Knowledge,attitudes,and perceptions of the Scottish public about the Deaf: A qualitative study

Abstract

Deaf individuals who rely on sign language form a linguistic minority and often experience economic, medical, and social exclusion from living in a predominantly hearing world. Understanding how the hearing population perceives the Deaf community and their challenges is crucial to provide insights into the current gaps in accessibility and inclusivity for Deaf people. This study explored the knowledge, attitude, and perception of the Scottish public of the Deaf community. Eight one-on-one interviews were undertaken (four men and four women). Interview transcripts were thematically analysed revealing three themes: (1) Negotiating understandings of Deafness: between difference and deficit; (2) Perceptions of the Deaf experience: awareness of barriers but limited depth; (3) Limited knowledge and reliance on indirect learning. Issues were raised around communication difficulties with the Deaf population and uncertainty regarding their disability status. Written communication and lip-reading were reported as the main communication modality when interacting with Deaf people. Overall, there was limited knowledge and awareness regarding the Deaf community; however, their views were free of any stigma and discrimination. Educational interventions on Deaf culture could potentially alleviate any negative attitudes relating to how the Deaf community are treated and improve awareness of effective communication with this subgroup.

Introduction

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), around 430 million people worldwide live with disabling hearing loss (World Health Organisation, 2021b). This is projected to rise to 700 million people globally by 2050 (World Health Organisation, 2021a). The 2011 Scottish Census found approximately 12,556 people in Scotland use British Sign Language (BSL) in their homes, and an estimated 7200 of individuals are Deaf (Public Health Scotland, 2021). When referring to the Deaf community, deaf in lowercase refers to the audiological condition of deafness, whereas Deaf with an upper case ‘D’ refers to a community of people who share both sign language and culture (Jacob et al., 2022; Jones, 2002; Padden and Humphries, 1988). In this paper and this study, we will focus on the Deaf community with a capital ‘D’.

Public attitude toward the disabled and Deaf people

Members of the general public have, historically, viewed those they perceive as disabled through a deficit-based lens, positioning disability as a problem requiring correction or intervention (Oliver, 1996). While explicit attitudes toward those with disabilities have become more positive or sympathetic, these are frequently accompanied by ‘aversive disablism’ – subtle, unconscious forms of prejudice resulting from deep-seated negative attitudes (Antonopoulos et al., 2023; Deal, 2007). Hearing impairment is often conceptualized as a disability within biomedical frameworks and according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by the WHO (World health Organisation, 2018). According to medicine, ‘normality’ is the ultimate goal of the disabled, implying that ‘disability is a deviance to be eradicated’ (Solvang and Haualand, 2013). Members of the public often view Deaf people as disabled (Solvang and Haualand, 2013), a perception known as ableism, and while they have often expressed positive attitudes toward the Deaf community, their actual knowledge about Deaf culture and abilities is lacking, suggesting superficial attitudes (Nikolaraizi and Makri, 2004). This is often accompanied by communication anxiety and persistent deficit-based assumptions, resulting in gaps between expressed attitudes and actual understanding or behaviour (Joshi, 2022; Lane, 1992b). Deaf individuals also face linguicism from the public – the perception that sign language is inferior to mainstream language (Tomaszewski et al., 2025), as well as audism – discriminatory and prejudiced perceptions by the hearing toward those who are deaf (Tomaszewski et al., 2025). All these have resulted in Deaf individuals encountering negative attitudes on a daily basis (Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID), 2024).

The stigma, discrimination, and mistreatment faced by the Deaf community are pervasive across various sectors, including employment, healthcare, and education (Jones, 2002). For instance, Deaf people are more likely to be unemployed, and those who do find work are at risk of discrimination in the form of layoffs, unequal salaries, and poorer job prospects (Komesaroff, 2004; O’Connell, 2022). In healthcare, Deaf individuals report that doctors often spend less time communicating with them than with hearing patients, leaving them without a clear understanding of their diagnoses or medications (Kritzinger et al., 2014). Deaf people have also experienced mistreatment by the healthcare system due to limited awareness by healthcare professionals surrounding communication with members of this community (Jacob et al., 2020; Kritzinger et al., 2014; Kuenburg et al., 2016; Steinberg et al., 2006). In addition, Deaf individuals are unable to access health information easily due to inaccessible formatting and health information written at a literacy level higher than average for Deaf individuals (Jacob et al., 2022). Negative experiences of healthcare often deter Deaf individuals from seeking medical attention in the future, further exacerbating the situation (Jacob et al., 2022). Similarly, in the education sector, one study found that Deaf students in Scottish Higher Education faced multiple communication barriers which impacted their experience at university or college (Hendry et al., 2021). Deaf students found that there was a focus on the use of the English language, meaning they struggled to take part in aspects of university life, because British Sign Language (BSL) is their first language. These obstacles negatively impacted their sense of inclusion and ability to form social connections, leading to further isolation (Batten et al., 2014; Hendry et al., 2021).

Scotland’s recognition of BSL as an official language through the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 (Scottish Parliament, 2015) represents a step toward improving Deaf awareness and inclusion. In 2017, a national plan was set out aiming to improve Deaf awareness and the experiences of Deaf individuals in various aspects of life including public services, early learning, education, and healthcare (Scottish Government, 2017). However, the challenges outlined above indicate that while governmental efforts have been made to increase Deaf awareness among the public, much work remains to be done. Understanding how the hearing population perceives the Deaf community and the contemporary challenges faced by Deaf individuals is critical, as these attitudes influence social inclusion, communication practices, and the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving accessibility and engagement. Therefore, this study aims to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the Scottish public regarding the Deaf community, providing valuable insights that can inform future interventions to reduce the inequalities faced by Deaf individuals.

Methods

The findings have been reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007) (Appendix 1). Ethical approval for this study was received from the University of Strathclyde Ethics Committee (UEC21/72).

Study design

A series of semi-structured interviews which adopted a descriptive approach were undertaken. Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit study participants. The study was advertised on social media, and participants were also approached via email. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, were born in Scotland, and currently residing in Scotland. Individuals were excluded if they were healthcare providers or if they themselves or family members are deaf, Deaf, or Hard of Hearing. This criterion was used to ensure that the study captured perceptions of members of the general hearing population with limited prior exposure to the Deaf community. Participant information sheets and consent forms were sent out to all participants via email prior to the interviews, containing the details and objectives of the study. Signed consent forms were returned via email by all participants.

The interview guide was developed based on the study objectives and a review of relevant literature (Appendix 2). The guide sought to elicit participants’ current knowledge of the Deaf, personal experience with this group, and their perceptions and attitudes toward the Deaf. The interview guide was validated by three experts in qualitative research and one member of the Deaf-signing community who is a native sign-language user. Reviewers evaluated the clarity, cultural appropriateness, and relevance to the Deaf community. Minor revisions were made to simplify wording and improve cultural appropriateness following validation. The study was then pilot tested, and no further changes to the interview guide were made following pilot testing. The study was conducted until saturation was achieved.

Seven interviews were carried out over Zoom, while one was carried out over WhatsApp audio at the request of the participant. All were conducted on a one-on-one basis at a time convenient to the participants. Interviews were audio- and/or video-recorded (via Zoom), and field notes were taken to capture key points. Demographic details were collected prior to interviews, and participants were given a £10 Amazon voucher for their participation in the study.

Data transcription and analysis

The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researchers (CC and AN) and anonymized prior to analysis. Transcripts were returned to participants for verification to ensure that their views had been accurately captured and to allow participants the opportunity to clarify or expand on their responses where necessary. The results of this were imported into NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, version 1.7.1., 2020). Two transcripts were independently coded by the researchers and a coding framework was then established following discussion. The remaining transcripts were then coded individually, and any new codes were added to the framework as and when they occurred. Thematic analysis was then carried out according to Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach: (1) data familiarization, (2) initial code generation, (3) theme searching, (4) reviewing of themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Consistent with later developments in reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2023), the analytical process involved ongoing reflection and iterative engagement with the data during coding and theme development. Quotations by participants were edited on a limited basis to remove content that did not convey meaning (repeated words, stutters) or that had no relevance to the theme being discussed. An ellipsis was used to note removal of such extraneous content. Square brackets were used in quotations to replace sensitive or identifiable information.

Results

Eight members of the Scottish public (four men and four women) participated in the study. They were aged between 27 and 71 years old and were all born and raised in Scotland. The interviews lasted 29 minutes on average. Data saturation was achieved with no new themes emerging in the later interviews. Three overarching themes were developed from the data, reflecting recurring patterns in participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge regarding the Deaf community: (1) Negotiating understandings of Deafness: between difference and deficit; (2) Perceptions of the Deaf experience: awareness of barriers but limited depth; (3) Limited knowledge and reliance on indirect learning. Themes and subthemes are illustrated below and in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Themes and subthemes.

Theme 1: Negotiating understandings of Deafness: Between difference and deficit

Deafness as a biological deficit

In attempting to elicit stigmatizing beliefs about the Deaf community, participants were asked why they thought people were born Deaf. Many attributed it to birth defects or contracting an illness or infection.

‘For various different reasons, I think they either could have been born Deaf and have never been able to hear ever and then you can have someone who’s been in an accident, and they lose their hearing that way or you’re next to an explosion that could maybe alter their hearing. Maybe an illness something like meningitis’ (P7, 40s, F).

As an additional prompt, they were asked if they thought it was due to ‘karma’ and being punished by God. None, however, agreed with this.

Cochlear implants? ‘Oh I think it would be a personal choice’

Throughout the interviews, participants were asked to share their attitudes towards cochlear implants and whether they felt that Deaf people should receive one. An overwhelming sense emerged where participants believed receiving a cochlear implant should be a personal choice. One participant stated that

‘Everybody’s got restrictions of some sort so if that’s how they identify and they are comfortable with that and how they choose to do that then again, it’s like other enforced medical procedures that people may not wish to get. I don’t think it should be forced upon them, but I think it would be good to have it available to them if that’s something that they would need the same as we have other particularly on the NHS (National Health Services) type stuff, other procedures that are appointed’ (P8, 40s, F).

Tension between disability and difference

When asked whether they would consider deafness a disability, the response from participants was largely that they believed it is.

‘I have to say yes, it’s a disability, that I feel to be less severe than a lot of other disabilities around because there are means of being able to still communicate (…) I think it’s less of a disability than being blind I do, but still I have to say it is a disability of some description, yes’ (P1, 70s, F).

Another participant also explained that they believed being Deaf is a disability because hearing is one of the five senses and when one does not work it would be a disability to the person.

‘Yes… because it's one of the five senses, that we have, which is our ability to interact with the world around us. I’m coming from a completely science background here and I understand that some of the instruments that we run have detectors that have limits and that's exactly the same as we are as human beings. We have five senses and if one of those sensors does not work, then that's a disability, for that system, i.e. a human being, the human system’ (P8, 40s, F).

Some participants still however held the attitude that being Deaf is more a restriction in life rather than a disability. One participant said, ‘It’s a definite hinderance but it’s not a disability, I don’t think so’ (P6, 50s, M). Another view was that instead of them actually being disabled they are instead disabled by society and that it is the way in which society treats them and the barriers that are caused through this exclusion that led to this instead. On whether Deaf individuals viewed themselves as disabled, some participants felt that upbringing would play a role here in that, if they had been given a sense of independence and were able to do the same things as a hearing individual can, they would be less likely to think that they had a disability. Inversely, if a person’s upbringing was very sheltered with less independence, then they would be more likely to view themselves as being disabled.

Conditional inclusion in social and relational contexts

Participants suggested that when entering a romantic relationship, if the other person was Deaf, this would not be a dealbreaker as ‘I think if you have any kind of connection with someone your feelings would override any impairments. There would always be a way around it’ (P7, 40s, F). Likewise, they would not feel pressured to continue with the relationship just because they were Deaf, saying ‘I would also think and feel I’m treating this like any other first date if we both like each other we’ll maybe move on to a second date if they’re not really the person for me the fact that they are Deaf is not going to make any difference to that. It’s not going to make me think I don’t want to see this person again but equally it’s not going to make me think oh god I better see this person again otherwise it looks like I’m being really horrible to a Deaf person’ (P5, 50s, M).

Participants agreed that full disclosure of their date’s deafness would be much appreciated especially when meeting on online dating platforms, although they would understand why Deaf individuals might conceal this due to fears of being judged. Participants also recognized that there would be some challenges in communication in a romantic relationship, but that this could be overcome by adapting communication: ‘Well obviously I think communication would be the main issue. You could say that about most relationships though (…) but I think, just in general, being able to sort of have conversations and stuff like that would maybe be quite a bit more challenging than with someone that wasn’t Deaf and maybe sort of rely on myself maybe trying to learn something like sign language (…) So I think that would probably be the main issue and obviously introducing them to family and stuff like that as well would be difficult’ (P3, 20s, M).

The majority of participants would not rule out developing a friendship with a Deaf person, as long as the person had good qualities and values, saying: ‘If they were a nice person worth knowing… You don’t choose friends with whether they are Deaf or not hopefully you choose friends based on a whole lot of other values’ (P8, 40s, F).

There was an overwhelming sense when it came to friendships that it would be no different to hearing relationships, other than that they were Deaf. One participant commented on friendship saying it would be ‘just exactly the same if you meet somebody and you’ve got a common interest or whatever, they’re just people, I mean to even think that they’re different I think is just not right’ (P2, 60s, F).

When asked if they would hire a Deaf person for a job, participants said they would not discriminate against the applicant just because of their deafness and would hire them if they were the suitable candidate. Participants did acknowledge that a Deaf person could face more challenges in the workplace or that they would have to make accommodations for a Deaf employee: ‘If the candidate was able to do and had the skills then it wouldn’t change whether they should get the job or not. Just there’s more things to think about that’s all’ (P8, 40s, F).

