Deaf epistemologies as a critique and alternative to the practice of science: an anthropological perspective
- Author
- Goedele De CLERCK (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- IN THE LAST DECADE, and responding to the criticism of orientalism, anthropology has engaged in a self-critical practice, working toward a postcolonial perspective on science and an epistemological stance of partial and situated knowledge (Pinxten, 2006; Pinxten & Note, 2005). In deaf studies, anthropological and sociological studies employing qualitative and ethnographic methods have introduced a paradigm shift. Concepts of deaf culture and deaf identity have been employed as political tools, contributing to the emancipation process of deaf people. However, recent anthropological studies in diverse local contexts indicate the cultural construction of these notions. From this viewpoint, deaf studies faces a challenge to reflect on the notions of culture, emancipation, and education from a nonexclusive, noncolonial perspective. Deaf studies research in a global context needs to deal with cultural and linguistic diversity in human beings and academia. This calls for epistemological reflection and new research methods.
Downloads
-
154.5.de-clerck.pdf
- full text
- |
- open access
- |
- |
- 460.26 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-676289
- MLA
- De CLERCK, Goedele. “Deaf Epistemologies as a Critique and Alternative to the Practice of Science: An Anthropological Perspective.” AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF, vol. 154, no. 5, 2010, pp. 435–46, doi:10.1353/aad.0.0121.
- APA
- De CLERCK, G. (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. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0121
- Chicago author-date
- De CLERCK, Goedele. 2010. “Deaf Epistemologies as a Critique and Alternative to the Practice of Science: An Anthropological Perspective.” AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 154 (5): 435–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0121.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- De CLERCK, Goedele. 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. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0121.
- Vancouver
- 1.De CLERCK G. Deaf epistemologies as a critique and alternative to the practice of science: an anthropological perspective. AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF. 2010;154(5):435–46.
- IEEE
- [1]G. De CLERCK, “Deaf epistemologies as a critique and alternative to the practice of science: an anthropological perspective,” AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF, vol. 154, no. 5, pp. 435–446, 2010.
@article{676289,
abstract = {{IN THE LAST DECADE, and responding to the criticism of orientalism, anthropology has engaged in a self-critical practice, working toward a postcolonial perspective on science and an epistemological stance of partial and situated knowledge (Pinxten, 2006; Pinxten & Note, 2005). In deaf studies, anthropological and sociological studies employing qualitative and ethnographic methods have introduced a paradigm shift. Concepts of deaf culture and deaf identity have been employed as political tools, contributing to the emancipation process of deaf people. However, recent anthropological studies in diverse local contexts indicate the cultural construction of these notions. From this viewpoint, deaf studies faces a challenge to reflect on the notions of culture, emancipation, and education from a nonexclusive, noncolonial perspective. Deaf studies research in a global context needs to deal with cultural and linguistic diversity in human beings and academia. This calls for epistemological reflection and new research methods.}},
author = {{De CLERCK, Goedele}},
issn = {{0002-726X}},
journal = {{AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{5}},
pages = {{435--446}},
title = {{Deaf epistemologies as a critique and alternative to the practice of science: an anthropological perspective}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0121}},
volume = {{154}},
year = {{2010}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: