校園一隅

碩士/碩專班畢業論文

首頁 > 學生表現 > 碩士/碩專班畢業論文>歷屆碩士班論文

徘徊在「聽」與「聾」之間:回歸主流教育中聽障大學生的身份認同
(碩士班:張稚鑫) (指導教授:王雅各)

刊登日期:2004-08-31  
友善列印



  • 研究生: 張稚鑫
  • 論文名稱: 徘徊在「聽」與「聾」之間:回歸主流教育中聽障大學生的身分認
  • 論文名稱: Being Hearing or Being Deaf? : The Identity Formation of College Students with Hearing Impairment in Mainstream Education
  • 指導教授: 王雅各
  • 關鍵字: 聽覺障礙  回歸主流  身份認同  聾人  手語
  • [摘要]

    本文的研究目的,是研究者以一個聽人的角色,去觀察在聽障群體中,由於回歸主流的教

    育安置所造成的語言及文化上的內部歧異。在回歸主流教育中,聽障生被教導使用口語,

    她/他們因不諳手語,和聾人間產生隔閡;但其口語又無法與聽人非常順利的溝通。在兩邊

    都無法完全融入的情況下,這群聽障生發現自己處於邊緣人的窘境,她/他們開始產生了認

    同上的困惑與質疑、追尋及選擇。

    基於此背景與脈絡,本論文提出以下的研究問題:一、回歸主流教育下成長的聽障大學生

    是如何建構出屬於自身的認同?二、她/他們如何對於「聽」、「聾」作選擇?三、在她/

    他們的成長過程中,又有何因素影響其認同建構?本文的研究取向,是從具有主體發聲地

    位的生命個體(聽障生)所述說的經驗中取得資料,再進行理論的驗證與分析。本研究使

    用參與觀察及深度訪談,作為主要的研究方法。研究者共訪談了十四位聽障大學生,這些

    大學生在求學過程中,大部分的時間都就讀於普通學校,主要也都使用口語為主要溝通的

    語言。

    在認同建構的過程中,聽障生察覺到自己與聽人的「差別性」,以及與其他聽障生間的「

    同一性」,在這兩者的交互辯證過程中,建構出初步的認同建構。同時,主流聽人社會加

    諸於她/他們的「污名」,也增強了聽障生對於自身聽障群體的認同。在此過程中,聽障生

    發覺聽障群體並不是單一、同質性高的社群,而是相當複雜、多元、異質性高的一個群體

    本研究依據Holcomb(1997)與Kannapell(1994)對於聽障者認同發展的理論,輔以研究

    者田野中的觀察,發展出一個二維向度(手語能力及口語能力)的分析框架,創造出四種

    聽障生認同的理念型:「以聽人為主的認同」、「以聾人為主的認同」、「雙語、雙文化

    的認同」、以及「邊緣人的認同」,來理解聽障生的認同狀態。研究發現,認同狀態傾向

    於聽人者為最多,研究者認為這與受訪者語言的使用(口語或手語)偏好有較大的關係。

    另有一些聽障生的聽力損失較重、口語能力較差,但隨著手語能力的日漸提升,在未來有

    可能發展出聾人的認同。若聽障生擁有較好的口語及手語能力,便有機會建構出雙語、雙

    文化的認同。也有聽障生無法對任一邊產生認同感,而繼續停留在「邊緣人」的狀態中,

    徘徊在「聽」與「聾」之間。

    在最後的結論部分,研究者提出一些批判。對於聽障者/聾人來說,這些分類的「選項」及

    其背後的知識體系,是由擁有權力(知識)的人來界定的,聽障者/聾人並沒有選擇(不去

    選擇)的權力,她/他們其實是「被迫」接受「聽/正常人」給予她/他們的標籤。表面上

    她/他們似乎知道了自己是誰,但實際上卻已陷於「聽/正常人」所給的「選項」中,喪失

    了自己的主體性。

  • [摘要]

    This study probes the learning conditions of deaf students in the so-called “

    mainstreaming” educational systems. In mainstream education, students with

    hearing impairment are taught (and expected) to communicate in spoken

    language. When they face Deaf people, they could not sign well. But the

    hearing impaired students usually have difficulties in spoken language with

    their hearing counterparts. It is not easy for them to dissolve into neither

    group. As a result, those hearing impaired students found themselves in a

    neither “hearing” nor “Deaf” situation. The dilemmas, confusion, and

    anxiety thus marked as the major characters of these students.

    In this context, I want to pose the following questions in this research:

    first, these hearing impaired college students’ choice of being “hearing”

    or “Deaf”; second, what factors affect their identity formation, and third,

    how did they, throughout mainstream education, form their identity. The

    researcher did participant observation and conducted in-depth interview to 14

    hearing impaired college students who studied predominantly in mainstream

    education.

    Citing Holcomb’s (1997) and Kannapell’s (1994) studies, I construct a two by

    two diagram to categorize and explain these hearing impaired college students

    ’ identity formation. Data indicating that the choices of these students’

    identity are closely related to their abilities in spoken and sign language.

    For those proficient on both languages who inclined to label themselves as “

    bilinguistic, bicultural” identity. Students who are good at sign language

    long to affiliated themselves with “Deaf-dominant” identity. Fluent in

    spoken language makes students to identify to “hearing-dominant” culture.

    As for people who are poor in neither spoken nor sign language, they are

    likely to adopt a “marginal” identity or a non-identity which is different

    from all of the above.

    In all, minority groups (such as the hearing-impaired) are forced to take what

    the dominant people’s creation on identity labels. Such situation clearly

    presents the power relationships of the society. Work such as Goffman (1963),

    and Foucault (1977, 1982) are all examples of this mechanism. It is

    ultimately important for us to thoroughly understand this process and its

    effects toward minority people before we contemplating relevant social (

    educational) policy to these groups.