Research in Deaf Education: Contexts,

Challenges, and Considerations 1st

Edition Stephanie Cawthon
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/research-in-deaf-education-contexts-challenges-and-
considerations-1st-edition-stephanie-cawthon/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Diversity in deaf education 1st Edition Lampropoulou

https://textbookfull.com/product/diversity-in-deaf-education-1st-
edition-lampropoulou/

Ethical Considerations and Challenges in Geriatrics 1st

Edition Angela Georgia Catic (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethical-considerations-and-
challenges-in-geriatrics-1st-edition-angela-georgia-catic-eds/

Languages and Languaging in Deaf Education A Framework

for Pedagogy 1st Edition Ruth Swanwick

https://textbookfull.com/product/languages-and-languaging-in-
deaf-education-a-framework-for-pedagogy-1st-edition-ruth-
swanwick/
Improving Primary Mathematics Education, Teaching and
Learning: Research for Development in Resource-
Constrained Contexts 1st Edition Mellony Graven

https://textbookfull.com/product/improving-primary-mathematics-
education-teaching-and-learning-research-for-development-in-
resource-constrained-contexts-1st-edition-mellony-graven/

Functional Variations in English Theoretical

Considerations and Practical Challenges Ram Ashish Giri

https://textbookfull.com/product/functional-variations-in-
english-theoretical-considerations-and-practical-challenges-ram-
ashish-giri/

Science Education Research and Practices in Taiwan

Challenges and Opportunities 1st Edition Mei-Hung Chiu
(Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/science-education-research-and-
practices-in-taiwan-challenges-and-opportunities-1st-edition-mei-
hung-chiu-eds/

Recent Global Research and Education: Technological

Challenges: Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Global Research and Education Inter-
Academia 2016 1st Edition Ryszard Jab■o■ski
https://textbookfull.com/product/recent-global-research-and-
education-technological-challenges-proceedings-of-the-15th-
international-conference-on-global-research-and-education-inter-
academia-2016-1st-edition-ryszard-jablonski/

Cultures and Contexts of Jewish Education 1st Edition

Barry Chazan

https://textbookfull.com/product/cultures-and-contexts-of-jewish-
education-1st-edition-barry-chazan/
Research in Deaf Education
Perspectives on Deafness

Series Editors
Marc Marschark
Harry Knoors
The Gestural Origin of Language
David F. Armstrong and Sherman E. Wilcox
Research in Deaf Education: Contexts, Challenges, and Considerations
Stephanie W. Cawthon and Carrie Lou Garberoglio
Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars
Annelies Kusters, Maartje De Meulder, and Dai O’Brien
Educating Deaf Learners: Creating a Global Evidence Base
Harry Knoors and Marc Marschark
Teaching Deaf Learners: Psychological and Developmental Foundations
Harry Knoors and Marc Marschark
The People of the Eye: Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry
Harlan Lane, Richard C. Pillard, and Ulf Hedberg
A Lens on Deaf Identities
Irene W. Leigh
Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes
Marc Marschark and Peter C. Hauser
How Deaf Children Learn: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know
Marc Marschark and Peter C. Hauser
Diversity in Deaf Education
Marc Marschark, Venetta Lampropoulou, and Emmanouil K. Skordilis
Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for
Research and Practice
Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston
Bilingualism and Bilingual Deaf Education
Marc Marschark, Gladys Tang, and Harry Knoors
Early Literacy Development in Deaf Children
Connie Mayer and Beverly J. Trezek
The World of Deaf Infants: A Longitudinal Study
Kathryn P. Meadow-​Orlans, Patricia Elizabeth Spencer, and Lynn Sanford Koester
Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children
Brenda Schick, Marc Marschark, and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer
Advances in the Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard-​of-​Hearing Children
Patricia Elizabeth Spencer and Marc Marschark
Approaches to Social Research: The Case of Deaf Studies
Alys Young and Bogusia Temple
Research in Deaf Education

Contexts, Challenges, and Considerations

Edited by
Stephanie W. Cawthon
Carrie Lou Garberoglio

1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must
impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Cawthon, Stephanie W., editor. | Garberoglio, Carrie Lou, editor.
Title: Research in deaf education : contexts, challenges, and considerations/
edited by Stephanie W. Cawthon, Carrie Lou Garberoglio.
Description: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, [2017] |
Series: Perspectives on deafness
Identifiers: LCCN 2016052431 | ISBN 9780190455651 (hbk : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Deaf—Education—United States.
Classification: LCC HV2545 .R47 2017 | DDC 371.91/20721—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016052431

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
Contents

Contributors vii
Introduction ix
Stephanie W. Cawthon and Carrie Lou Garberoglio

1. Conceptualization, Development, and Application

of Research in Deaf Education: From Phenomenon
to Implementation 1
Susan R. Easterbrooks
2. Research Methodology in Deaf Education: Early Efforts 35
Donald F. Moores
3. Why Positionality Matters in Deaf Education Research:
An Insider Ethnographic Perspective 55
Patrick J. Graham and Thomas P. Horejes
4. Deaf Community Involvement in the Research Process:
An Examination of Barriers and Strategies in Research
in Deaf Education 75
Jenny Singleton, Gabrielle Jones, and Shilpa Hanumantha
5. Demographics for Deaf Education 93
Ross E. Mitchell
6. Secondary Analyses With Large-​Scale Data
in Deaf Education Research 121
Carrie Lou Garberoglio
7. Developing Sign Language Measurements for Research
With Deaf Populations 141
Jon Henner, Robert Hoffmeister, and Jeanne Reis
8. Research and Development of Guidelines for
ASL Translation of Education Assessments 161
Jennifer Higgins, Lisa Famularo, Christopher Kurz, Jeanne Reis,
and Lori Moers
9. Large-​Scale Survey Design in Deaf Education Research 181
Stephanie W. Cawthon

v
vi╅╇Contents

10. Making the Case for Case Studies in Deaf Education

Research 203
Charlotte Enns
11. Single-╉Case Design 225
Shirin D. Antia, Caroline Guardino, and Joanna E. Cannon
12. Action Research in Deaf Education: Collaborative,
Representative, and Responsible Methods 251
Jennifer Beal-╉Alvarez
13. Evaluating Evidence-╉Based Practices in Reading
Interventions for Deaf Students 277
Beverly J. Trezek and Ye Wang
14. Using Multilevel Models to Evaluate Individual
Differences in Deaf Readers 309
Matthew J. Traxler
15. Research Synthesis 325
John L. Luckner
16. Publishing in Refereed Journals: Unpacking a
Few Salient Reporting Standards 341
Peter V. Paul and Ye Wang
17. Conclusion: Looking to the Past and Embracing
the Future 361
Stephanie W. Cawthon, Carrie Lou Garberoglio,
and Peter C. Hauser

Index 379
Contributors

Shirin D. Antia Lisa Famularo

College of Education Research Matters
The University of Arizona Kennebunk, ME
Tucson, AZ
Carrie Lou Garberoglio
Jennifer Beal-​Alvarez Department of Educational
Dewar College of Education and Psychology
Human Services Meadows Center for Preventing
Valdosta State University Educational Risk
Valdosta, GA The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Joanna E. Cannon
Department of Educational and Patrick J. Graham
Counselling Psychology, and Division of Deaf Studies and
Special Education Professional Studies
The University of British Western Oregon University
Columbia Monmouth, OR
Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada Caroline Guardino
College of Education & Human
Stephanie W. Cawthon Services
Department of Educational University of North Florida
Psychology Jacksonville, FL
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX Shilpa Hanumantha
American Sign Language
Susan R. Easterbrooks Program
Center on Literacy and Deafness University of Virginia
Georgia State University Charlottesville, VA
Atlanta, GA
Peter C. Hauser
Charlotte Enns National Technical Institute for
Faculty of Education the Deaf
University of Manitoba Rochester Institute of Technology
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Rochester, NY

vii
viii  Contributors

Jon Henner Lori Moers

Professions in Deafness Maryland School for the Deaf
Specialized Education Services Frederick, MD
University of North Carolina at
Greensboro Donald F. Moores
Greensboro, NC Department of Exceptional Student
and Deaf Education
Jennifer Higgins University of North Florida
Meadows Center for Preventing Jacksonville, FL
Educational Risk
The University of Texas at Austin Peter V. Paul
Austin, TX College of Education and Human
Ecology
Robert Hoffmeister School of Educational Studies
School of Education The Ohio State University
Boston University Columbus, OH
Boston, MA
Jeanne Reis
Thomas P. Horejes Center for Research and Training
Deaf Empowerment Awareness The Learning Center for the Deaf
Foundation (DEAF, Inc.) Framingham, MA
St. Louis, MO
Jenny Singleton
Gabrielle Jones School of Psychology
Department of Education Studies Georgia Institute of Technology
University of California, Atlanta, GA
San Diego
San Diego, CA Matthew J. Traxler
Department of Psychology
Christopher Kurz University of California, Davis
National Technical Institute for Davis, CA
the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology Beverly J. Trezek
Rochester, NY College of Education
DePaul University
John L. Luckner Chicago, IL
College of Education and
Behavioral Sciences Ye Wang
School of Special Education Teachers College
University of Northern Colorado Columbia University
Greeley, CO New York, NY

Ross E. Mitchell
School of Education
University of Redlands
Redlands, CA
Introduction

What began as an idea for a panel at the Annual Meeting of the American
Education Research Association has now turned into a full-╉fledged edited
volume. Ironically, that original panel was turned down for the con-
ference, but the energy and excitement around a compilation of “how
to” and “why do” perspectives in deaf education research continued
to be a compelling point of engagement in the months that followed.
As educators who often mentor new scholars or are asked to provide
support and feedback to our colleagues, we are very cognizant of the
importance of decisions made when conducting research in deaf edu-
cation. We struggle with many of these questions and decisions every
day. We are grateful for the opportunity to take the germ of an idea into
something far more complex and expansive than we could ever have
imagined.

PURPOSE OF THIS VOLUME

The purpose of this volume is to discuss critical issues surrounding
research in the field of deaf education, with a particular bent toward
its implementation in the United States. More specifically, this volume
addresses how characteristics and experiences of deaf individuals,
communities, and educational settings affect decisions surround-
ing study focus, research questions, recruitment strategies, sampling,
measurement, and interpretation of findings, to name a few. This book
covers a variety of research methodological approaches, including
those traditionally categorized as qualitative and quantitative designs.
Many research methods books, if not focused on a particular method-
ology, would include a range of chapters detailing specific methodolo-
gies such as case studies, multilevel modeling, or action research. This
volume takes this approach, but also encourages readers to examine
broader issues that may be specific to research work in the field of
deaf education. It is necessary to contextualize our research activities
with a broader understanding of the history of deaf education, specific
demographics of this population, accessibility of measures, and issues
surrounding research dissemination. It is hoped that this volume will
articulate issues that researchers face when conducting research as well
as important issues for research consumers to consider when applying
findings to practice. This volume brings to the surface design issues

ix
x  Introduction

that not only affect the implementation of empirical studies but also
raise awareness of how design and dissemination decisions have im-
portant ethical implications.
The ontological foundations of different researchers (or research
groups) in deaf education reflect basic assumptions behind their work
(Ryan, 2011). Understanding ontology is important because it has an
impact on the kind of research questions asked, data collected, and
inferences made—​in essence, the driving force behind one’s research
paradigm. As education research as a whole, and deaf education re-
search in particular, have grown and evolved over the past century,
research paradigms have proliferated and diversified. The lens pro-
vided here is specific to the US context, which has seen many shifts
and debates in deaf education over the years. Although early work
in the field was mainly anecdotal and rooted in the discussions of the
day about eugenics and concerns about intermarriage between deaf
individuals, later work in the first half of the last century followed the
broader line of educational research, focusing on group performance
on standardized measures of IQ and learning (see ­chapter 2). With
new paradigms come new leaders, with new leaders come new train-
ing approaches, and with new training approaches come new research
groups and generations of professionals equipped to further the work
in that vein. The emergence and solidification of new paradigms has
shaped deaf education; deaf epistemologies have the potential to shape
research approaches outside the field as well.
Our ultimate goal with this volume is to improve the rigor, rele-
vance, and generalizability of research in deaf education. There is a
paucity of evidence to support most popular educational interventions
for deaf individuals, due in part to the low-​incidence nature of the pop-
ulation as well as the relatively small number of researchers who have
expertise in the field. Although having a small population to sample
from is not unique to research in deaf education, the intersection of
small samples with linguistically and culturally diverse students with
a wide range of educational experiences, can be. Deaf individuals are a
highly heterogeneous population with characteristics that often inter-
sect between language, disability, communication, and cultural iden-
tity (Baker-​Shenk & Kyle, 1990; De Clerck, 2010; Najarian, 2008). At
present, researchers in the field tend to be less diverse than the study
participants. Diverse subgroup characteristics raise the requirement for
multiple studies to test the efficacy of interventions across the broader
population of deaf students. Yet, partly owing to funding priorities that
emphasize research on new innovations over replication of research
on previous strategies, studies that focus on the efficacy of an inter-
vention for students who are deaf are rarely replicated across similar
samples, making it challenging to generalize findings about an inter-
vention across educational contexts or student groups (e.g., Luckner,
 Introduction   xi

2006). There is thus rarely the level of research rigor necessary to claim
“evidence-​based practice” with deaf students, and with specific sub-
groups of deaf students, specifically (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young, &
Muir, 2005/​2006; Schirmer & McGough, 2005).
These issues in deaf education research are present across different
research methodologies and are relevant to many elements of study
design and interpretation of evidence, lending significance to research-
ers working across methodologies. For example, appropriate sampling
frames for generalization are very difficult to achieve, even beyond the
basic issue of sufficient sample sizes accessible to most researchers in
the field for a single study. This variation can be masked within re-
search designs when participants are grouped into broad categories,
when studies do not collect sufficiently detailed information about
demographics, or in analyses without appropriate covariates, creating
challenges in evaluation of evidence for an intervention across study
samples. There are similar challenges in choosing appropriate instru-
mentation, creating or adapting measures for individuals who use
visual language modalities, implementing interventions in diverse ed-
ucational settings that may range from mainstreamed classrooms to a
residential school for the deaf, and addressing issues related to state-
ments about causality, validity, and inference when discussing findings
(Alexander, Dinitto, & Tidblom, 2005; Harris, Holmes, & Mertens, 2009).
Yet, beyond challenges of gaining access to the kind of funding and
participants to conduct high-​quality research in deaf education, there
are also issues of marginalization against deaf education as a research
focus within the broader research enterprise. Although issues within
deaf education have parallels in other fields, such as special education,
linguistics, diverse learners, social justice, individual differences, cul-
tural perspectives, and so forth, it is not uncommon for researchers
in deaf education to struggle to publish in journals outside of those
that are specifically designed for the field. Research within deaf educa-
tion can be seen as “too small” or a “niche topic,” and thus not on the
same level as content that immediately appeals to a broader audience.
The onus can be on scholars in deaf education to make those connec-
tions, bridge into other content areas, and generally “sell” the idea that
issues that arise in deaf education can be relevant to other fields as well.
Unless education research sees that diverse perspectives are essential
to the health of the field as a whole, scholars in domains such as deaf
education will face barriers even with high-​quality research in hand.
It falls on us to be cognizant of this challenge, and to recognize these
experiences as a key factor driving the impetus for working toward a
strong research community that can be a source of support in times
of struggle. Research collaborations across institutions, disciplines, and
perspectives can strengthen the quality of our research work and in-
crease the potential impact. Together, we are stronger.
xii  Introduction

This is also a critical time in the history of deaf education research as a

community of scholars. Although there were pioneers in deaf education
before 1975, the past 40 years have seen a stronger cohort of researchers
in deaf education who have the content knowledge, research training,
and professional support to have sustained careers in the field. This
is a result of a number of factors. First, access to top-​quality training
in educational research has been a challenge for a field that has long
been focused on developing educators, not training researchers. In the
United States, programs with the content area expertise in deaf edu-
cation typically do not have the capacity to facilitate strong research
methodological training. Without research leaders who can mentor the
next generation, it is challenging to create a culture of excellence that
is respected and competitive with the overall education research field.
Second, education research training, more broadly, has only been ac-
cessible for potential deaf scholars in the last generation; in the United
States, before the Americans With Disabilities Act, deaf prospective ed-
ucational researchers had almost no access to programs where rigorous
educational research methods are taught. Current accessible practices
in higher education, from admissions to instruction, hold the potential
to support future deaf scholars in the field. Deaf researchers bring in-
sider knowledge, an emic perspective, to scholarly work done about,
and with, deaf individuals. This emic perspective can strengthen the
quality of the work, increase community buy-​in, and respond to true
needs of deaf individuals, as discussed in greater detail in ­chapter 4.
Without an adequate research base, there cannot be effective practice.
Without an understanding of the needs in deaf education, there can-
not be research that supports effective practice. Without an informed
research community, there cannot be an adequate research base. This
book seeks to bring together multiple perspectives on research design
issues to build a culturally competent and rigorous research community
that includes consumers, practitioners, and researchers. Some of the
authors in this volume make explicit suggestions as to how research-
ers can actively partner with community members, or with teachers,
as in participatory research or action research (­chapters 4 and 12). We
encourage all readers of this volume to take these recommendations to
heart. Teachers and school leaders frequently report suspicion about
the value of educational research and may feel that research questions
do not have practical relevance (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010). As
numerous authors will attest to in this volume, an active relationship
between researchers and practitioners, which often results in a healthy
system of checks and balances, is an essential component of an active
community of consumers, users, and creators of research. Not only do
we conduct research on deaf education, but we should also aim to con-
duct research for deaf education.
 Introduction   xiii

CHAPTER SELECTION
This volume contains 17 chapters, each of which is written by an in-
dividual or a team of contributors who write from their specific area
of expertise. All of the authors are US contributors; although this may
help to provide some consistency in the lens used to view research in
deaf education, there may be some elements that are not as applicable
to readers from outside this specific educational culture and context.
We do suggest starting with the beginning chapters before reading later
contributions. Although there are certainly benefits to selecting indi-
vidual chapters as suits the needs of the reader, this book is arranged in
a way such that chapters earlier in the volume provide context for later
chapters. We strongly encourage readers to at least skim the key points
in the foundation chapters so that they have those ideas in mind as
they read the later contributions that are more specific in nature. At its
essence, this book is a teaching tool; thus, we hope readers will ground
themselves in the earlier material so they have a deeper understanding
of the context that shapes the later content of the volume.
In a sense, the conceptualization of this book follows the image of
an hourglass or similar shape, with broader concepts addressed both
in the beginning and the end of the volume. At the beginning of the
volume are concepts that apply to many different designs, including
an understanding of “positionality” and “deaf community involve-
ment.” At the end of the volume are chapters on “research synthesis”
and “publishing in the field,” activities that apply to studies regardless
of specific research approach. In the middle section, then, are methods-​
specific chapters that are more tightly drawn and address a particular
research approach; many of these approaches are used both inside and
outside of deaf education research. These middle chapters describe
methodologies such as intervention research, case studies, and single-​
case design and provide insights into how to conduct rigorous research
that is situated within the context of deaf education discussed in greater
depth in the introductory chapters.
Throughout this volume, we sought a balance between what has
traditionally been cast as “qualitative” and “quantitative” categoriza-
tions of research. Research methodologies bring different strengths to
research in deaf education, and we recognize that the traditions within
each discipline bring unique value and perspective that are important
to consider. Any omissions of specific methodologies are due to space
limitations or limited availability of potential contributors; if we could
have included chapters addressing a broader range of methodolog-
ical approaches that have been used within deaf education research,
we would have—​and we had hoped to. However, we believe that the
authors in this volume have addressed many research design issues
that are relevant to a broader range of methodologies than those that
their chapters explicitly discuss. We encourage a critical application of
xiv  Introduction

the issues raised here to research that expands beyond the specific ana-
lytical techniques included in this volume.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS
There are some “meta-​moments” that readers may have when reading
this volume—​times when it can be helpful to step out of reading the
chapter to consider some broader ideas about writing, about research
in deaf education, and about the purpose of this book as a teaching tool
to the field. We encourage you to think about each of these elements as
you read and understand the key points from each chapter.

Overlaps
When reading this volume, it is important to recognize that, in many
cases, the authors are addressing some similar issues in their work in
the field. There will be some themes that arise again and again (and
these are discussed in greater depth in ­chapter 17, the conclusion this
volume). The “pieces of the pie” are not always mutually exclusive,
with some issues that overlap across chapters. Yet, even if there are
some similar topics, each chapter picks up that pie piece in its own
way, within the context of the contributors’ research experience. It can
be enlightening to see how individual authors frame or discuss those
common challenges.

Critical Lens
Authors vary in the extent to which they add a critical lens to the de-
scription of their work. In some cases, the chapters provide an expla-
nation of what decisions authors make when designing their studies
or analyzing their data, and mention challenges that are familiar to
many of us, such as a small sample size or heterogeneous populations.
In other cases, that explanation is accompanied by a direct critique of
the field, and by places where we are challenged to meet higher stan-
dards in our work. In only a few cases do authors directly acknowledge
relevance of working within a specifically US educational context. We
encourage you to examine the ways in which a critical lens is (or is not)
applied within chapters.

Standards for Research

Deaf education is situated within education research as a whole. As
such, there are many standards and norms for practice from educa-
tion that are a part of the culture and training for scholars in the field.
Today’s academic culture seeks to provide guidelines for high-​quality
research in ways that lend credibility to the inferences that are made
when applying those findings to teaching practice. Many authors call
on standards proposed by official organizations (such as the What
 Introduction   xv

Works Clearing House by the US Department of Education) as metrics

by which to evaluate the quality of research in deaf education. There
are also norms for research practice that are not aligned with organi-
zations but, instead, embedded in research traditions, such as member
checking when conducting interviews in qualitative research. And
then, finally, Paul and Moores (2010) refer to a “deaf epistemology”
in their own edited volume on ways of knowing. When reading this
volume, consider the ways in which volume contributors name stan-
dards, norms, and deaf epistemologies as “best practices” in deaf edu-
cation research.

