Deaf people, members of a complex global language minority, have been excluded from positions of power in the field of humanitarian aid and development assistance, as well as from playing a significant role in the conduct of research that affects their lives. Deaf people rarely lead or participate as researchers in studies about their own communities or about the assistance they receive. Transformative mixed methods research strategies focus on the development of culturally respectful relationships to enhance collaboration between members of dominant and marginalized communities in order to improve the accuracy and usefulness of the findings. In this article, the application of transformative mixed methods in the deaf community provides examples of how research reveals complex realities and how researchers employ mixed methods strategies to appropriately engage members of marginalized communities in the context of development assistance to support human rights.
BarnesC. (2004). Reflections on doing emancipatory disability research. In SwainJ.FrenchS.BarnesC.ThomasC. (Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments (2nd ed., pp. 47-53). London, England: Sage.
3.
BarnesC. (2012). The social model of disability: Valuable or irrelevant? In WatsonN. R.ThomasC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 12-29). London, England: Routledge.
4.
BowlingA. (1997). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services. London, England: Open University Press.
5.
ChambersR. (2002). Participatory workshops: A sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CreswellJ. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DavisL. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. London, England: Verso.
9.
HarrisA.EnfieldS. (2003). Disability, equality and human rights: A training manual for development and humanitarian organisations. Oxford, England: Oxfam GB.
10.
HaualandH.AllenC. (2009). Deaf people and human rights. Helsinki, Finland: World Federation of the Deaf and Swedish National Association of the Deaf.
11.
Hesse-BiberS. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LaddP. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
14.
LaneH. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 291-310.
15.
LeeK. (2009). The importance of culture in evaluation: A practical guide for evaluators. Denver: Colorado Trust.
16.
LordJ.GuernseyK.BalfeJ.KerrV.FlowersN. (2007). Human Rights Yes!Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Human Rights Resource Center.
17.
LordJ.SteinM. (2009). Monitoring the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Innovations, lost opportunities, and future potential (Paper 1101). William and Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (Faculty Publications). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1101
18.
McKeeM.ThewD.StarrM.KushalnagarP.GraybillP.ReidJ.. . . PearsonT. (2012). Engaging the deaf American sign language community: Lessons from a community based resource center. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 6, 321-329.
19.
MertensD. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
20.
MertensD. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford.
21.
MertensD. (2013). Emerging advances in mixed methods addressing social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 215-218.
22.
MertensD.WilsonA. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
MettsR. (2000, February). Disability issues, trends and recommendations for the World Bank (Social Protection Working Paper No. 0007). Washington, DC: World Bank.
24.
MilesM. (2002). Some influences of religion on attitudes toward disabilities and people with disabilities. Journal of Religion, Disability, & Health, 6, 117-129.
25.
MilesM. (2007). Disability and deafness, in the context of religion, spirituality, belief and morality, in Middle Eastern, South Asian and East Asian histories and cultures: Annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles200707.html
26.
MitraS. (2005). Disability and social safety nets in developing countries (World Bank Other Operational Studies 11783). Washington, DC: World Bank.
27.
MunyiC. (2012). Past and present perceptions towards disability: A historical perspective. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3197/3068
28.
National Council on Disability. (2013). Toward the full inclusion of people with disabilities: Examining the accessibility of overseas facilities and programs funded by the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
OliverM. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7, 101-114.
30.
PetersS. (2003). Education for all: Including children with disabilities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
31.
SullivanM. (2009). Philosophy, ethics, and the disability community. In MertensD.GinsbergP. (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 69-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2008). Mainstreaming disability in the development agenda: Note by the Secretariat. In Follow up to the World Summit for Social Development and the 24th special session of the General Assembly: Emerging Issues. New York, NY: United Nations Commission for Social Development.
WilsonA. (2005, Summer). The effectiveness of international development assistance from American organizations to deaf communities in Jamaica. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 292-304.
35.
WilsonA.KakiriN.(2010). Best practice for collaborating with deaf communities in developing countries. In NapoliD. J.MathurG. (Eds.), Around the deaf world in two days (It’s a small world): Sign languages, social issues/civil rights, creativity (pp. 271-286). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
WilsonA.WiniarczykR.JohnsonC. (2012). World of solutions innovations for persons with disabilities: Evaluation of Project Sueñaletras. Washington, DC: InterAmerican Development Bank.
