172
should include assessing the types of technologies available for Deaf employees and the
effectiveness of the technologies in reducing the amount of information missed especially
when last minute meetings are called, or for regular meetings and whether the technology
has an impact on improving the relationship the Deaf employees and their and
supervisors in regard to ongoing communication including feedback.
Finally, the researcher recommends a future study that focuses on Deaf employees
who work as front-line staff in predominately deaf workplaces. Nine out of 10 of the
participants who volunteered for the study were professionals such as teachers, case
managers, master’s level counselor, assistance of the supervisors, and managers. Three
of them actually started as front-line staff, and they moved up to either a case manager or
managerial position and two of them have college degrees. This study only had one
front-line staff working as an aide in a classroom.
In addition, this researcher recommends that this study be expanded to include
Deaf employees who work in a video-relay business since many Deaf employees work in
that type of business.
Conclusions
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to gain a better understanding of
the perceptions, thoughts, and experiences of Deaf employees working in predominately
deaf workplaces and hearing workplaces regarding their job satisfaction, relationships
with hearing supervisors and co-workers, relationships with their hearing or Deaf
supervisors and co-workers who know sign language, and overall success in employment.
Conclusion 1.
173

While in the deaf workplace, this study finds that there are both benefits and
challenges of working in a deaf workplace. This all sums up to Deaf employee’s decision
to work in both, deaf or hearing, workplaces are a matter of choice. Kusters (2009) wrote
that working in the deaf workplace may be a utopia for some Deaf people. For many of
the participants working in a deaf-service organization is a utopia, while for some
working in a deaf workplace is not worth it. Those who prefer the deaf workplace find
that the positives supersede the negatives of a deaf workplace. The main negative in the
deaf workplace was the constant mixing of personal and work lives. They were able to
overcome this by choosing to separate their personal and home lives.
Conclusion 2.
Relationships with supervisors seem to be very important for all of the
participants. Some of the participants had a good relationship with their Deaf supervisors
while some did not. Those who did not have a good relationship with their Deaf
supervisors reported having a good relationship with their hearing supervisors. Cook and
Rice (2003), and Settoon et al. (1996) discussed the benefits of an interchangeable
relationship between the employer and employees. Participants of this study value
interactive relationships with their supervisors and most get it from the deaf workplace.
Besides receiving recognition and positive feedback, the participants reported
wanting much more which was in-depth feedback on the quality of their work, including
areas of improvement. In addition, the Deaf employees in this study expressed
experiencing gratification from contributing to the workforce by sharing knowledge and
experience, such as teaching individuals they served, showing the individuals they served
174

the way, providing feedback to the program, and having professional dialogues with
peers and supervisors for the purpose of professional and personal growth. Furthermore,
the presence of a solid foundation of mutual trust, loyalty and respect between the
employer and employee, the frequency of exchange increases (Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, &
Jia, 2008).
Conclusion 3.
Socialization is valued by all of the participants in both hearing and deaf
workplaces. Since the deaf community is small and people in the community tend to be
somehow intertwined with each other (Lightfoot & Williams, 2009; Sheppard & Badger,
2010), socialization while maintaining a sense of privacy can be a challenge. Findings
from this study indicate that Deaf employees tend to know each other inside and outside
of work which has been found to create complications.
Summary
Findings from this study suggest that Deaf employees view receiving feedback,
having ongoing interaction with their supervisors that include receiving substantial
feedback other than “good job.” and having bombardment of information which results
from availability of communication and apply this to the hearing workplace as valuable
elements of their employment. Adams (1663, 1965), Blau (1964a), and Ruthankoon and
Ogunlana (2003) discussed the yearning people have for employer/employee relationship
as well as feelings of equity in a workplace. The Deaf participants perceived their
hearing co-workers to have more interaction with their supervisors which includes
receiving feedback. In the eyes of the participants, this presented inequality. With this
175
knowledge, employers in a hearing workplace could develop awareness of the needs of
their Deaf employees, and make time and find creative ways to communicate with the
employee which includes installing some type of videophone at work. Work-related
dialogues and informal conversations could be enhanced with access to communication
to enable the Deaf employee and supervisors in a hearing work to create more satisfying
and productive work environments. This study suggests the need for more studies about
Deaf employees working in predominately workplaces since deaf-service organizations
are growing with more Deaf leaders and employees.
176

REFERENCES
Achterberg, T. J., Wind, H., De Boer, A. E., & Frings-dresen, M. (2009). Factors that
promote or hinder young disabled people in work participation: A systematic
review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 129-141. doi:
10.1007/s10926-009-9169-0
Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1962). The relationship of worker productivity to

cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology,
46(3), 161-164. doi:10.1037/h0047751
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. doi: 10.1037/h0040968
Adams, J. S., & Jacobsen, P. R. (1964). Effects of wage inequity on work quality. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(1), 19-25. doi:
10.1037/h0040241
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 2, 267-299.
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and

embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment
and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3),
350-369. doi:10.1002/job.1805
Anderson, N. (2013, February 7). Gallaudet marks “Deaf President Now.” The
Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local.education/gallaudet-marks-deaf-president-
now/2013/02/07/17666740-6fdc-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
Angster, A., Frank, M., & Lester, D. (2010). An exploratory study of students’ using
cell phones, texting, and social networking sites. Psychological Reports, 10(2),
402-404. doi 10.2466/17.PR0.107.5.402-404
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research.

Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100307
Baber, Z. (2003). Disability protests: Contentious politics, 1970-1999. Contemporary

Sociology, 32(3), 360-361.
Backenroth, G. A. (1995). Deaf people’s perception of social interaction in working life.

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 18(1), 76-81.
177
Backenroth, G. A. (1997). Social interaction in deaf/hearing bicultural work groups.
Backenroth, G. A. (1998). Counselling in order to develop tolerance between hearing

people and deaf people in bicultural working groups. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 20(3), 219-229.
Bagenstos, S. R. (2004). The future of disability law. Yale Law Journal, 114(1), 1-83.
Bain, L., Scott, S., & Steinberg, A. G. (2004). Socialization experiences and coping
strategies of adults raised using spoken language. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 9(1), 120-128. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh001
Balser, D. B. (2007). Predictors of workplace accommodations for employees with

mobility-related disabilities. Administration & Society, 39(5), 656-683.
doi:10.1177/0095399707303639
Bat-Chava, Y. (2000). Diversity of deaf identities. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5),
420-428.
Bateman, G. C. (1996). Attitudes of the deaf community towards political activism. In I.

Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 146-
159). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, H. L. (Ed.). (2008). Introduction: Listening to deaf studies. Open your eyes:
Deaf studies talking (pp. 1-32). Minneapolis: MN: University of Minnesota.
Benedict, B. S., & Sass-Lehrer, M. (2007). Deaf and hearing partnership: Ethical and
communication considerations. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(3), 275-282.
doi: 10.1353/aad.2007.0023
Benson, S., & Dundis, S. (2003). Understanding and motivating health care employees:
Integrating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of
Nursing Management, 11(5), 315-320. doi: 10.1046.j.1365-2834.2003.00409.x
Beugre, C. D. (1998). Managing fairness in organizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Biser, E., Rubel, L., & Toscano, R. (2007). Bending the rules: when deaf writers leave
college. American Annals of The Deaf, 152(4), 361-367.
Bishop, M., & Hicks, S. (2005). Orange eyes: Bimodal bilingualism in hearing adults
from deaf families. Sign Language Studies, 5(2), 188-230.
178
Blanck, P. (2005). Americans with disabilities and their civil rights: Past, present, future.
University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 66, 687-719.
Blau, P. M. (1964a). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1964b). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.
Bonds, B. (2003). School-to-work experiences: Curriculum as a bridge. American Annals

of the Deaf, 148(1), 38-48.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational researcher,
34(6), 3-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034006003
Boutin, D. (2008). Persistence in postsecondary environments of students with hearing

impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74(1), 25-31.
Boutin, D. L., & Wilson, K.B. (2009). Professional jobs and hearing loss: A comparison
of deaf and hard of hearing consumers. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(1), 36-40.
Bowe, F. (2002). Enhancing reading ability to prevent students from becoming “low-
functioning deaf” as adults. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(5), 22-27.
Bowe, F. G., McMahon, B. T., Chang, T., & Louvi, I. (2005). Workplace discrimination,
deafness and hearing impairment: The national EEOC ADA Research. Work,
25(1), 19-25.
Bowen, G. A. (2005). Preparing a qualitative research-based dissertation: Lessons

learned. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 208-222.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health
services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services
Research, 42(4), 1758-1772. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with Disabilities: 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Brice, P. J., Leigh, I. W., Sheridan, M., & Smith, K. (2013). Training of mental health
professionals: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In N. S. Glickman (Ed.), Deaf
mental health care (pp. 298-322). New York: Taylor & Francis.
179
Burch, S., & Sutherland, I. (2006). Who’s not here yet? American disability history.
Radical History Review, 94, 127-147.
Burge, P., Ouelle-Kuntz, H., & Lysaght, R. (2007). Public views on employment of
people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1),
29-37.
Burkhauser, R., & Stapleton, D. (2004). The decline in the employment rate for people
with disabilities: Bad data, bad health, or bad policy? Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 20(3), 185-201.
Butterfield, T., & Ramseur, J. (2004). Research and case study findings in the area of
workplace accommodations including provisions for assistive technology: A
literature review. Technology & Disability, 16(4), 201-210.
Bélanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2013). Frequency and predictability effects in eye
fixations for skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Visual Cognition, 21(4), 477-
497. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.804016
Caelli, K. (2001). Engaging with phenomenology: Is it more of a challenge than it needs

to be? Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 273-281. doi:
10.1177/104973201129118993
Campolieti, M. (2009). Worker adaptation and the desire for accommodations after the
onset of a disability. Industrial Relations, 48(2), 329-349. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
232X.2009.00560.x
Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a
novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being.
Health & place, 15(1), 263-272. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.003
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5),
1102-1113.
Cawthon, S. W., & Caemmerer, J. M. (2014). Parents’ perspectives on transitioning and

postsecondary outcomes for their children who are D/deaf or hard of hearing.
American Annals of the Deaf, 159(1), 7-21.
Celik, M. (2011). Theoretical approach to the job satisfaction. Polish Journal of

Management Studies, 4, 7-15.
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies in addressing

instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
180

Chin, J. L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on diversity and leadership. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 150-156. doi: 10.1037/a0018716
Christoffels, I. K., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive

perspective. In J. F. Kroll, & A. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholingustic approaches (p. 454). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chur-Hansen, A., & McLean, S. (2006). On being a supervisor: The importance of

feedback and how to give it. Australasian Psychiatry, 14(1), 67-71.
doi:10.1111/j.1440-1665.2006.02248.x
Ciorba, A., Bianchini, C., Pelucchi, S., & Pastore, A. (2012). The impact of hearing loss
on the quality of life of elderly adults. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 7, 159–
163. doi:10.2147/CIA.S26059
Clynes, M. P., & Raftery, S. E. C. (2008). Feedback: An essential element of student

learning in clinical practice. Nursing Education in Practice, 8(6), 405-411. doi:
10.1016/j.nepr.2008.02.003
Collingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American
Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5), 389-395. doi: 10.1177/1062860608320646
Connelly, L. (2010). What is phenomenology? MEDSURG Nursing, 19(2), 127-128.
Cook, J. A. (2006). Employment barriers for persons with psychiatric disabilities: Update
of a report for the president’s commission. Psychiatric Services, 57(10), 1391-
1405.
Craig, C. (2009). Interpreter business practices: Situational effects on the profession as a

whole. RID Views, 26(4), 49-50.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organizational
Management, 27(3), 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi:
10.1177/0149206305279602
181

Crowe, T. V. (2003). Self-esteem scores among deaf college students: An examination of
gender and parents’ hearing status and signing ability. Journal of Deaf Studies &
Deaf Education, 8(2), 199-206. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eng003
Crump, C., & Glickman, N. (2011). Mental health interpreting with language dysfluent
deaf clients. Journal of Interpretation, 21(1), 20-36. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/3
Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. D. (2003). Community integration or community exposure?:

A review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(2), 145-157. doi:
10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00157.x
Davis, L. J. (2007). Deafness and the riddle of identity. The Chronicle, 53(19), B6-B8.
Deaf. (2011). In The American Heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: Subtle prejudice toward disabled people. Disability
& Society, 22(1), 93-107. doi:10.1080/09687590601056667
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2001). Application of demand-control theory to sign

language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1093/deafed/6.1.1
Debevc, M., Kosec, P., & Holzinger, A. (2011). Improving multimodal web accessibility
for deaf people: Sign language interpreter module. Multimedia Tools and
Applications, 54(1), 181-199. doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0529-8
Deegan, P. E. (1992). The independent living movement and people with psychiatric
disabilities: Taking back control over our own lives. Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Journal, 15(3), 3-19. doi:10.1037/h0095769
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40(4), 314-321.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being
contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being,
3(1), 1-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x
Dinsmore, A. M. (2004). The decline in employment of people with disabilities.

Disability & Geography II, 24(3). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-
sds.org/article/view/514/691
182
Doe, T. (2014). The difficulty with deafness discourse and disability culture. The Review
of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 1(1).
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities

and challenges. Academy Of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335-
362.
Fabian, E., Ethridge, G., & Beveridge, S. (2009). Differences in perceptions of career
barriers and supports for people with disabilities by demographic background and
case status factors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(1), 41-49.
Farmer, T., Robinson, K., Elliott, S. J., & Eyles, J. (2006). Developing and
implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative
Health Research, 16(3), 377-394. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285708
Fellinger, J., Holzinger, D., & Pollard, R. (2012). Mental health of deaf people. Lancet,
379(9820), 1037-1044. doi: 10.1016/S0140-67(11)61143-4
Fogg, N., Harrington, P., & McMahon, B. (2010). The impact of the great recession upon
the unemployment of Americans with disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 33(3), 193-202. doi: 10.3233/JVR-2010-0527
Foster, S. B. (1987). Employment experiences of deaf college graduates: An interview

study. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 21(1), 1-15.
Foster, S. B. (1996). Communication experiences of deaf people. In I. Parasnis (Ed.),

Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 117-135). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, S. (1998). Communication as social engagement: Implications for interactions

between deaf and hearing persons. Scandinavian Audiology, 27(4), 116-124.
Foster, S., & MacLeod, J. (2003). Deaf people at work: Assessment of communication
among deaf and hearing persons in work settings. International Journal of
Audiology, 42(S), 128-139.
183

Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation
and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the big five. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(8), 765-779. doi: 10.1108/02683940910996789
Fusick, L. (2008). Serving clients with hearing loss: Best practices in mental health
counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(1), 102-110.
Gannon, J. R. (1989). The week the world heard Gallaudet. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet
University Press.
Garberoglio, C. L., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. (2013). Assessing English literacy as a
predictor for post school outcomes in the lives of deaf individuals. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 50-67. doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent038
Gewurtz, R., & Kirsh, B. (2009). Disruption, disbelief and resistance: A meta-synthesis
of disability in the workplace. Work, 34(1), 33-44. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2009-0900
Geyer, P., & Schroedel, J. (1998). Early career job satisfaction for full-time workers who
are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Rehabilitation, 64(1), 33-37.
Geyer, P. D., & Schroedel, J. G. (1999). Conditions influencing the availability of

accommodations for workers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Journal of
Gibbs, G. R, (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. doi: 10.4135/9781849208574
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method
as a qualitative research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235.
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103. doi:
10.1108/00197850710732424
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Glicken, M. D. (2003). Social research: A simple guide. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson

Education, Inc.
Glickman, N. S., & Heines, W. (2013). Creating culturally and clinically competent deaf
residential treatment programs. In N. S. Glickman (Ed.), Deaf mental health care
(pp. 181-233). New York: Taylor & Francis.
184

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
Golos, D. B., Moses, A. M., & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Culture or disability? Examining
deaf characters in children’s book illustrations. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 40(4), 239-249. Doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0506-0
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). Talking and thinking with our hands. Current Directions in
Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 15(1), 34-39. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2006.00402.x
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Gournaris, M. J., & Aubrecht, A. L. (2013). Deaf/hearing cross-cultural conflicts and the
creation of culturally competent treatment programs. In N. S. Glickman (Ed.),
Deaf mental health care (pp. 69-106). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Grosjean, F. (1996). Living with two languages and two cultures. In I. Parasnis (Ed.),
Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 20-37). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, R. B., & Kegl, J. (2007). Moving faces: Categorization of dynamic facial
expressions in American Sign Language by deaf and hearing participants. Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(1), 23-38. doi:10.1007/s10919-006-0022-2
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2005). How many interviews are enough?: An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi:
10.1177/1525822X05279903
Gussenhoven, A. H., Anema, J. R., Goverts, S. T., Bosmans, J. E., Festen, J. M., &
Kramer, S. E. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of a vocational enablement protocol for
employees with hearing impairment, design of a randomized controlled trial.
BMC Public Health, 12(1), 151-161. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-151
Haidet, K., Tate, J., Divirgilio-Thomas, D., Kolanowski, A., & Happ, M. (2009).
Methods to improve reliability of video-recorded behavioral data. Research in
Nursing & Health, 32(4), 465-474. doi: 10.1002/nur.20334
Hamill, A. C., & Stein, C. H. (2011). Culture and empowerment in the Deaf community:
An analysis of internet weblogs. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 21(5), 388-406. doi: 10.1002/casp.1081
185
Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Whiteneck, G., Bogner, J., & Rodriquez, E.
(2008). What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with
disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 30(19), 1445-1460. doi:
10.1080/096380701625534
Harder, H. (2009). Invisible disabilities. International Journal of Disability Management,

4(1), ii. doi: 10.1375/jdmr.4.ii
Harris, R., Holmes, H. M., & Mertens, D. M. (2009). Research ethics in sign language
communities. Sign Language Studies, 9(2), 104-131.
Hauser, P., Finch, K., & Hauser, A. (2010). Achieving successful partnership: Deaf
professionals and designated interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf
Education, 15(2), 205. doi: 10.1093/deafed/emp020
Haynes, S., & Linden, M. (2012). Workplace accommodations and unmet needs specific
to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Disability and Rehabilitation
Assistive Technology, 75(5), 408-415. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2012.665977
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at
work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy Of Management Review,
33(1), 137-162. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27749365
Henderson, J. (2009). Tips for working with deaf or hard-of-hearing students employees
in the library. Journal of Access Services, 6(1-2), 98-100. doi:
10/1080/1536796082286146
Hergenrather, K., & Rhodes, S. (2007). Exploring undergraduate student attitudes toward
persons with disabilities: Application of the Disability Social Relationship Scale.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(2), 66-75.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees?. Harvard
Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.
Hintermair, M., & Albertini, J. A. (2005). Ethics, deafness, and new medical
technologies. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(2), 184-192. doi:
10.1093/deafed/eni018
Hintermair, M. (2008). Self-esteem and satisfaction with life of deaf and hard-of-hearing
people-A resource-oriented approach to identity work. Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 13(2), 278-300. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm05
Hiriyappa, B. (2009). Organizational Behavior. Daryaganj, Delhi, India: New Age

International.
186

Holcomb, T. K. (2010). Deaf epistemology: The deaf way of knowing. American Annals
of the Deaf, 154(5), 471-478.
Holcomb, T. K. (2012). Introduction to American deaf culture. New York: Oxford

University Press.
Holte, M., & Dinis, M. (2001). Self-esteem enhancement in deaf and hearing women:
Success stories. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 348-354.
Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu, P. P., & Li, L. (2009).
Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job
embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 277-297.
doi:10.1037/a0013453
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology,

63(6), 597-606.
Homans, G. C. (1964). Bringing men back in. American Sociological Review, 29(6), 809-
818.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (Rev. ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Hotchkiss, J. L. (2004). A closer look at the employment impact of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, 39(4), 887-911.
Houtenville, A., & Kalargyrou, V. (2012). People with disabilities: Employers’

perspectives on recruitment practices, strategies, and challenges in leisure and
hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 40-52. Doi:
10.1177/1938965511424151
Houston, K., Lammers, H. B., & Svorny, S. (2010). Perceptions of the effect of public
policy on employment opportunities for individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 9-21. doi:
10.1177/1044207309357428
How much does an interpreter cost? (2014). Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.costhelper.com/interpreters/html
Hoza, J. (2010). Achieving successful partnerships: Deaf professionals and designated

interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 15(2), 205.
doi:10.1093/deafed/enp020
187

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity
theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2),
222-234. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1987.4307799
Interpreter fee schedules & manual. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/mcdhh/sign-language-interpreter-rates-fy14.pdf
Jacobs, P. G., Brown, P. M., & Paatsch, L. (2012). Social and professional participation
of individuals who are deaf: Utilizing the psychosocial potential maximization
framework. The Volta Review, 112(1), 37-62.
Jambor, E., & Elliott, M. (2005). Self-esteem and coping strategies among deaf students.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 63-81. doi:
10.1093/deafed/eni004
Jones, E. G., Mallinson, R. K., Phillips, L., & Kang, Y. (2006). Challenges in language,
culture, and modality: Translating English measures into American Sign
Language. Nursing Research, 55(2), 75-81.
Kamm-Larew, D., Stanford, J., Greene, R., Heacox, C., & Hodge, W. (2008). Leadership
style in the deaf community: An exploratory case study of a university president.
American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 357-367.
Kensicki, L. J. (2001). Deaf president now! Positive media framing of a social movement
with a hegemonic political environment. Journal of Communication Inquiry,
25(2), 147-166. doi: 10.1177/0196839901025002005
Komesaroff, L. R. (2006). Being there is not enough: Inclusion is both deaf and hearing.
Deafness and Education International, 8(2), 88-100. doi: 10.1002/dei.192
Kramer, S. (2008). Hearing impairment, work, and vocational enablement. International

Journal of Audiology, 47(S2), S124-130.
Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic

approaches. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Kruse, D., & Schur, L. (2003). Employment of people with disabilities following the
ADA. Industrial Relations, 42(1), 31-66.
Kurata, E. T., & Brodwin, M. G. (2013). Business as unusual: Employment practices and
employees with disabilities. Education, 134(2), 240-243.
188
Kushalnagar, P., Hannay, H. J., & Hernandez, A. E. (2010). Bilingualism and attention:
A study of balanced and unbalanced bilingual deaf users of American Sign
Language and English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(3), 263-
273. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq011
Kusters, A. (2009). Deaf utopias? Reviewing the sociocultural literature on the world’s
“Martha’s Vineyard situations.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1,
3-16. doi: 0.1093/deafed/enp026
Ladd, P., & Lane, H. (2013). Deaf ethnicity, deafhood, and their relationship. Sign
Language Studies, 13(4), 565-579.
Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 10(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni030
Lane, H. (2008). Do deaf people have a disability? In H. L. Bauma (Ed.), Open your
eyes: Deaf studies talking (pp. 277-292). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Latvala, E., Vuokila-Oikkonen, P., & Janhonen, S. (2000). Videotaped recording as a

method of participant observation in psychiatric nursing research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 31(5), 1252-1257. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01383.x
Lawler, E. E. (1968). Equity theory as a predictor of productivity and work quality.

Psychological Bulletin, 70(6), 596-601.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 217-244.
Lee, B. A. (2003). A decade of the Americans with Disability Act: Judicial outcomes and
unresolved problems. Industrial Relations, 42(1), 11-30.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and designing (9th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to
career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
47(1), 36-49. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36
Lent, R. W. (2008). Understanding and promoting work satisfaction. An integrative

view. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology
(4th ed.). (pp. 462-480). Retrieved from
http://simi.kemenag.go.id/pustaka/images/materibuku/handbook-of-counseling-
psychology.pdf
189

Leveraging higher education to improve employment outcomes for people who are deaf
or hard of hearing. Senate Hearing before the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions. (2011, Oct. 11). (112-870), Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg87493/html/CHRG-
112shrg87493.htm
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language.

Retrieved from http://bilder.buecher.de/zusat/23/23180/2318093_vorw_1.pdf
Lightfoot, E., & Williams, O. (2009). The intersection of disability, diversity, and
domestic violence: Results of national focus groups. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(2), 133-152. doi: 10.1080/10926770802675551
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge

sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science. 33(2), 135-149. doi:
10.1177/0165551506068174
Lindstrom, L., Kahn, L. G., & Lindsey, H. (2013). Navigating the early career years:
Barriers and strategies for young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 39(1), 1-12. doi: 10.3233/JVR-130637
Livneh, H. (2012). On the origin of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities. In
I. Marini, & M. Stebnicki (Eds.), The psychological and social impact of illness
and disability (6th ed.). (pp. 13-25). New York: Springer Publishing.
Locke, E. A. (1968). What is job satisfaction? Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023138.pdf
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage.

Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.
Long, G., Vignare, K., Rappold, R. P., & Mallory, J. R. (2007). Access to communication
for deaf, hard-of-hearing and ESL students in blended learning courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(3).
Lu, H., While, A. E., & Barriball, K. L. (2005). Job satisfaction among nurses: A
literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 42(2), 211-227. doi:
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.09.003
Luckner, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2003). Self-assessment and other perceptions of successful
adults who are deaf: An initial investigation. American Annals of the Deaf,
148(3), 243-250.
190
Luey, H. S., Glass, L., & Elliott, H. (1995). Hard-of-hearing or deaf: Issues of ears,
language, culture, and identity. Social Work, 40(2), 177-182.
Luft, P. (2000). Communication barriers for deaf employees: Needs assessment and
problem-solving strategies. Work, 14(1), 51-59.
Luft, P. (2014). A national survey of transition services for deaf and hard of hearing
students. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(3),
177-192. doi:10.1177/2165143412469400
Lussier, R., Say, K., & Corman, J. (2000). Need satisfaction of deaf and hearing
employees. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 36(1), 47-60.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence
processing in reading and translation. Psicologica: International Journal of
Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 181-205.
Maertz Jr, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of
perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee
turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075. doi:
10.1002/job.472
Marschark, M., Leigh, G., Sapere, P., Burnham, D., Convertino, C., Stinson, M., ...
Noble, W. (2006). Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for
deaf students’ classroom learning. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
11(4), 421-437. doi:10.1093/deafed/en1013
Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive functioning in deaf adults and
children. Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (pp. 486-499).
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Covertino, C., Seewagen, R., & Maltzen, H. (2004).
Comprehension of sign language interpreting: Deciphering a complex task
situation. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 345-368.
Mason, M. (2010, August). Sampling size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative
interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027.%20%20%20%20%5BAccesse
d
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748. doi:
10.2307/1556364
191

McCullough, S., Emmorey, K., & Sereno, M. (2005). Neural organization for recognition
of grammatical and emotional facial expressions in deaf ASL signers and hearing
nonsigners. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 193-202. doi:
10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.012
McLellan, E., MacQueen, K. M., & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the qualitative
interview: Data preparation and transcription. Field Methods, 15(1), 63-84. doi:
10.1177/1525822X02239573
McMahon, B. T., & Shaw, L. R. (2005). Workplace discrimination and disability.

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23(3), 137-143.
Meador, H. E., & Zazove, P. (2005). Health care interaction with deaf culture. Journal of
America Board of Family Medicine, 18(3), 218-222. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.3.218
Meeker, B. F. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American Sociological Review, 36(3),

485-495.
Mehra, B. (2002). Bias in qualitative research: Voices from an online classroom. The
Qualitative Report, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-
1/mehra.html
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, P. (2010). Phonological, orthographic, and syntactic awareness and their relation
to reading comprehension in prelingually deaf individuals: What can we learned
from skilled readers? Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 22(6),
549-580. doi:10.1007/s10882-010-9195-z
Mitchell, R. E. (2005). How many deaf people are in the United States? Estimates from
the survey of income and program participation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 11(1), 112-119. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj004
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory,

21(1), 1-17.
Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important:

The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education,
57(2), 224-240. doi: 10.1080/03634520701861713
192

Moores, D. F. (2010). Epistemologies, deafness, learning, and teaching. American Annals
of the Deaf, 154(5), 447-455.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. doi:
10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mowry, R. L., & Anderson, G. B. (1993). Deaf adults tell their stories: Perspectives on
barriers to job advancement and on-the-job accommodations. The Volta Review,
95(4), 367-377.
National Council on Disability. (2007). The Impact of Americans with Disabilities Act:
Assessing the progress toward achieving the goals of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2007/07262007
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (6th ed. ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ntiri, D. W. (2013). How minority becomes majority: Exploring discursive and racialized
shifts in the adult literacy conversation. Western Journal of Black Studies, 37(3),
159-168.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in

qualitative research. International Journal Of Social Research Methodology, 11(4),
327-344. doi:10.1080/13645570701401305
O’Day, B., & Killeen, M. (2002). Research on the lives of persons with disabilities: The
emerging importance of qualitative research methodologies. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 13(1), 9-15.
Obasi, C. (2008). Seeing the deaf in “deafness.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 455(13), 455-465. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enn008
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An

oxymoron?. Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 233-249. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3
193
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.
79-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Padden, C. A., & Humphries, T. L. (2005). Inside deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Parasnis, I. (Ed.). (1996). Preface. Cultural and language diversity and the deaf
experience (p. xiii). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Partington, K. (2005). What do we mean by our community? Journal of Intellectual

Disabilities, 9(3), 241-251. doi: 10.1177/1744629505056697
Patterson, S. (2011). A historical overview of disability and employment in the United

States. Review of Disability: An International Journal, 7(3/4), 1-17.
Paul, P., & Moores, D. (2010). Introduction: Toward an understanding of epistemology

and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 421-427.
Peters, S. (2000). Is there a disability culture? A syncretisation of three possible world

views. Disability & Society, 15(4), 583-601.
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the

relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance.
Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 712-721.doi:
10.5465/AMR.1984.4277608
Petty, G. C., Brewer, E. W., & Brown, B. (2005). Job satisfaction among employees of a
youth developmental organization. Child and Youth Forum, 34(1), 57-73. doi:
10.1007/s10566-004-0882-8
Pollard, R., & Barnett, S. (2009). Health-related vocabulary knowledge among deaf
adults. Rehabilitation Psychology, 54(2), 182-185. doi: 10.1037/a0015771
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on

research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52(2), 126-136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Power, M. R., & Power, D. (2004). Everyone here speaks TXT: Deaf people using SMS
in Australia and the rest of the world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 9(3), 333-343. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enh042
194

Power, M. R., Power, D., & Horstmanshof, L. (2006). Deaf people communicating via
SMS, TTY, relay service, fax, and computers in Australia. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Education, 12(1), 80-92. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enl016
Preminger, J., & Levitt, H. (1997). Computer-assisted remote transcription (CART): A

tool to aid people who are deaf or hard of hearing in the workplace. Volta Review,
99(4), 219-230.
Pricing & conditions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.andreasmithinterpreting.com/asl-

interpreter-prices-conditions/
Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 4(2), 176-211. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90005-1
Punch, R., Hyde, M., & Creed, P. (2004). Issues in school-to-work transition of hard of
hearing adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(1), 28-38.
Punch, R., Hyde, M., & Power, D. (2007). Career and workplace experiences of
Australian university graduates who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf
Studies & Deaf Education, 14(4), 505-517. doi: 10.1093/deafed.enm011
Putman, M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,

16(3), 188-198.
Putman, S. (2008). Mental illness: diagnostic title or derogatory term? (Attitudes towards
mental illness) Developing a learning resource for use within a clinical call centre.
A systematic literature review on attitudes towards mental illness. Journal Of
Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 15(8), 684-693. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2850.2008.01288.x
Randolph, D. (2004). Predicting the effect of disability on employment status and

income. Work, 23(3), 257-266.
Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 2.
Reagan, T. (1995). A sociocultural understanding of deafness: American Sign Language

and the culture of deaf people. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
19(2), 239-251.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.97.4.698
195
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D.R., & Hansen, J.D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the
relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years
of research. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1027-1020. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003
Rolfe G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative
research. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310 7.
Rosen, R. S. (2008). Description of the American deaf community, 1830-2000: Epistemic

foundations. Disability & Society, 23(2), 129-140. doi:
10.1080/09687590701841166
Rosengreen, K. M., Saladin, S. P., & Hansmann, S. (2009). Differences in workplace

behavior expectations between deaf workers and hearing employers. Journal of
the American Deafness & Rehabilitation Association (JADARA), 42(3), 130-151.
Rosengreen, K. M., & Saladin, S. P. (2010). Deaf workers prioritized workplace

expectations: A qualitative study. Journal of the American Deafness &
Rehabilitation Association (JADARA), 43(3), 128-151.
Rumrill, P. D., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (2010). Employer characteristics and discharge-

related discrimination against people with disabilities under the Americans with
Disability Act. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(4), 448-465. doi:
10.1177/1523422310379212
Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the
Thai construction industry. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural
Management, 10(5), 333-341. doi: 10.1108/09699980310502946
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods,
15(1), 85-109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative

research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-183. doi:
10.1002/nur.4770180211
Sarti, D. M. (1993). Reaching the deaf child: A model for diversified intervention. Smith
College Studies in Social Work, 63(2), 187-198.
Scheier, D. (2009). Barriers to health care for people with hearing loss: A review of the
literature. Journal of the New York State Nursing Association, 40(1), 4-10.
Schlesinger, H. S. (2000). A developmental model applied to problems of deafness.

Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 5(4), 349-361.
196
Schley, S., Walter, G. G., Weathers, R. R., Hemmeter, J. C., & Burkhauser, R. V. (2011).
Effects of postsecondary education on the economic status of persons who are
deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 16(4), 524-
536. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq060
Schrodel, J. G., & Geyer, P. D. (2001). Enhancing the career advancement of workers
with hearing loss: Results from a national follow up survey. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 32(3), 35-44.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of
persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 23(1), 3-20. doi:
10.1002/bsl.624
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all
workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations,
48(3), 381-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2009.00575.x
Seibers, T. (2001). Disability in theory: From social constructionism to the new realism
of the body. American Literary History, 3(4), 737-754.
Seibers, T. (2004). Disability as masquerade. Literature and Medicine, 23(1), 1-22.
Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Senghas, R. J., & Monaghan, L. (2002). Signs of their times: Deaf communities and the
culture of language. Annual Review Anthropology, 31(1), 69-97. doi:
10.1146/annrev.anthro.31.020402.101302
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227. doi: 10.1037/0031-
9010.81.3.219
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs, revisited (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Shalock, R. L. (2004). The emerging disability paradigm and its implications for policy
and practice. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(4), 204-215.
Shannon, C., Schoen, B., & Tansey, T. (2009). The effect of contact, context, and social
power on undergraduate attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Journal of
197

Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights
movement. New York: Random House, Inc.
Shaw, G. (2012). Breaking news: Fighting workplace discrimination against the hearing
impaired. Hearing Journal, 65(12), 26-28. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000423562.48
Sheppard, K. K., & Badger, T. T. (2010). The lived experience of depression among
culturally deaf adults. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 17(9),
783-789. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01606.x
Sheridan, M. A., White, B. J., & Mounty, J. L. (2010). Deaf and hard of hearing social
workers accessing their profession: A call to action. Journal of Social Work in
Disability & Rehabilitation, 9(1), 1-11.
Shirin, A., Sabers, D. L., & Stinson, M. S. (2006). Validity and reliability of the
classroom participation questionnaire with deaf and hard of hearing students in
public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 158-171. doi:
10.1093/deafed/en1028
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison
of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.774
Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Xiao-Ping, C., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social
exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management &
Organization Review, 5(3), 289-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00158.
Simms, L., Rusher, M., Andrews, J. F., & Coryell, J. (2008). Apartheid in deaf education:
Examining workforce diversity. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 384-395.
Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The
philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to
investigate lecturers' experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48(3),
1291-1303. doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3
Smith, M. C., Mikulecky, L., Kibby, M. W., Dreher, M. J., & Dole, J. A. (2000). What
will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading
Research Quarterly, 35(3), 378-383.
Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nurse
Researcher, 18(2), 52-62.
198
Smith, D. B., & Shields, J. (2013). Factors related to social service workers' job
satisfaction: Revisiting Herzberg's motivation to work. Administration in Social
Work, 37(2), 189-198. doi:10.1080/03643107.2012.673217
Sparrow, R. (2005). Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. Journal of
Political Philosophy, 13(2), 135-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00217.x
Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B., (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of
phenomenology, discourse analysis and ground theory. Qualitative Health
Research, 17(10), 1372-1380. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307031
Stein, M. A., (2007) Disability Human Rights. California Law Review. 95. Retrieved
from http://ssrn.com/abstract=900014
Stinson, M. S., & Foster, S. (2000). Socialization of deaf children & youths in school. In
K. P. Meadow-Orlans, P. E. Spencer, C. J. Erting, & M. Marschark (Eds.), The
deaf child in the family and at school: Essays in honor of Kathryn P. Meadow-
Orlans (pp. 191-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stoke, W. C. (2005). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication

systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Education, 10(1), 3-
37. doi: 10/1093/deafed/eni001
Stum, D. L. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.

Strategy & Leadership, 29, 4-9.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas.
Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161-178. doi: 10.1177/1468794104044430
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2010). Time lag in translation and
interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius
(Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches to
translation studies (pp. 121-149). Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Co.
Tuckett, A. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse
Researcher, 12(1), 47-61.
Tyler, K. (2004). Ready to be heard. HR Magazine, 49(9), 70-76.
Uppal, S. (2005). Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. International

Journal of Manpower, 26(4), 336-349. doi: 10.1106/01437720510609537
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.
199

United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (n.d.) Information and
technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from
http://www.ADA.gov/2010_regs.htm.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2009a). Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, as amended. Retrieved from
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2009b). A guide to disability rights
laws. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Labor force statistics from current population survey.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Questions and answers about
deafness and hearing impairments in the workplace and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Retrieved from
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_deafness.cfm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
U.S. Office of Personal Management. (n.d.) Disability employment: Reasonable

accommodations. Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/disability-employment/reasonable-accommodations/
Valentine, G., & Skelton, T. (2008). Changing spaces: The role of the internet is shaping
Deaf geographies. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(5), 469-485. doi:
10.1080/14649360802175691
Veenhoven, R. (2008). Healthy happiness: effects of happiness on physical health and the
consequences for preventive health care. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(3), 449-
469. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9042-1
Vogel, J. J., & Keating, C. F. (2005). Employment of deaf people as influenced by

potential employers’ perceptions: pathological compared with sociocultural
perspectives. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(18), 181-183.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. (1973). New direction in equity research.
Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151-176. doi: 10.1037/h0033967
Walter, G. G., & Dirmyer, R. (2013). The effect of education on the occupational status
of deaf and hard of hearing 26-to-64-year-olds. American Annals of the Deaf,
158(1), 41-49.
200

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111. doi: 10.2037/257021
Wehman, P. H. (2011). Employment for persons with disabilities: Where are we now and
where do we need to go? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(3), 145-151.
doi: 10.3233/JVR-2011-0562
Wheeler-Scruggs, K. (2003). Discerning characteristics and risk factors of people who

are deaf and low functioning. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69(4), 39-46.
White, G. W., Simpson, J. L., Gonda, C., Ravesloot, C., & Coble, Z. (2010). Moving
from independence to interdependence: A conceptual model for better
understanding community participation of centers for independent living
consumers. Journal of Disability and Policy Studies, 20(4), 233-240. doi:
10.1177/104420730935061
White, R. F. (2007). Institutional review board mission creep. Independent Review, XI(4),
547-564.
Wilson, W. J., & Chaddha, A. (2009). The role of theory in ethnographic research.
Ethnography, 10(4), 549-564. doi: 10.1177/1466138109347009
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in
personality and motivation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878-890.
doi:10.1108/02683940810904376
Woodcock, K., & Pole, J. D. (2008). Educational attainment, labour force status and
injury: A comparison of Canadians with and without deafness and hearing loss.
Woodcock, K., Rohan, M. J., Campbell, L. (2007). Equitable representation of deaf

people in mainstream academia: Why not? Higher Education, 53(3), 359-379.
doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-2428-x
Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2005). Challenges of organizational learning:

Perpetuation of discrimination against employees with disabilities. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 23(1), 123-141. doi: 10.1002/bsl.630
Yancey, A. K., Ortega, A. N., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2006). Effective recruitment and
retention of minority research participants. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 27, 1-28.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102113
201
Young, A. M., Ackerman, J., & Kyle, J. G. (2000). On creating a workable signing
environment: Deaf and hearing perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 5(2), 186-195. doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.2.186
Zafirovski, M. (2001). Exchange, action, and social structure: Elements of economic

sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The
employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager
trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111-132. doi:
10.1002/hrm.20200
202
APPENDIX A. PRE-RECORDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS UTILIZED
Interview
Questions Claudia Ellory Lance Frankie Darcy Johnny Gwen Willie Lucy Torie
1 X X X X
2
3 X
4
5
6
7 X
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 X
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 X
26
203
APPENDIX B. HEARING WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION MODES
Communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
modality Claudia Ellory Lance Frankie Darcy Johnny Gwen Willie Lucy Torie
Writing back X X X X X X X X X X
and forth
Use of lip-‐

reading and X X X X X X X
speech
204
APPENDIX C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Participant 1: Claudia
Claudia is a Caucasian female, between 50-59 years old, who presently works in a
deaf workplace. Claudia was born deaf and learned sign language at the age of four. She
obtained her education from elementary school till she graduated from the school for the
deaf. Claudia attended both deaf and hearing universities and received her bachelor
degree. Claudia demonstrated enthusiasm during the interview.
Participant 2: Ellory
Ellory identified himself as a 33-year-old African American man who presently
works in a hearing workplace on a full time basis while also working at a deaf workplace
on a part-time basis. Ellory became deaf at the age of three and learned sign language at
the age of seven. Ellory obtained his education from elementary until high school at a
school for the deaf. Ellory obtained his bachelor degree from a deaf university, after
which he attended graduate school at a deaf university. However, he did not complete his
degree and has one more year to go. He is unsure what he wants to do in terms of future
employment and that was why he chose not to complete the graduate study.
Participant 3: Lance
Lance is a Caucasian man around between 30-34 years old and presently works in a
predominately deaf workplace. Lance was born deaf and learned sign language at 18
months. Lance attended a mainstreamed school all his life and went to a hearing
university and graduated with a bachelor’s degree.
205
Participant 4: Frankie
Frankie is a 33-year-old Caucasian man who presently works in a regional
government office where his primary duty is advocacy and education for Deaf and Hard
of Hearing individuals living in that region as well as parents/caregivers of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing people. Although recipients of the services are Deaf and Hard of
Hearing, the government within the state employs Frankie to provide such services.
Frankie was born deaf and learned sign language between the ages one and two. Frankie
attended a mainstreamed school from elementary through high school including
universities where he earned both his bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
Participant 5: Darcy
Darcy is a 43-year-old Caucasian woman whose deafness was detected at birth
and she was taught sign language at the age of 18 months. Darcy attended a school for
the deaf in another state and graduated from high school. Darcy attended both hearing
and deaf universities ultimately earned a bachelor’s degree.
Participant 6: Johnny
Johnny is a 37-year-old Caucasian man who presently works in a deaf workplace.
Johnny became deaf at the age of two as a result of a high fever and he learned sign
language at the age of five. Johnny attended both a mainstreamed and a school for the
deaf and he graduated from a school for the deaf. Johnny attended two universities,
hearing and deaf, and he presently has a master’s degree.
Participant 7: Gwen
During the researcher’s discussion of confidentiality and the intention to assign
206
each participant with a pseudo-name, Gwen inquired if she could be called Gwen since
she likes that name. Gwen is between 30-34 years old, Caucasian, and currently works in
a hearing workplace. She became deaf shortly after birth born due to high fever. Gwen
attended a mainstreamed school her whole life and attended a hearing college where she
received her Associate degree. Gwen reported she really did not know many Deaf people
as she attended school with a few other Deaf students. Gwen said she had basic signing
skills and often they made up their own signs along with using English Sign Language.
During the interview, Gwen signed primarily in English order and mouthed every word.
Participant 8: Willie
Willie is a Caucasian man between 45-50 years old and presently works at a deaf
workplace. Willie became deaf as a result of spinal meningitis at the age of two. Willie
attended a mainstreamed school until the age 13. He was taught the oral method first and
he learned sign language at the age of nine. After that, Willie attended a school for the
deaf where he remained until he graduated. Willie never attended college and he went
right to work in a hearing workplace.
Participant 9: Lucy
Lucy is a bi-racial woman of Puerto Rican and Caucasian descent and between
the age of 30-34, who presently works in a deaf workplace. Lucy became deaf at two and
half as a result of spinal meningitis. She learned sign language at age three following her
diagnosis. Lucy attended a school for the deaf from elementary to high school. She
attended both hearing and deaf universities. She obtained her bachelor’s Degree from a
hearing university and her master’s from a Deaf university. Lucy’s line of work is
207

counseling.
Participant 10: Torie
Torie is a Caucasian woman between the ages of 35-39 and currently works at a
deaf workplace. Torie became deaf at the age of one and half as a result of an adverse
reaction to a medication. Sign language was introduced to Torie at the age of three.
Torie attended both educational settings, mainstreamed and school for the deaf. Torie
never attended college and she went straight to work after graduation from high school.
208

Out 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXPLORING THE EXPERIENCES OF DEAF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN

DEAF AND HEARING WORKPLACES: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY

PAMELA KLEM, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

LINDA SAMUELS, PhD, Committee Member

WILLIAM B. DISCH, PhD, Committee Member

Elizabeth Koenig, JD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

This phenomenological study sought to explore the experiences of Deaf employees

individuals who have a disability. Phenomenological qualitative methodology was

structured interviews formulated by the researcher resulting in 22 nomothetic themes.

(b) positive compliments and recognition by supervisor, (c) communication was a

researches should be conducted to expand on deaf workplaces to explore the perceptions,

the torch to Mandi to be the next in line to pursue a doctorate degree.

for me along the way.

will open up doors to future studies.

were my rock. Your kindness and gentleness was a blessing to me.

encouragement by allowing me to take some time off work to work on my dissertation.

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Problem 5

Statement of the Problem 10

Purpose of the Study 11

Significance of the Study 12

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 18

Organization of Remainder of the Study 25

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 27

Pathological to Positive Viewpoints about Deafness 47

Synthesis of Research Findings 63

Qualitative Research Designs 67

Target Population, Sampling, Methodology, and Related Sampling 76

Validity of the Data Analyses 87

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 91

The Study and the Researcher 91

Research Methodology Applied to Data Collection and Analysis 93

Analysis and Findings 94

Findings of this Study 95

Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample 118

Chapter Summary 142

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS 145

Review of the Research Problem and Purpose 145

Discussion of the Results 146

Summary of the Findings in Relation to the Literature 153

Limitations of the Study 168

Recommendations for Future Research 170

APPENDIX A. PRE-RECORDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS UTILIZED 203

APPENDIX B. HEARING WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION MODES 204

APPENDIX C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS 205

Table 1. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 1 96

Table 2. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 2 104

Table 3. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 3 108

Table 4. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 4 110

Table 5. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 5 113

Table 6. Nomothetic Themes for Research Question 6 115

mobility in their careers. Upward mobility in some fields of employment depends on an

The American dream for many individuals is career advancement including

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2009a), a disability is defined as a