TERMINOLOGY
Throughout the development of this volume, we have been conscious
of the decisions that needed to be made regarding the terms used to
describe students, education systems, and the field as a whole. Our
end decision seeks not to obfuscate complexity, but instead to offer our
authors and readers a way to represent the field without the challenge
of deciding which hair to split, on whose head, and when.
The research in this volume relates mainly to children and young
adults in a variety of education settings. Unless specifically contextual-
ized, we have adopted “deaf” as our term to describe the populations
included in this research. There are many caveats required here. For
decades, there has been a recognition of the difference between little
“d” deaf and big “D” Deaf, typically designating an audiological and
cultural perspective, respectively. Individuals who identify as deaf and
Deaf represent a broad range of life experiences, ones that are challeng-
ing to categorize into simply two groups. Our choice to use “deaf” does
not imply an alignment with little “d” representations as they have
been described. Quite on the contrary. We instead recognize some of the
recent findings that identity markers can be quite fluid, with a person
changing in his or her identity as a person who is deaf, Deaf, hard of
hearing, or a person with hearing loss, and so forth. These changes occur
in many different time periods, including within a single day, with dif-
ferent groups of people, or across one’s lifetime. Given this need to be
flexible, we have opted for simplicity. In this volume, “deaf” represents
the broad range of individual, group, types of education models and
settings, and community contexts, unless specifically noted.
We have also chosen to use phrases with “deaf” in the primary po-
sition, as in “deaf individuals” “deaf students,” and “deaf research-
ers.” We make this choice this as authors who have, ourselves, often
used the person-​first descriptors, and find the need to move to a
descriptor-​first use. With all due respect to the person-​first tradition
in inclusive language that would suggest the use of “students who
are deaf” or “researchers who are deaf,” we personally find this to
xvi  Introduction

be both cumbersome and, at times, nonsensical. A common example

is comparing “deaf” with another identity marker, such as “Native
American” or “female.” It would not be suggested that authors use the
term, “scholar that is Native American” or “student who is female,”
but rather, a “Native American scholar” or a “female student.” As deaf
scholars ourselves, this structure aligns well with what we have seen
in the field.
Thus, throughout the volume, we have asked our contributors to
adopt the previous terminology. Any challenges or objections that arise
because of this decision lay at our feet.

CONCLUSION
At some level, all writing, even writing about research, is autobiograph-
ical or at least deeply personal. We write drawing from our own per-
spectives, our experiences, and our ontological bents. There are many
ways to ask critical questions within deaf education research, and it is
nearly impossible to represent them all in a single volume. This book,
therefore, is only a sampling of those who engage in the work and in
its explication and documentation for others. The individuals who con-
tributed to this volume span many different ages, disciplines, and areas
of research practice. We appreciate our contributors’ willingness to look
at their own practice and seek ways to explain what they do, and why
they do it, to our readers. We hope that they have grown as a result of
that process as much as we have. Perhaps the work here may motivate,
inspire, and challenge other researchers in deaf education to engage
in that essential work of praxis, or reflection on action, followed by re-​
engagement in action as influenced by that reflection.
This is a good time to be in the field, and if the enthusiasm of our
contributors is any indication, there will be plenty of strong research
in deaf education for years to come. As we approach our mid-​careers,
we are envious of junior scholars who now have this resource available
to help raise questions, offer critiques, and support decision making
about their own study designs and relationship to the field. We hope
you enjoy reading these chapters as much as we have enjoyed work-
ing with our esteemed colleagues—​prorsum et sursum—​“onward and
upward”!
Stephanie W. Cawthon
Carrie Lou Garberoglio

REFERENCES
Alexander, T., DiNitto, D., & Tidblom, I. (2005). Screening for alcohol and other
drug problems among the deaf. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 23(1), 63–​78.
 Introduction   xvii

Baker-​Shenk, C., & Kyle, J. G. (1990). Research with deaf people: Issues and
conflicts. Disability, Handicap & Society, 5, 65–​75.
De Clerck, G. A. M. (2010). Deaf epistemologies as a critique and alternative to
the practice of science: An anthropological perspective. American Annals of the
Deaf, 154(5), 435–​446.
Harris, R., Holmes, H., Mertens, D. (2009). Research ethics in sign language
communities. Sign Language Studies, 9(2), 104–​131.
Luckner, J. L. (2006). Evidence-​based practices with students who are deaf.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(1), 49.
Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young, J., & Muir, S. G. (2005). An exam-
ination of the evidence-​based literacy research in deaf education. American
Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 443–​456.
Najarian, C. G. (2008). Deaf women: Educational experiences and self-​identity.
Disability and Society, 23(2), 117–​128.
Paul, P. V., & Moores, D. F. (2010). Introduction: Toward an understanding of
epistemology and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 421–​427.
Ryan, J. F. (2011). Enhancing our community of inquiry: Thoughts on princi-
ples and best practices in research with deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 69–​72.
Schirmer, B. R., & McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who
are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of
Educational Research, 75, 83–​117.
Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010). Implementing an ICT curriculum in a
decentralised policy context: Description of ICT practices in three Flemish
primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 4(6), E139–​E141.
Research in Deaf Education
1

Conceptualization, Development,
and Application of Research in Deaf
Education: From Phenomenon
to Implementation
Susan R. Easterbrooks

How does a thought change from a good idea into a worthwhile prac-
tice in the classroom? How does a strategy that works for Teacher
Rodriguez in Colombia make it into the evidence base so that Teacher
Smith in Australia can use it reliably for the benefit of her students?
Whereas 50 years ago research tended to focus on the local audience, in
today’s society it is of great importance to think globally because access
to quality instruction in the various classrooms around the world is un-
even and should be of concern to all. The issue of language and cultural
translation aside, many teachers and researchers have great ideas and
beliefs or know first-​hand about effective instructional practices, but
the gap between research and practice remains as large as the distance
from one side of the world to the other (Easterbrooks & Maiorana-​Basas,
2014; Swanwick & Marschark, 2010). From phenomenological and qual-
itative research to single-​case design (SCD), design studies, and ran-
domized controlled trials, to evidence-​based and classroom-​validated
practices, the panoply of options raises many questions. What are the
roles of qualitative and quantitative research? How does research relate
to funding options? What should the relationship between researchers
and practitioners be, and what does this mean I should do in my class-
room on Monday morning? This chapter looks at the path from idea-
tion to application through the lens of studies of deaf children so that
(1) researchers can understand the rightful purpose of the studies they
are designing and (2) education practitioners can participate in the pro-
cess as well as understand the rightful place of the research they are
reading.

1
2   Research in Deaf Education

COLLABORATION
As difficult as it will be, educational researchers and education pro-
fessionals will need to collaborate to ensure that research will lead to
improved practices in the classroom (Swanwick & Marschark, 2010).
Obvious though this seems, it is far from what actually happens. In an
ideal world the following scenario might happen:
Teacher A notices that all the deaf students in her class this year are
struggling with word problems in math. She tries using a highly touted
math manipulatives program her school was willing to purchase with
her first and second grade children and finds that some of her students
are successful with the product. She initiates an Action Research (Lang,
1996; McKernan, 1991, also c­ hapter 12 in this volume) project and gath-
ers information documenting that this approach is successful with
some of her students but not with others. She wants to know what else
she can do to create a similar intervention that would work for all, and
so she contacts Researcher B, who investigates the problem through
qualitative research designs (Young & Temple, 2014), elucidating the
nature of the students’ struggles. Based on a collaboration among edu-
cation practitioners and researchers, Researcher B begins the process of
gathering preliminary evidence to support a proposal to Agency C to
fund the work necessary to create an appropriate intervention, which
includes a comprehensive literature review and research synthesis. If
all is successful with this grant, Researcher B will collaborate with other
researchers and with school personnel to gain perspective and to es-
tablish a coordinated string of Design Studies (Brown, 1992; Shavelson
et al., 2003) to support creation of an intervention that may be field-​
tested later in multiple schools. Based on their previous observations,
the developers will attempt to include modifications within the inter-
vention that will address the needs of the students with whom the orig-
inal strategy was successful and of those with whom it was not. They
will use a variety of SCDs (Kennedy, 2005) and descriptive and corre-
lational studies (Mark, 2014; Silverman, 2016), as well as other multi-
method and mixed methodologies (Hesse-​Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost,
2014; Mark, 2014), among others, to show promise of the intervention.
If they are successful in showing promise of the intervention, they will
then submit another proposal to a funding agency seeking support to
engage in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the intervention. In an
RCT, control and intervention groups are matched and assigned ran-
domly to the two different categories. According to the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES),
“random assignment results in groups that are similar on average in
both observable and unobservable characteristics, and any differences
in outcomes between the groups are due to the intervention alone”
(retrieved February 28, 2016 from http://​www.ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​
 Conceptualization, Development, and Applications   3