Empathy shaped by perceived communication challenges

There was a general sense of empathy toward the Deaf community as it was felt that this population will face many challenges in their daily life compared to that of a hearing person, with participants comparing how they themselves function. Participants voiced that the main reason for their empathy was due to the difficulty that Deaf individuals would have in communicating with others and the frustration and sadness that this could consequently result in: ‘…sort of empathy, I would think…I’m just sort of thinking about what it would be like to be Deaf and obviously the difficulty that I would have and the sort of struggle of going about your day-to-day life. So, that’s what I was trying to think about being in that position’ (P3, 20s, M).

On the other hand, one participant said that they think that Deaf people would not wish people to feel any sympathy towards them as they do not feel as though they have anything wrong with them.

Recognition of sign language as legitimate, but limited willingness to engage

When asked whether they believed that a sign language was an actual language, there was an overwhelming sense from participants that they believed it was. One participant commented saying, ‘I think it is because they’ve got signs that cover several words and phrases, it’s not just one word for each, one sign for each part (…) I would think it would be classed as a language’ (P2, 60s, F). However, there was still the attitude present amongst some participants that it is not an actual language.

One participant also commented on the idea of learning a sign language, explaining that they believed that most adults would not make the effort to learn it unless they knew a Deaf person because it is difficult to learn. They also discussed the idea that it is easier for children to learn a sign language when they are younger than learning it as an adult.

‘And obviously as adults, most people wouldn’t go to the effort of learning unless they really need to for their work or if they came into contact with a Deaf person that they want to befriend or be in regular contact with because it’s quite something to pick it up I think and to be fluent [laughs], if that’s the right word for it, I think it’s quite a difficult thing to learn’ (P2, 60s, F).

It was observed that none of the participants mentioned the word ‘BSL’ or ‘British Sign Language’ in the entire interview when they discussed the importance of learning sign language.

Theme 2: Perceptions of the Deaf experience: Awareness of barriers but limited depth

Participants were asked their views on a variety of issues affecting the Deaf community. Surrounding these topics, a view emerged that participants’ perception of the Deaf was that the only difference between them was that Deaf people cannot hear and they can: ‘But my general view is that a Deaf person is the same as the rest of us they just have got something wrong with their ears to put that absolutely brutally, that’s the only difference’ (P5, 50s, M). These topics are discussed within the following subthemes.

‘It isn’t really discussed’ – How society treats the Deaf

Participants were asked to share their perceptions of how they believe Deaf people were treated in society. There was a sense from participants that Deaf people are perhaps underrepresented within Scottish society and not well acknowledged. However, participants still largely believed that generally Deaf people are treated well in society but can be treated poorly by individuals. One participant noted that Deaf people are probably treated relatively well because although people view deafness as a disability, it is not as visibly noticeable, as highlighted below:

‘Generally well I’ve not really experienced anything bad, but generally I think people just see it as a disability and I think the Deaf are probably treated better than perhaps people with a learning disability or blind maybe as well, because you don’t physically see deafness, but you can see blindness and you can see, physical disabilities, you can see people with learning disabilities. But people don’t really see if someone’s Deaf, so much’ (P1, 70s, F).

There was still, however, the view that society has not been designed to accommodate Deaf people, with one participant saying, ‘it’s more about systems than the individual people… I don’t think our systems treat Deaf people particularly well’ (P5, 50s, M). Participants did unanimously agree that there should be measures put in place in schools, hospitals, and other places to accommodate Deaf individuals. Some suggestions included teaching sign language from nursery upwards in schools and also having staff trained in sign language in hospitals and clinics to make healthcare more accessible to Deaf people. Participants also acknowledge why these measures were important:

‘It would actually contribute to a normal standard of wellbeing. I mean if you need to go to the doctor if you’re Deaf and there’s no facility for you to communicate then that’s a major problem’ (P6, 50s, M).

Assumptions about ability, independence, and safety

Participants were asked a number of questions about how they believe deafness impacts a person’s ability to live day-to-day. When asked about whether they believed Deaf people could live independently, participants expressed that they believed Deaf people can live fairly independently, with the only restriction to them being things like crossing roads or other ‘elements of danger’ they could face because they can’t hear.

When asked how the intelligence of a Deaf person would compare to that of a hearing person, there was an overwhelming sense from participants that Deaf people ‘would be as intelligent maybe just not as educated’ (P6, 50s, M). However, when asked about the impact of deafness on the ability to learn and understand English, there was an overwhelming sense that it would not have an impact at all.

Assumptions about Deaf identity and desire for hearing

Many views emerged from the interviews about how participants believe the Deaf community view deafness. Some believed that those who became deaf later in life would want their hearing corrected because they have known what it was like to hear and that if someone was born Deaf, they wouldn’t know what they were missing out on, so they would not want their hearing corrected.

