Inclusive Research Environments for Deaf and Hard of Hearing English Speakers

INTRODUCTION

Preparing the next generation of scientists, particularly those underrepresented in the nation’s scientific workforce, is part of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences’ (NIGMS) mission (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). The Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE)¹ Scientists-in-Training Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduates at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) is an effort to enhance the diversity of the biomedical sciences workforce by providing research-intensive training for deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) undergraduates bound to earn their doctorates. There are over 40 RISE programs in the country designed to support different underrepresented groups, but RIT-RISE is the first and only program tailored to D/HH students.

To create a program inclusive of D/HH students, it is essential to have a comprehensive understanding of the primary barriers the students encounter and the inclusive practices necessary to support them in their undergraduate research experiences. By examining these experiences, the study aimed to identify strategies and adaptations that could be implemented to ensure an inclusive and supportive research environment for D/HH students. It is additionally important to note that these D/HH participants, at the time the study was conducted, preferred to use spoken English instead of American Sign Language (ASL) and assistive listening devices (ALDs); therefore, this study focused on their experiences in navigating undergraduate research environments with the guidance and support of their mentors and peers.

D/HH POPULATION

D/HH students face distinctive challenges while navigating academic and scientific communities, primarily due to various systemic barriers. A common misconception held by those unfamiliar with D/HH individuals is that the D/HH population is homogenous; in reality, it is remarkably diverse. The D/HH community is comprised of a wide range of communication strategies, cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, and disabilities. Factors such as an individual’s primary mode of communication, early intervention, identity development, auditory abilities, and exposure to the deaf community play crucial roles in shaping their intersectional identities. D/HH students may identify themselves as Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, deafdisabled, late-deafened, or even hearing impaired², with an understanding that their identities can evolve based on personal experiences.

Within the D/HH community, there is a diverse range of communication strategies and abilities to hear. Some individuals prefer to use ASL primarily and are bilingual in ASL and written English. Braun et al. provided helpful insights on mentoring D/HH students who are culturally deaf (2018) and those who prefer to sign (2017). Others may prefer to use spoken English and/or utilize ALDs to support their hearing. For those who use spoken English and use ALDs, a variety of factors, such as etiology of becoming deaf, onset of hearing loss, sudden or progressive loss, and age of cochlear implantation play a role in how well the individual will understand spoken language (Leigh et al., 2022). Some individuals fall in between, utilizing both ASL and spoken English. When discussing individuals who are D/HH and/or individuals with disabilities, it is crucial to acknowledge the various theoretical frameworks that exist concerning D/HH.

Three commonly employed frameworks to describe D/HH and other disability groups are the medical model, the social model, and the cultural model (Padden and Humphries, 1988; Lane, 1995; Ladd, 2003; Leigh, 2009). The medical model perceives hearing loss and disability as deficiencies and often places the burden on D/HH and disability groups to assimilate into mainstream society (Ladd, 2003). In contrast, the social model views disability as a distinction and recognizes that systemic barriers hinder individuals from functioning fully, attributing the burden to social institutions and processes that act as barriers (Oliver, 2013). The cultural model shares similarities with the social model but values disability as a form of human diversity, aiming to consider disability as a cultural group (Devlieger, 2005; Andrews, 2019). Both the social and cultural models identify ableist ideologies and social institutions as obstacles for D/HH people, such as not considering how to create an inclusive world for them.

For instance, certain D/HH individuals may have undergone a formative upbringing shaped by societal expectations dictating their assimilation. This conformity often entails acquiring proficiency in spoken language, lip reading, and utilizing listening devices, thereby may distance them from participation in the signing Deaf community. The trajectory of their journey markedly diverges from those who were raised within the Deaf community, immersed in sign language as an integral aspect of their cultural identity. These frameworks also significantly affect the experience of the D/HH in academic and scientific communities.

BARRIERS TO UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR D/HH STUDENTS

D/HH individuals face significant barriers such as ableism, when participating in undergraduate research, largely as a result of lack of communication accessibility and inclusion (Majocha et al., 2018). While accessibility and inclusion are interconnected concepts, it is essential to distinguish between them. In this context, communication accessibility refers to the methods through which D/HH individuals can access the information and resources necessary to engage in research, such as having appropriate accommodations in place (see Lynn et al., 2020 for examples). On the other hand, inclusion pertains to the sense of belonging within the research lab’s culture and being valued as an integral part of the academic community (Stelter et al., 2021).