wWc/​glossary.aspx). The purpose of the RCT will be to show a causal

relationship between the intervention and learner outcomes; that is, the
researchers will try to demonstrate that use of the intervention causes
learners to be successful in learning the targeted math skill. Multiple
investigations of the intervention will ensue, and a review will be con-
ducted by the WWC consistent with their systematic review process (see
http://​www.ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​pdf/​reference_​resources/​wwc_​
procedures_​v3_​0_​standards_​handbook.pdf), documenting that the
intervention has a strong, sustained evidence base and earning it a
prized seat within the WWC among its recognized practices.
But that is the ideal world. In the real world this scenario rarely plays
out because such a process from thought to application takes an inordi-
nate about of time, and because the two cultures of school and research
facility do not understand one another well enough to facilitate easy
collaboration. In fact, there are no programs yet that were specifically
designed for deaf learners that have made it into or through the review
queue of the WWC. Consequently, teachers of deaf learners must create
their own materials or must modify and adapt materials for learners in
a general education program in a manner that meets their individual
students’ needs.

SEEING THE BIG PICTURE

Human nature seeks a yes/​no answer to questions and is influenced by
such cognitive structures as optimism and pessimism, locus of control,
and sense of social power (Hecht, 2013). This results in our establish-
ing unnecessary either/​or perspectives on just about anything and eve-
rything that surrounds research. Are you a qualitative researcher or a
quantitative researcher? Are you seeking to prove that a listening and
spoken language (LSL) approach is better or that sign language is bet-
ter? Are you seeking to prove that separate instruction is better or that
inclusive instruction is better? Do you think that vocabulary is more
important in reading or that syntax is more important? The quantita-
tive research process requires that we answer complex questions with
a simple yes or no (i.e., the null hypothesis shows there is no difference
between two concepts, and researchers want to see whether there is a
difference or is not a difference), perpetuating the notion that there is
such a thing as an answer. Herein lies the fundamental flaw with the
present research paradigm.
Whereas the minds of the practitioner and the scientist alike each
seek yes/​no answers, the academic life of an individual child is not that
clean-​cut. Communication involves a complex set of skills. Learning is
an intricate process, and schools are multifaceted places dealing with
thorny problems. Through this convoluted maze the researcher must
unravel dense issues piece-​by-​piece because the research paradigm
4   Research in Deaf Education

requires each piece to be answered with a clear yes or no. Thus, filling in
the big picture may take decades of slow, tedious investigation. For this
reason, school administrators find themselves swapping out one prom-
ising remedy for the next, causing teachers to feel groundless in their
work, which has implications for teacher attrition (Billingsley, 2004) as
teachers are asked to assimilate the next fad and then the next. Teachers
don’t have time to wait for absolute answers from researchers because
they have their students for 180 short days in a school year, not for
decades … and children can’t wait. As a result, we have two cultures: the
school culture, which needs answers now, and the research culture,
which is bound by scientific ethics to move methodically. These two
cultures conflict with one another because one requires time-​consuming
rigor (to ensure results are trustworthy), whereas the other requires rel-
evance in the face of immediate crises. Thus, a chasm exists between
the research culture and the school culture (Cook, Cook, & Landrum,
2013) because it may take a decade or more for ethically conducted re-
search to meet an actual need in a relevant manner. In response to this
chasm, the field of implementation science emerged. Implementation sci-
ence has been defined as “the scientific study of methods to promote
the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-​based
practices into routine practice” (Eccles & Mittman, 2006, p. 1). The pur-
pose is to help teachers incorporate research findings meaningfully in a
systematic and timely manner, and with fidelity (Cook & Odom, 2013).
Getting from research to practice, then, is a multilayered challenge.
First we must identify those issues that are absolutely relevant, then
we must address scientific rigor applied to those relevant issues, then
we must present cogent arguments to support funding of research to
provide scientifically based guidance, and finally we must address the
challenges to implementation. Relevance is a relative concept. What
might be relevant in one situation might not be so in another. Scientific
rigor is challenging because the typical researcher cannot possibly
master the vast array of research designs in the lifetime of one career.
Funding agencies notoriously have their own agendas in mind, and so
researchers are often in the position of having to study what the agency
wants while smuggling an investigation of what they want into the
mix. Implementation does not occur overnight. In some cases, it takes
2 or 3 years for a teacher to become comfortable with implementing
an instructional innovation (Stephenson, Dostal, & Wolbers, 2013). And
so we return to the challenge of this chapter. How does a problem in a
classroom enter the awareness of researchers who must do the tedious
work of locating funding for those studies that are expensive to con-
duct (because universities require researchers to find their own money
to conduct their own research), and what are the scientific hurdles that
must be jumped to ensure that teachers in the classroom are using
evidence-​based practices?
 Conceptualization, Development, and Applications   5

ASKING AND ANSWERING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

What Is the Question?

One of the most difficult tasks for practitioners and researchers alike is
to turn a great idea into a researchable question. For example, several
efforts have transpired in the area of early literacy acquisition of deaf chil-
dren that involve the use of signed versions of storybooks (Andrews &
Dionne, 2011). The assumption for some of these efforts has been that
if parents can sign stories to their young children, then both the par-
ent and the child will not only improve reading but also will improve
foundational language skills (Schimmel, Edwards, & Prickett, 1999).
However, to engage in research, we have to have a measurable objec-
tive in mind. What aspect shall we investigate? The child? The par-
ent? The genre of the book? What outcome shall we measure? Time on
task? Number of new vocabulary words the child uses spontaneously?
Amount of increase in conversation between the parent and child after a
certain number of months in the intervention? Should we measure one
parent/​child dyad? Twenty? What are the results we are hoping to see?
Results from individual case studies are insufficient to mark an inter-
vention as the cause of an outcome, but they encourage other research-
ers to look down the same path. For example, information from the two
studies cited previously encouraged other authors to look specifically
at the use of classifiers in relation to stories presented in American Sign
Language (ASL) (see Beal-​Alvarez & Easterbrooks, 2013). Each one
of the questions that grows out of a study provides a researcher with
another whole set of questions based on the research design chosen.
Many researchers have a preference for one research design or
another. There are benefits and drawbacks to this. The primary benefit
is that most research designs are more complex than they appear on
the surface, and a researcher who devotes his or her career to a small
number of designs can become an expert in those designs and can
provide guidance to future researchers. However, the primary draw-
back to choosing a design and fitting one’s research to that design is
that it limits the questions one can ask and answer. For example, the
question, “Do children learn to decode words faster with Intervention
A than Intervention B?” requires a very different research design from
the question, “What do teachers say are the benefits and drawbacks
of Intervention A versus Intervention B?” The former requires an
experimental or quasi-​experimental quantitative design. The latter can
be answered through qualitative research. Both types of research are
important. In the former scenario we might find out that Intervention
B produces the best results, but in the latter scenario we might learn
that B is too expensive and too time-​consuming, causing teachers to
favor Intervention A. Thus, either the effectiveness of Intervention A or
the ease of implementation of Intervention B must be addressed to
6   Research in Deaf Education

result in an effective and efficient intervention. The question at hand

plays an important role in determining the research design to be used.
Identifying oneself as a certain type of researcher limits the questions
one can ask, and so it takes a team of researchers from multiple per-
spectives to work together to validate interventions.

What Might the Answer Be? What Is Your Hypothesis?

To answer a question, researchers must propose an answer that is based
on a theory or a line of reasoning and not simply on their gut-​level belief.
A line of reasoning is built from an examination of the existing evidence
from which a hypothesis is generated that might explain the evidence.
Within this line of reasoning, one set of evidence is linked to another
set of evidence, forming an evidence chain on which the hypothesis, or
proposed answer, rests. For example, Vygotsky’s constructivist theory
and zone of proximal development have been used to explain the suc-
cess of scaffolding in education (Berk & Winsler, 1995), such as scaf-
folding of ASL acquisition (see Supalla et al., 2014). If a researcher does
not believe that children are co-​creators of their own learning, then
that researcher might not be interested in answering questions about
the valid use of scaffolding in a classroom. If researchers do not base
their work on a theory or on a line of reasoning, then they are just im-
pulsively engaging in research from a trial-​and-​error perspective and
not with any forethought or plan in mind, much less that coordinated
string of interrelated studies that are actually required to move any real
issue forward. Disconnected, single-​concept studies tend to lead the re-
searcher down a single-​contribution track at best and a dead-​end track
at worst, and as described earlier, children do not have time to wait
for researchers to pursue nonproductive research tracks. Children grow
faster than that. This may also account for why it is so difficult to find
good research in our field (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young, & Muir,
2005/​2006); a researcher often must do years of preliminary research
to generate the line of reasoning needed to support his or her ultimate
question. This delay in “getting to the point” is essential for building
the case. This is especially important when developing grant propos-
als needed to provide the funding necessary to conduct the research.
Research is expensive, and funding agencies want to make sure that the
researcher has built a strong case for his or her study. Research propos-
als that do not present a strong line of reasoning are rarely successful in
receiving funding.
Developing a research question is not an easy task. A benefit of qual-
itative research is that it examines a phenomenon, event, or experience
and helps define good questions as the patterns of phenomenon, or
themes, emerge (Riger & Sigurvinsdottir, 2016). In quantitative research,
recall that most questions must be answered with a definitive yes or no
(i.e., the null hypothesis states that there are no differences between the
 Conceptualization, Development, and Applications   7

groups, that the mean scores of the groups are equal). Thus, asking the
right question supported by the right design that will yield data to an-
swer that question is essential; this usually is a challenge for the early
career or emerging researcher.

How Will You Gather Your Evidence to Answer This Question?

There are distinctly different strategies for gathering the evidence the
researcher needs to answer the research question posed. One does not
simply write up a quick questionnaire to throw out to a group of teach-
ers to get their opinions on an issue (e.g., whether or not they think
that the amount of time allotted to each learning segment is sufficient
for that academic subject or task). Such efforts may yield data of sta-
tistical significance but not necessarily relevant significance, nor do
they provide any basis on which we could generalize those results to
another set of teachers. Nor does one simply go out and test a des-
ignated group of children on a standardized test (e.g., a new test of
spelling) and then make sweeping generalizations about all chil-
dren’s performance. Whole books (for an example, see Hesse-​Biber
& Johnson, 2014; O’Toole & Beckett, 2013; Silverman, 2016), research
standards documents (Kratochwill et al., 2010), and articles (Hitchcock
et al., 2014; Yilmaz, 2013) have been written for generations on the best
way to gather data for specific research designs, and entire fields of en-
deavor are devoted to the task of measurement, evaluation, and statis-
tics. Methods of data collection are varied and range from the negative
case sampling of ethnographic studies (Dutta, 2016), to the memoing
of grounded theory (Rasmussen, Akinsulure-​Smith, & Chu, 2016), to
the standardized assessments of structural equation modeling (Barile,
2016). First comes the question, then comes the design, and then deci-
sions can be made about types of data compatible with that design and
with maximal likelihood of answering the question posed. Expecting
one specific research design to be up to the task of answering all the
questions we have regarding successful interventions with children
and youth renders the process too simplistic and thus ineffective. The
challenge to the researcher is to acquire an increasingly sophisticated
arsenal of research designs to bring to the task.

How Will You Analyze Your Data?

Analysis of the acquired data is dependent on the research design
chosen. For example, researchers would not choose a Delphi method
design (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963) to gather data on the relationship be-
tween exercise and the mitigation of attention deficits in deaf children
because Delphi designs are built to gather the perspectives of experts
for such purposes a policymaking. For example, Munoz-​Baell et al.
(2008) examined the opinions of experts worldwide on the problems as-
sociated with bilingualism as a method of instruction in deaf education.
8   Research in Deaf Education

This yielded information about the problems, thus inviting other

researchers to consider the solutions. Similarly, a content validity index
would be used to gather information on the development of an assess-
ment scale (see Cannon & Hubley, 2014). There are as many formats
in which to organize the data for the purpose of analysis as there are
research designs. However, the method of analysis must always be con-
sistent with the question and with the design to answer the question.
To determine whether a study meets the level of quality on which the
reader may make strong generalizations, consult various lists of quality
indicators (e.g., Gersten et al., 2005) as well as the many follow-​up arti-
cles promulgated over the next decade from this work. The WWC also
publishes recommended criteria for evaluation of the research base
that has formed surrounding an individual intervention, such as the
Procedures and Standards Handbook Version 3.0, which identified critical
issues of effect size and, for summary studies, the WWC improvement
index (retrieved February 29, 2016 from http://​ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​
pdf/​reference_​resources/​wwc_​procedures_​v3_​0_​standards_​hand-
book.pdf). Many of the chapters in this volume reference these quality
guidelines.

How Will You Interpret the Study’s Finding?

Authors of reliable studies address important quality indicators to
ensure that the results are believable and usable (Odom et al., 2005).
Believable studies are those that have explained the details of the study
in such a complete manner that there are no other plausible explana-
tions for the findings and so that the reader could replicate the study
and find the same results. For example, one new researcher questioned
a small set of parents about how the different communication modali-
ties were represented to them. Questions pertaining to the person
providing the information, the format (paper, video), and the opportu-
nity for the parents to have experiences with the modality formed the
researcher’s interview questions. A final question pertained to which
communication modality these few parents chose. In the interpretation
section, the young researcher claimed that one of the modalities “won
the day,” yet there was no operational definition of what “won the day”
meant, no direct relationship between that pronouncement and the data
gathered, and far too many alternate paths down which the discussion
could have wandered—​all indicating that the study findings were not
usable. Findings of a study can only be interpreted accurately if there
is a clear research question, an appropriate research design to answer
that question, well-​defined and systematically gathered data consistent
with the design, and associated statistical procedures for analyzing the
findings. A breach anywhere along this line of logic can result in the
results being called into question.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Fruitful women, 60.
Fruit tree, a simile, 15.
Fruitless suckling, 283.
Fumigations, 129.

Garters, ill effects of, in pregnancy, 123.