‘Again, I think somebody who is Deaf and who has been Deaf since birth then maybe what they’ve never had, they’ll never miss. If you’ve never had it, how would you know that you wanted it? Do you know what I mean? It’s kind of odd I can’t imagine but again I think if somebody has lost their hearing, I think they would want it corrected and put back to what it was before’ (P2, 60s, F).

One participant believed that Deaf people would want their hearing corrected as a result of people viewing them as disabled and feeling different because they can’t hear, saying ‘Because probably of the way people are and the way people make them feel and because people are actually looking at them as if they have a disability and you’re not the same as us, you can’t hear’ (P1, 70s, F).

Theme 3: Limited knowledge and reliance on indirect learning

Fragmented understanding of communication methods

Participants mentioned a number of methods of communication that Deaf people use including facial expression, lip-reading, sign language, and written communication: ‘…you’ve got email, your body language, that kind of thing. That’s really where I feel that they’re going to pick most of that up. Lip reading would be a way to communicate. I think that’s the only ways I could genuinely think’ (P8, 40s, F).

They also identified some challenges that Deaf individuals face in communication. For example, one participant said they wouldn’t be able to communicate well with someone who was Deaf because they do not speak sign language. Another participant noted that if speech is too fast, a Deaf person may find it harder to understand.

Communication anxiety and fear of causing offence

Participants proposed that they think a reason for the lack of communication with a Deaf person is the fear of offending. While successful interactions with Deaf individuals require adaptations in communication styles, if this is done incorrectly it can result in poor interpreting with errors. One participant commented that the fear is not of the person themselves but it is instead the fear of doing something wrong, resulting in causing offence and further communication barriers: ‘I think my initial reaction would be worry that I was doing something wrong or doing something that was making that person feel bad or I wasn’t communicating in the right fashion. I genuinely believe peoples’ awkwardness around disability in general is based on their fear of doing something wrong rather than their fear of the person themselves’ (P5, 50s, M).

Deaf culture and Deaf awareness – As seen on TV

Throughout the interviews, it emerged that participants had gained more knowledge of Deaf issues as a result of representation on television. When asked whether they understood what was meant by Deaf culture, participants generally did not. Participants commented on two British TV programmes that had recently starred Deaf actors. Participants noted that the soap opera ‘Coronation Street’ recently had a storyline involving a Deaf child. Participants described how this informed them of the controversy surrounding cochlear implants.

‘What's probably helped a lot is television…where you're actually watching somebody an actor, who is Deaf or who is acting Deaf’ (P1, 70s, F).

Participants also shared that they had learned about methods of communication with Deaf people through the dancing show ‘Strictly Come Dancing’, where one of the contestants was a Deaf actress, and this gave them a better understanding about the etiquette when communicating in the presence of an interpreter.

‘There’s a Deaf actress currently on Strictly Come Dancing… I’ve noticed that when the judges are giving their feedback, they’re looking directly at her, but she is watching her person that signs for her’ (P2, 60s, F).

Participants suggested that being able to watch Deaf people on television could open up the views of the public on deafness and agreed that the media helped to increase their awareness of the Deaf community in this way and that some viewers would be able to view contestants like these as role models.

‘That’s right and she’s doing, really, really well and it opens up everybody’s view on deafness (…) and she has an interpreter there (…) that has helped I think generally everyone be far more aware of how they can be part of the community and just be taking part in anything’ (P1, 70s, F).

Experiential contact as a source of learning and confidence

Some participants shared how they have had interactions with members of the Deaf community before and had learned how to adapt their communication. For example, one participant shared how they used to go clubbing with someone who was Deaf, and though that environment didn’t allow for any kind of verbal communication, they were able to dance together as a method of non-verbal communication.

‘... it felt nice that we could interact, but it felt maybe a little bit of pressure because I knew that whatever I was going to say, maybe he wouldn't properly understand and, obviously, when he can maybe understand me because he could read my lips, but he wouldn’t be able to speak very well. So I wasn't really able to understand him. It was mixed – a little bit difficult but I think we both just appreciated that we could be in the same space and have good energy without the need for verbal communication’ (P7, 40s, F).

Some participants also explained how they have experienced sign language through relatives who knew how to sign or were taught sign language at school.

‘I do now, and I can tell you the reason why. My grandson last Christmas, they were taught a Christmas song in sign language and he came into the house, and he sang it to us in sign language and he’s sang it several times, he didn’t open his mouth, he was just using the sign language, we wish you a Merry Christmas, and it was lovely it was so nice to see and apparently the whole school had learned it’ (P1, 70s, F).

Discussion

The findings of this research provide an insight into the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of a small group of members of the Scottish public about Deaf people. Participants had some understanding but also misconceptions about issues that affect the Deaf community. In addition, there was no apparent discriminating or stigmatizing attitudes about Deaf people, with hesitation to interact with them more to do with a fear of offending and the lack of knowledge on how to communicate with them. The main findings related to ‘negative’ or ‘erroneous’ attitudes and perceptions, however, are mainly linked to their lack of knowledge about Deaf people and Deaf culture.

From our findings, none of the participants were aware of Deaf culture, highlighting limited understanding of the language, values, traditions, norms, and identity that form Deaf culture. This lack of knowledge may have inadvertently led to the common misconception among the general public that Deaf people are disabled and wish to regain their hearing abilities. A possible explanation is the tendency of people to view any sort of variation from norm or perceived perfection as a deviation (Sparrow, 2005). The Deaf population, however, do not view their deafness as an impairment or disability according to the medical model of deafness. They instead see themselves as having a hearing difference that does not require any medical interventions or treatment (Jacob et al., 2022; Lane, 2002), and identify as a linguistic minority and cultural group (Jacob et al., 2022; Jones, 2002; Tucker, 1997). This is backed by the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), who states that they are a linguistic minority as their linguistic features differ from the majority population and they seek to protect their culture and language (World Federation of the Deaf, 2019). Similarly, Deaf people are protected under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a linguistic minority, which states that they have the right to enjoy their culture and language with others (UN, 1966).

The Social Model of Disability is a theory that distinguishes between physical impairment and disability. This defines impairment as the absence of a limb or bodily mechanism, whereas disability is defined as a disadvantage or restriction to a person’s activity (Oliver, 1990). Disability is a result of society’s lack of awareness of physical impairment, leading to exclusion (Oliver, 1996). Oliver suggests that disability is imposed through social oppression, which is where there is a need for change (Oliver, 1996). Many Deaf individuals resonate with this model, arguing that they are not disabled by their deafness itself but rather by the hearing world’s environment, which leads to the emergence of a rich Deaf culture (Stebnicki and Coeling, 1999). This perspective underscores the necessity of creating a culturally safe society that allows the Deaf community to lead fulfilling lives.

Participants in this study displayed some cultural-linguistic-aligned views, in that they agree that a sign language is an actual language and that getting a cochlear implant is a matter of personal choice. The latter is a positive view and differs from that adopted by many, who are firstly shocked that Deaf people do not seek to improve what is perceived to be an ‘impairment’ and who feel that deafness is something that should be corrected (Sparrow, 2005). Indeed, the Deaf community face much criticism from society, with people accusing them of victimizing themselves (Cooper, 2019; Saunders, 2016). However, as noted by Cooper A (2019), ‘Many Deaf culturalists are deeply offended by what they perceive to be the inherently negative implication of cochlear implants: deafness is a medical disability that should be cured rather than a cultural identity that should be celebrated and respected’. Audiologists have argued that implant success is greater if performed prelingually because after age three, oral language development prognosis is lower. However, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) condemned childhood cochlear implantation, arguing it prevents children from engaging in Deaf culture (NAD, 2015). It is also argued that children with cochlear implants have delayed sign language acquisition and if raised orally may face an identity crisis surrounding which culture they belong to (Lane, 1992a). Thus, there is a need for people to have a deeper understanding of the reasons why Deaf people do not want implants or any form of correction, beyond it just being a personal choice like any other medical procedure.

A number of participants mentioned the media as their source of knowledge about the Deaf community, with two main TV shows in the United Kingdom (UK) highlighted – Coronation Street and Strictly Come Dancing. It is known that the media is a critical point for shaping how society is able to form perceptions of different communities including the Deaf community (McCombs and Valenzuela, 2020). The NAD have the view that all media coverage of this community should have a certain degree of authenticity and it should be related to the personal experience of this group so they are represented correctly (Golos and Moses, 2011). Historically, the media has represented Deaf people in a way that shows them to be more isolated, disabled, and dependent on the rest of the population for them to function. A recent study carried out by the National Research Group (NRG) looked into Deaf representation in the media and found that 63% of Deaf consumers felt that Hollywood portrays Deaf individuals with negative stereotypes and 76% believe their portrayal influences the world’s perception of them. The NRG concluded that more accurate and diverse depictions of the Deaf community must be showcased to increase Deaf awareness (NRG, 2022).

A common portrayal of Deaf people in media involves Deaf people receiving hearing aids or cochlear implants after which their quality of life seemed to improve and they were able to function better (Yuen et al., 2021). This generic representation overlooks the nuances within the deaf/Deaf community, such as the distinction between those who identify with Deaf culture and those who do not. Deaf representation in the media has been purely for educational purposes, but bringing it into the entertainment side is more likely to capture the attention of viewing audiences in these shows, meaning it is even more important that they are accurately represented. Participants in this study were in favour of seeing members of the Deaf community in the media, which is encouraging. While the disabled are now increasingly portrayed in a less stereotypical manner in the US and the UK with more appropriate terminology being adopted, more is needed to be done in other countries, especially in those where the disabled are stigmatized (Nelson, 2000).

Participants believed that Deaf individuals should be able to live fairly independently, and deafness should not affect intelligence. One study involving Deaf college graduates found that participants had gone on to live independent adult lives (Appelman et al., 2012). This study also recognized that many Deaf young adults remain unable to live independently due to low proficiency in English and Math, as well as not learning important social skills that aid independence once leaving education (Appelman et al., 2012). This lack of independence can result from overprotection from family while growing up and never seeking assistance themselves before. When it comes to intelligence, Deaf individuals develop poorer literacy in comparison with their hearing peers (Appelman et al., 2012). However, the WFD found that educational systems in many countries do not provide quality education for the Deaf community, which is a human right (WFD, 2016). This supports participants’ perception that Deaf individuals do not have lower intelligence, but rather poorer access to education. Participants also believed that being Deaf does not affect someone’s ability to learn English. However, this misconception has been challenged, as Deaf individuals lack the circumstantial learning opportunities of hearing individuals, making it more difficult for them to learn English as they cannot hear it (Atar et al., 2021).

Participants expressed that being friends or in a romantic relationship with a Deaf person would not be significantly different from other relationships; however, they acknowledged that communication might initially present a barrier. This perspective may reflect a contradiction, as it underestimates the effort required to learn a new language, such as sign language, and the cultural differences between Deaf and hearing communities. The idea that relationships could be uncomplicated, despite the acknowledged communication barriers, may indicate an underappreciation of the complexities inherent in Deaf culture. This lack of recognition could stem from viewing sign language and Deaf culture as less legitimate than spoken language and hearing culture, effectively marginalizing the very real challenges that Deaf individuals face. Research has shown that communication skills and language development are primary challenges for Deaf individuals in forming relationships (Moeller, 2000). Many Deaf individuals experience barriers related to not having a shared language, as few hearing individuals are fluent in sign language (Mousley and Chaudoir, 2018). Studies indicate that Deaf individuals report having fewer positive friendships than their hearing peers and are more likely to experience social isolation as a result (Batten et al., 2014; Hauser et al., 2010; Peñacoba et al., 2020).

Moreover, the tendency of participants to suggest that initial communication barriers could be easily navigated may reflect socially desirable responses aimed at demonstrating inclusivity. This approach can inadvertently contribute to the minimization of Deaf individuals’ lived experiences, effectively sweeping the issue under the rug by choosing not to confront the deeper realities of communication and cultural differences. Peñacoba et al. found that Deaf individuals often perceive a significant gap in understanding from their hearing peers, which can lead to feelings of isolation and frustration (Peñacoba et al., 2020). By overlooking the profound effort required to bridge this gap, participants risk perpetuating a cycle of misunderstanding and exclusion, thereby reinforcing societal barriers rather than dismantling them. Ultimately, the inclination to view relationships with Deaf individuals as uncomplicated, despite the acknowledgement of communication barriers, reveals a broader lack of understanding regarding the real-world challenges faced by the Deaf community. This oversight not only undermines the complexities of Deaf culture but also highlights the necessity for increased awareness and education around these issues to foster more inclusive and supportive relationships.

Participants were of the opinion that the Scottish Deaf community may feel unacknowledged and underrepresented in society, as it is not designed to suit them. The hearing community is a dominant group in society and is often unaware of how their actions are biased towards their own interests of maintaining a society dependent on sound (Hauser et al., 2010). This further normalizes hearing society and creates a sense of inferiority towards the Deaf community (Holcomb et al., 2019). Some participants did believe that Deaf people are treated well in Scottish society. This communicates this idea that Deaf discrimination is often unconscious, as some participants remained unaware of how society unconsciously treats the Deaf.

The SCOPE impact report 2017–2019 found that one in three UK adults with disabilities feel that there is a lot of prejudice against those with disabilities, with 49% reporting exclusion from society, whereas only 28% felt valued by society (SCOPE, 2019). Though the Deaf community do not identify as disabled, they are regarded as a disabled group; therefore, these results can apply to the Deaf community and challenge the perceptions of our participants. Participants in our study suggested that teaching a sign language from nursery would be a good way to improve access to education in society as well as training healthcare staff in a sign language. The aforementioned Scottish BSL national plan aims to integrate BSL into all levels of the Scottish curriculum, as well as improve access to interpretation in public services. The 2021 progress report found that more authorities are planning to provide BSL courses for teachers and integrate BSL resources into education for Deaf children. There are also an increasing number of internships for newly qualified interpreters in public services, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Scottish Government, 2021). This is indeed a positive step and one that should also be adopted in other countries.

