“Addressing Communication Barriers Among Deaf Populations Who Use American Sign Language in Hearing-Centric Social Work Settings” by Bai and Bruno
From this article, I have learned that there is a deficiency in policies regarding accessibility options for deaf people who attempt to access social services. Social workers are legally required to avoid any discrimination against their clients on any basis, including hearing abilities (Bai and Bruno 18). There is a lack of commitment to responsibilities stated in The Americans with Disabilities Act, yet I see that they are perceived as strongly encouraged rather than enforced. I chose this article and would certainly recommend reviewing them to others because it addressed the key flaw in the system and provided feasible technological solutions.
“Using Online Information Technology for Deaf Students During COVID-19: A Closer Look from Experience” by Alshawabkeh et al
This article has been selected for its focus on technological challenges met by deaf people. Recent shifts toward online education made it clear that universities are not equipped with the necessary assistive technology due to the lack of awareness of such requirements (Alshawabkeh et al. 6). The article clearly outlines the need to hire interpreters for online courses, yet there is a gap in the training of such professionals that are not identified in the paper. However, it remains a valuable source of the most recent issues in online education and can be used as an argument in favor of expanding interpretation services.
“Evidence-Based Practices in Deaf Education: A Call to Center Research and Evaluation on the Experiences of Deaf People” by Cawthon and Garberoglio
The paper reveals evidence that can be used as a foundation for policies protecting the interests of deaf students. It is a cultural responsibility to hold guidelines for teaching deaf students as a gold standard, yet knowledge gaps prevent the development of efficient policies (Cawthon and Garberoglio 347). I would recommend it since the article covers deaf-centered research extensively and encourages communication between stakeholders and policymakers.
“Good Intentions Are Not Enough: How Informatics Interventions Can Worsen Inequality” by Veinot et al
This work reviews another key issue in technology used by deaf people – the accessibility of necessary devices. There are technological interventions that help deaf people, yet this health status is associated with fewer available resources, making high-tech solutions less efficient (Veinot et al. 1083). Improving the accessibility of said technologies in publicly available spaces should be the focus of policymakers, with more resources allocated to these solutions by the government. I would highly recommend this article to people who make laws regarding technology implementation.
Works Cited
Alshawabkeh, Abdallah A., et al. “Using Online Information Technology for Deaf Students During COVID-19: A Closer Look from Experience.” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 5, 2021.
Bai, Yunhe, and David Bruno. “Addressing Communication Barriers Among Deaf Populations Who Use American Sign Language in Hearing-Centric Social Work Settings.” Columbia Social Work Review, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, pp. 37-50.
Cawthon, Stephanie W., and Carrie L. Garberoglio. “Evidence-Based Practices in Deaf Education: A Call to Center Research and Evaluation on the Experiences of Deaf People.” Review of Research in Education, vol. 45, no. 1, 2021, pp. 346-371.
Veinot, Tiffany C., et al. “Good Intentions Are Not Enough: How Informatics Interventions Can Worsen Inequality.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 25, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1080-1088.