Gathered breasts, 282.
causes of, 283.
importance of early treatment, 286.
German breakfast, 289.
Gestation, period of, 185.
Ginger plaster, 157.
Girl or boy?, 188.
Greens, cabbages, and pickles, 290.
“Guarding of the bed,” 218.

Hair, on washing, 46.

Health, a beautifier, 23.
importance of, 101.
of wives, 13.
worth trying for, 17.
Heart, palpitation of, during pregnancy, 167.
Heartburn in pregnancy, 147.
Hints to attendants, 228.
to mother when infant is ill, 268.
Home known only in England, 86.
Honey, on the wholesomeness of, 289.
Hot-water bag, 147, 168.
House, a healthy, 36.
Household duties, 86.
good, 272.
Hysteria, 113.
Husband in lying-in room, 210.

Idle ladies, 78.

people, 25.
Idleness brings misery, 127.
effects of, 17.
India-rubber teat and shield for drawn-in nipple, 276.
for sore nipple, 280.
Indolence, the ill effects of, in pregnancy, 126.
Infant born apparently dead, 230.
the period of suckling an, 293.
the cry of an, 230.
Introductory Chapter, 13.
Irish women, poor, 38.
Irritation and itching, 172.

Jam as an aperient, 89.

Jeremy Taylor’s description of a wife, 13.

Labor, 199.
the easy and the hard, 94.
rapid, directions concerning, 228.
symptoms of, 199–215.
treatment of, 216–254.
Lavements in pregnancy, 144.
Leather cheaper than physic, 24.
Legs, the swollen, of pregnancy, 152.
Length of time of first labor, 210.
of an after labor, 210.
Life is to be well, 18.
Light, effects of, 79.
is life, 79.
Little ablution—much clothing, 84.
Lively women and easy labors, 127.
Luxurious idle wife, 77.
Luxury, an age of, 28.
ill effects of, 38.
Lying-in room, 237.
temperature of, 237.

Maid-servants and the “ologies,” 92.

Marmalade as an aperient, 290.
Marshmallow and chamomile fomentation (note), 245.
Martin Luther on work, 89.
Mastication, thorough, 54.
Materials of food should be mixed and varied, 265.
Means to strengthen, 16.
Meddlesome breast-tending, 260.
midwifery reprobated, 205.
Medical men, 209.
Medicines in pregnancy, 140–173.
opening, danger of, 99.
Menstrual fluid, 111.
Menstruation, 103.
accompanied with “the whites,” 112.
before marriage, 111.
during 30 years, 102.
 painful, 111.
dangers of, 111.
profuse, 112.
sparing, 112.
too pale or too dark, 111.
when not properly performed, 111.
Milk at its “height,” 259.
the best way of “drying up” the, 296.
flowing away constantly, 280.
very fattening, 54.
Miscarriage, 174.
care required after, 178.
causes of, 175.
consequences of a neglected, 178.
flooding in, 177.
prevention of, 179.
symptoms of a threatened, 176.
treatment of, 179.
usual time of taking place, 177.
Misconception and prejudice, 238.
Mission, the glorious, 101.
Monthly nurse, 189–198.
Morning sickness, 117, 158.
Mothers predisposed to consumption, 300.
who cannot suckle, 299.
unnatural, 255.
Mountain-air, 97.
Mufflers and sore throats, 84.
Mutton-chops, folly of living entirely on, 52.

Nature in early morning, 68.

Navel, pouting of, as a sign of pregnancy, 122.
Navel-string, the manner of tying, 233.
 not to be tied until the child breathes, 232.
Nipple, cracked and fissured, 279.
during suckling, 257.
means to harden, 162.
great importance of hardening, 162.
retraction of, 275.
shields, 276.
sore, 277.
an obstinate, 299.
washing of, and breast, 257.
wet, 280.
shields, Wansbrough’s, 279.
Nose, a sentinel, 129.
Nurse, monthly, 189–198.
importance of choosing a good, 189.
on wearing crinoline, 197.
on wearing slippers instead of shoes, 198.
Nursery-basin, 43.
Nursing, prolonged, danger of, 293.
apron, 263.

Oatmeal, Derbyshire, 143.

gruel as a fomentation, 245.
Occupation, 87, 272.
fresh air, and exercise, 272.
Offspring of very young and very old, 104.
Olive oil as an aperient, 142.
Opening medicine, 99.

Pains, “bearing down,” 203.

before and during menstruation, 111.
“grinding,” 200.
at night in pregnancy, 139.
Painless parturition, 212.
Palpitation of the heart in pregnancy, 167.
Passion, the ill effects of, during suckling, 270.
Pendulous belly of pregnancy, 154.
Pepper plaster, 157.
Period of gestation, 185.
of taking exercise, 254.
Pessaries, 248.
Physic, a substitute for exercise, 31.
best, is exercise, 25.
Piles in pregnancy, 148.
Pleasure and health, 85.
Plethoric pregnant females, 136.
Poisoned by one’s own breath, 35.
Porter and ale for a nursing mother, 266.
Position after delivery, 237.
of a mother during suckling, 270.
of patient after labor, 237.
“Pottering” nurse, 190.
Poultice, a bread and milk and sweet oil, 282.
Precursory symptoms of labor, 199.
Pregnancy, 117.
duration of, 185.
a natural process, 127.
period of, 185.
signs of, 117.
Preliminary observations, 13.
Preparation for health, 47.
for labor, 216.
Profession of a wife, 90.
Prolific mothers (note), 105.
Proper time for a patient to sit up after labor, 246.
to send for medical man, 200, 203.
to send for the nurse, 200.
Protrusion of the bowels, 149.
Prunes, stewed, 289.
Puberty, period of (note), 105.
Pump-water, contamination, 132.
on boiling, 133.
on purity of, 132.

“Quickening,” 120.
flatulence mistaken for, 121.
Quiet after confinement, 246.

Rain and wind, exercise in, 24.

Rats in drains and sewers, 130.
“Reckoning,” to make the, 186.
Refreshment after labor, 235.
Remedies to prevent costiveness, 291.
Respiration, artificial, 232.
Rest after delivery, 234.
in pregnancy, 133.
and quietude after labor, 246.
Restlessness at night, 138.
remedies for, 138.
Rich ladies, 38.
Rising of the sun on seeing the, 71.
Rock-salt, 45.
Rules for a female prone to miscarry, 180.
for barren wife, 14.
of health, 99.

Sea-bathing, in pregnancy, 125.

Sea water good for hair, 46.
Servants taught the “ologies,” 92.
Shivering during labor, 201.
“Show,” a sure sign of labor, 200.
Shower-bath in pregnancy, 125.
Sick pregnancies, 161.
Sickness during labor, 201.
Signs of the fœtal circulation (note) 123.
of pregnancy, 117.
Sitting over fire, 27.
with back to fire, 27.
Sitz-bath, the value of, 44, 124, 172.
Skin of the abdomen cracked, 154.
Skylight the best ventilator, 128.
Sleep in pregnancy, 137.
the choicest gift, 77.
the value of, immediately after labor, 238.
for young wife, 78.
Sleepiness of pregnant females, 138.
Sleeplessness of pregnant females, 138.
Slipper bed-pan, 239, 244.
Sluggard’s dwelling, 71.
“Smoking dunghill,” a, 131.
Sore nipples, 277.
Spirits during suckling, 268.
Spurious labor pains, 183.
Stages of labor, 213.
Stays should not be worn during labor, 218.
Stocking, elastic, 153.
Stomach, functions of, 271.
Subsidence of the womb before labor, 199.
“Suck-pap,” 258.
Suckling, 255.
when female is pregnant, 300.
Suppers, hearty meal, 52.
Support to bowels after confinement, 236.
Swedish ladies, 91.
Swollen legs in pregnancy, 152.
Symptoms of labor, 199.
denoting necessity of weaning, 298.

Table of duration of pregnancy, 185.

Taking, the frequent, of physic, 31.
Teat, india-rubber, and shield, 276.
Teeth frequently decay in pregnancy, 156.
and gums, 55.
Temperature of a lying-in room, 237.
“The top of the morning,” 72.
Things which will be wanted at a labor, 216.
Tic-douloureux, 157.
Tight lacing injurious to a young wife, 81.
ill effects of, in pregnancy, 123.
Time when a child should be weaned, 293.
Toothache in pregnancy, 155.
remedies for, 156.
Tooth extraction, the danger of, in pregnancy, 155.
“Trap to catch sunbeam,” 81.
True labor pains, 202.
“Trying of a pain,” 221.
“Turn of years,” 115.

Unladylike, on being, 96.

Urine, retention of, 240.

Vaginal syringe, 196.

Veal-and-milk broth, 251.
Veins, enlarged, of the leg, 152.
Ventilation, importance of, 33, 128.
manner of performing, 34.
of lying-in room, 254.
thorough, 36.
Visitors in a lying-in room, 238.

Walk before breakfast, 47.

in frosty weather, 28.
Walking glorious exercise, 23.
Warm ablutions after labor, 245.
baths for infants apparently still-born, 231.
Water poisoned by drains, 132.
Waters, “the breaking of the,” 202.
Weaning, 292.
Weaning an infant, the method of, 294.
Wellington, the Duke of, 67.
Westmoreland and Cumberland poor women, 229.
Wet-nurses’ and mother’s milk, 265.
Whining and repining, 95.
“Whites” during pregnancy, 169.
cause miscarriage, 112.
when not pregnant, 112.
Wife, a domestic, 90.
educated to be useful, 90.
instructing servants, 92.
the mission of a, 22.
the profession of a, 90.
young, 13.
Wine, abuse of, 57.
bibbing causes barrenness, 57.
drinking of, 55.
in France, 61.
on children taking, 61.
much injures complexion, 64.
during suckling, 267.
Womb, bearing down of, 247.
Work, a cure for many ailments, 93.
Wormwood on nipples in weaning, 296.
 ADVICE TO A MOTHER
ON THE
MANAGEMENT OF HER CHILDREN,
AND ON THE
TREATMENT ON THE MOMENT
OF
SOME OF THEIR MORE PRESSING
ILLNESSES AND ACCIDENTS.

BY

PYE HENRY CHAVASSE,

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND; FELLOW
OF THE OBSTETRICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON; FORMERLY PRESIDENT OF
QUEEN’S COLLEGE MEDICO-CHIRURGICAL SOCIETY, BIRMINGHAM;
AUTHOR OF “ADVICE TO A WIFE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF HER OWN
HEALTH.”

“Lo, children and the fruit of the womb are an heritage and cometh of the Lord.”

SEVENTEENTH EDITION.

PHILADELPHIA
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.
1881.
 TO

Sir CHARLES LOCOCK, Bart., F.R.S.,

FIRST PHYSICIAN-ACCOUCHEUR TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

Dear Sir Charles:

Your kind and flattering approval of this little Book, and your
valuable suggestions for its improvement, demand my warmest
gratitude and acknowledgments, and have stimulated me to renewed
exertions to make it still more complete and useful, and thus more
worthy of your approbation.
You have greatly added to my obligation, by allowing me to
indicate those passages of the work that you considered required
correction, addition, and improvement. On reference to these pages,
it will be at once perceived how greatly I am indebted to you, and
how much I have profited by your valuable advice.

I have the honor to remain,

Dear Sir Charles,
Your faithful and obliged servant,
PYE HENRY CHAVASSE.

Priory House, Old Square,

Birmingham.
 PREFACE.

The sale of this book is enormous; where hundreds were formerly

disposed of, thousands are now sold; and the sale still increases with
increasing velocity.
The book has been a great success: I had the good fortune, some
thirty years ago, to turn up new ground—to hit upon a mine, which I
have, ever since, even until now, worked with my best energy and
ability. One cause of the immense success this work has achieved is,
that it treats of some subjects which, although they be subjects of
vital importance to the well-being of children, all other works of a
kindred nature do not even touch upon.
I have, during the last thirty years, been constantly on the watch to
give a mother additional and useful advice on the management of her
children; so that, in point of fact, this present edition consists of
more than treble the quantity of information contained in the earlier
editions. The quantity is not only increased, but the quality is, I trust,
greatly improved.
The last edition, comprising five thousand copies, has been rapidly
exhausted: to supply the increased and increasing demand, seven
thousand copies of this—the Ninth Edition—are now published.
The enormous, and, for a medical work, unusually large sale, is most
gratifying to me as well as to my worthy publishers.
I have taken great pains to improve the present edition: much new
matter has been introduced; several paragraphs have been abridged;
some portions have been rewritten—as my extended experience has
enabled me to enter on many of the subjects more fully, and, I trust,
more usefully; and the book has been throughout thoroughly revised.
Lord Chesterfield, in writing to his son, once said: “If I had had
longer time, I would have written you a shorter letter.” Now, I have
found time both to curtail some of the passages of this work, and to
remove many, indeed, a large majority of the quotations from the
text. I have, consequently, been able to fill up the various spaces with
much original, and, I trust, useful matter; and thus, without
materially increasing the bulk of the book, to keep it within
reasonable bounds. The notes and annotations of Sir Charles
Locock are, however, perfectly intact—they are too valuable either to
be omitted, or to be, in the slightest degree, curtailed.
The writing, revising, improving, and enlarging of this, and of my
other work—Advice to a Wife—have, for upwards of a quarter of a
century, been my absorbing occupation—my engrossing study. I have
loved, and cherished, and tended the two books as though they were
my children; and have, in each successive edition, always striven to
bring them, as nearly as my abilities would allow, to a state of
completeness—to make them, in fact, a perfect Vade-mecum for
Wives and Mothers. I might truly say, that the occupation has ever
been to me a source of pure and unalloyed enjoyment. The correction
of the pages has often cheered me when I have been in grief or in
trouble, and has soothed me when, in my profession, I have been
either harassed or vexed: truly, I have had my reward! My fervent
desire is, that some portion of the pleasure and comfort I have
derived from the writing of these books may be experienced by my
readers. If it be only a tithe of what I myself have felt, I shall be more
than amply rewarded for my pains.

P. H. C.
CONTENTS.
 PART I.—INFANCY.
PAGE
Preliminary Conversation 1013
Ablution 1016
Management of the Navel 1024
Clothing 1028
Diet 1032
Vaccination 1056
Dentition 1062
Exercise 1075
Sleep 1077
The Bladder and the Bowels 1084
Ailments, Disease, etc. 1085
Concluding Remarks on Infancy 1119

PART II.—CHILDHOOD.
Ablution 1120
Clothing 1123
Diet 1132
The Nursery 1150
Exercise 1172
Amusements 1177
Education 1183
Sleep 1188
Second Dentition 1194
Disease, etc. 1195
Warm Baths 1294
Warm External Applications 1295
Accidents 1297

PART III.—BOYHOOD AND GIRLHOOD.

Ablution, etc. 1318
Clothing 1327
Diet 1332
Air and Exercise 1337
Amusements 1341
Education 1347
Household Work for Girls 1355
Choice of Profession or Trade 1355
Sleep 1359
On the Teeth and the Gums 1364
Prevention of Disease, etc. 1366

Index 1403