As previously discussed, higher education institutions often perpetuate ableism leading to exclusion of D/HH students. This exclusion further exacerbates the challenges they encounter in pursuing and participating in research opportunities. One of the common challenges affecting access to information in research laboratories is the physical design (Bargerhuff et al., 2004; Carabajal et al., 2017). For instance, certain traditional science laboratories are relatively small, which can lead to overcrowding when accommodating a faculty member, a D/HH student, and an interpreter if requested, within a confined space. This situation may be problematic as D/HH individuals heavily rely on visual cues, such as lip-reading, watching captions, and/or following an interpreter for information access (Pelz et al., 2008). Beyond issues of accessibility, visual equipment obstructions and loud machinery may also interfere with the effectiveness of ALDs, hindering D/HH students’ ability to participate in information exchange such as learning the protocol of an experiment. It is critical to recognize that assuming D/HH individuals are not impacted by loud noises is a misconception.

Even if some D/HH students use ALDs or have partial hearing ability, access to information is not always guaranteed. Hearing aids and cochlear implants provide variable access to spoken language, but do not guarantee that D/HH students will have the ability to follow speech, or open-set speech recognition³ (Lazard et al., 2012; Holden et al., 2013). Side conversations and the ability to overhear discussions within the lab, often referred to as incidental learning (Hopper, 2011; Lynn et al., 2020), play a crucial role in the learning process. Consequently, without access, students may miss out on essential details such as experiment protocols, navigating workplace dynamics, laboratory safety, and other topics. This communication barrier further adds to the possibility of D/HH students not fully engaging and participating in research activities, creating exclusion.

D/HH students often have to request accommodations through a university’s disability office to obtain access to scientific discourse that spontaneously occurs in the research lab. Accommodations may include ASL-English interpreters, real-time captioning, note-taking support, and an array of ALDs (Marchut, 2017), depending on the requests. According to Braun et al. (2018) and Kinast (2021), university disability offices are usually more effective when funding is centralized, as opposed to the cost of accommodations being passed down to smaller departmental budgets. If the department is responsible for providing accommodations, administrators may share concerns with D/HH students regarding the cost of providing accommodations, which could result in D/HH students feeling unwelcome (Solomon et al., 2012, 2013). Nevertheless, centralized access services often prioritize the allocation of limited access resources to academic classrooms and faculty/staff and student-related meetings instead of research labs and other research venues, placing D/HH students at a disadvantage within research communities of practice. Given the many accessibility challenges identified in the literature, especially within research settings, it is not surprising that D/HH students often report feeling like they have to work harder in research settings compared with hearing peers (Marchut, 2017).

The persistence for D/HH students in undergraduate research appears to be influenced by phonocentric hegemony (Listman and Kurz, 2020), evident in institutional practices that tend to favor individuals with hearing privilege (Marchut, 2017; Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Majocha et al., 2018). Overcoming this challenge can be difficult, particularly when administrators and faculty, including mentors, lack an understanding of the experiences of D/HH individuals and are often unfamiliar with effective communication strategies to engage with a heterogeneous population of D/HH undergraduate students (Marchut, 2017; Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Lynn et al., 2020). Most mentors are White, male, and able-bodied (Grindstaff and Mascarenhas, 2019). Scientists and other professionals often have the assumption that all D/HH groups are homogenous when in reality, this population is as diverse as any other minority group. This lack of understanding regarding diversity and of how to work with D/HH people can hinder mentors’ ability to effectively work with students who are different from them, potentially leading to a lack of inclusion in the research laboratory (Batty and Reilly, 2022; Hernandez et al., 2023). Examples of exclusion that minority students have experienced include microaggressions, imposter syndrome, and increased stress experiences (Lee et al., 2020; Stelter et al., 2021). The literature also demonstrates that lacking cultural competency, especially when working with D/HH students, can negatively affect students’ studies and research experience, along with creating a sense of feeling unwelcomed (Haeger and Fresquez, 2016; Braun et al., 2017; Majocha et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2020).

CULTURALLY COMPETENT MENTORING AND INCLUSIVE PRACTICES

Despite such persistent challenges in undergraduate research, there is a growing trend toward training mentors in cultural competency to enable their effective support of underrepresented students, in turn empowering those students to succeed in their career pursuits or further studies (Kruse et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2017; Stelter et al., 2021). It should be noted that cultural competency often refers to racial or ethnic understanding. For our students to succeed, they need mentors who have competency in the many diverse aspects of Deaf culture (Ladd, 2003), including the unique experiences of D/HH students who speak English. The primary objective of such training is to help mentors build awareness, knowledge, and skills to effectively support minority students, acknowledging that some may face systemic disadvantages (Lewis et al., 2016, 2017; Hinton et al., 2020). To successfully do that, the mentors are encouraged to analyze their own beliefs for biases and ensure that they are not intentionally creating a hostile environment that may hinder a mentee’s growth.