Participants listed written communication and lip-reading as the main communication methods they would use with the Deaf, which linked to their perception that the Deaf understand English. There are common misconceptions that sign language is a visual representation of the spoken language through gestures and fingerspelling. Although sign language uses gestures, its grammar and syntax are different to a spoken language and are considered by the Deaf community to be a language of its own (Padden and Humphries, 1988). As such, written communication is often ineffective. A study by the UK office for Public Management also found that 65% of people whose first language is BSL either do not speak English or cannot understand English well (IPM, 2015). Furthermore, Deaf adults who lip-read only understand approximately 30% of speech, with small lips a particular barrier (Pendergrass et al., 2017; Steinberg et al., 2006), so this communication method is also not ideal. One participant stated that they wouldn’t be able to communicate very well with Deaf people because they don’t speak sign language, showing an understanding that sign language is indeed the best communication method (Motlhabi et al., 2013).

Finally, in spite of the fact that BSL has been legally recognized in 2015 as an official language, only one participant mentioned BSL. This participant worked with a charity and was more familiar with the use of translators. This could be an indication that the mainstream society does not fully understand that the Scottish Deaf community communicate in BSL, rather than in other sign languages. A ‘sign language’ is a general term which does not necessarily refer to only BSL, but also refers to the other 200 sign languages around the world.

Future research and recommendations

A large-scale study involving the different ethnic minority groups in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK should be undertaken. This can identify more areas where there is lack of knowledge or misconceptions. It is important that the Deaf community is involved at every stage of research so that Deaf voices can shape future educational programmes and Deaf awareness. There is also a need to develop educational interventions or awareness campaigns to increase the knowledge of the public about the Deaf community and Deaf culture. While studies have shown the effectiveness of Deaf awareness programs in healthcare programs, these can be adapted to the general public (Terry and Meara, 2024).

Strengths and limitations

The findings of this study should be considered in light of certain methodological limitations. Specifically, the direct use of the term ‘disability’ in the interview prompt, for example, ‘Do you think that being Deaf is a disability?’, may be viewed as a leading question that could introduce framing bias. This phrasing was intentionally selected to probe participant attitudes toward the most prevalent medical, societal, and legal classification of deafness. To mitigate potential bias, the researchers utilized a follow-up ‘elaboration’ prompt as well as other prompts, which provided participants the necessary space to challenge, reject, or redefine the term according to their own cultural or linguistic identities. Future research may benefit from using more open-ended framing (e.g. ‘How do you perceive the nature of being Deaf?’) to further minimize researcher influence on participant responses. All participants in the study identified as white, which may limit the diversity of perspectives captured. Cultural background may influence attitudes toward Deafness, and future studies should aim to include participants from a broader range of ethnic backgrounds to provide a more comprehensive understanding of public perceptions. However, there was good variation in terms of age and gender. The low number of participants could be considered a limitation within this study, but it was determined that saturation of data was achieved. While participants’ responses showed no signs of discrimination or stigmatizing attitudes toward the Deaf community, this can only be accurately determined through quantitative data using validated tools (Pichora-Fuller, 2024). There was limited availability of similar studies for comparison of results, though this is the first study of its kind in Scotland to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the public about the Deaf community and can pave the way for future research. There was also potentially the presence of a social desirability effect in the responses of participants.

Conclusions

This study suggests that some members of the Scottish public have limited knowledge and awareness surrounding key issues for the Deaf community such as identity, language, and culture. Although participants shared some examples of their experiences of interacting with Deaf people, this seemed to be an occasional experience. This lack of experience with the Deaf community could result in them answering solely based on their hearing perspective on life, resulting in the misconceptions identified. Although participants showed some awareness of the way that Deaf people are disadvantaged in Scottish society, there were still areas where education is necessary. It is encouraging that there did not seem to be any stigmatizing or discriminatory attitudes among participants. Larger-scale studies should be undertaken involving more ethnic groups in order to capture the true perspective of the Scottish community and determine their needs in order to communicate and interact with Deaf individuals.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the Scottish public about the Deaf: A qualitative study

Supplemental material for Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the Scottish public about the Deaf: A qualitative study by Amy Nicholson, Christy Cowan, E-Shuen Ng, Elizabeth Yie-Chuen Chong, Pei Hwa Goh, Vee Yee Chong, and Sabrina Anne Jacob in Equity in Education & Society.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the Scottish public about the Deaf: A qualitative study

Supplemental material for Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the Scottish public about the Deaf: A qualitative study by Amy Nicholson, Christy Cowan, E-Shuen Ng, Elizabeth Yie-Chuen Chong, Pei Hwa Goh, Vee Yee Chong, and Sabrina Anne Jacob in Equity in Education & Society.