Cultural competence entails not only understanding the needs of the mentee, but also actively creating an inclusive research environment that fosters the mentee’s success (Stuckey and Wright, 2019). This is important because professional socialization is the key to success in the scientific community (Hunter et al., 2007). The culture within a research laboratory can significantly impact students’ persistence in the field (Thoman et al., 2017), making it crucial for research mentors to establish equitable and inclusive research spaces. Some examples of fostering such an environment include providing comprehensive onboarding materials (Hernandez et al., 2023), promoting and fostering self-advocacy skills (Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018), offering necessary accommodations including communication related strategies (Gehret et al., 2017; Lynn et al., 2020), utilizing technology to enhance accessibility (Gehret et al., 2017), and conducting training sessions for peers on equity and inclusion (Ahmad et al., 2019).

Furthermore, there is a growing body of literature that proves the positive impact of having culturally competent mentors and inclusive research environments on the success of D/HH STEM students in undergraduate education and preparation for graduate school (Pagano et al., 2015; Braun et al., 2017; Gehret et al., 2017; Marchut, 2017; Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Majocha et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2020). In some exceptional cases, having a D/HH mentor who shares a cultural and/or disability identity with the student can offer significant benefits, because the D/HH mentor likely has already navigated the barriers within the academic and scientific communities. Such mentors can provide valuable knowledge and skill sets to D/HH undergraduate students, which refers to a concept known as “navigational capital” (Yosso, 2005).

Due to the scarcity of D/HH scientists, most D/HH students are mentored by hearing mentors who may possess cultural competency and engage in inclusive practices, but little is known about these cases. Braun et al. (2017) discovered in a study that having an environment where hearing mentors are culturally competent in mentoring D/HH STEM students was highly effective in improving the mentoring experience for D/HH students. Similar findings were identified in another study that suggested mentors’ awareness of ASL and Deaf culture improved the mentoring experience for D/HH students (Pagano et al., 2015). Gehret et al. (2017) conducted a survey of undergraduate students in the field of bioscience-related research and identified ways to create inclusive laboratory environments, such as engaging in flexible communication methods and practices in the laboratory (e.g., dry-erase boards and texting/messaging services) to accommodate nonsigners and assigning D/HH students to peers who were flexible, patient, and good communicators. Despite the increasing body of literature on D/HH students and their mentoring experiences, there is limited understanding regarding the barriers faced by D/HH undergraduate students who prefer to use spoken English and ALDs. Additionally, there is limited knowledge about the inclusive practices that are effective in supporting these students.

Providing an inclusive research environment requires an understanding of barriers to learning and participation, which led RIT-RISE to develop two initiatives. The first initiative was to develop faculty cultural competency training for mentors to effectively work with D/HH students and foster inclusive research environments. The second initiative (and the focus of this study) was to conduct a study capturing the experiences of D/HH students working in predominantly hearing research environments and identifying ways to create inclusive research environments. This included culturally competent research mentoring for a specific subpopulation: D/HH undergraduate students who communicate with their peers, instructors, and mentors using spoken English. This focus was incidental because the RISE program appealed mostly to D/HH participants who do not use sign language. Additionally, the focus on this subpopulation is not complicated by another layer, the use of a different language and interpreters, which deserves attention on top of being D/HH in a research learning environment. Findings from this study offer future strategies for improving the capacity of the RISE program to support scholars, promote university-level cultural change to better support D/HH students in undergraduate research, and contribute to the literature on what are inclusive practices to support D/HH undergraduate students.

METHODS

With approval from the RIT’s human subjects review board (#02040319) and informed consent from the participants, we investigated D/HH scholars’ experiences with communication and accessibility and the perspectives of their hearing mentors and laboratory peers using interviews and in-person observations through careful, methodical qualitative analysis. This was a phenomenological qualitative inquiry, which entails topics that have social and personal meaning and significance to the participants (Moustakas, 1994). This study was framed within a constructivist paradigm which posits that the participants’ subjective, not objective, realities shaped their subsequent experiences (Patton, 2015). This study utilized a hermeneutic approach, which considered the interpretation of individuals’ experiences central to understanding individuals and groups (Patton, 2005). Therefore, the focus was on the perceptions and experiences of D/HH scholars and their hearing mentors to understand their perspectives on how to create inclusive environments in research settings and how to identify the barriers they faced. Each individual has a unique set of experiences that constitutes their reality. Nevertheless, Patton (2015) argued that it is safe to assume that commonalities can be identified to present a meaningful, shared experience.

Our approach involved a mixture of ethnographical and phenomenological methods in which the research team conducted in-depth interviews with hearing faculty laboratory mentors, D/HH students, and hearing peers that work closely with the D/HH students in the lab, as well as performing observations across various laboratory settings to evaluate the quality of communication and information flow during diverse events. Examples include team meetings, incidental discussions, one-on-one problem solving, and group activities. A qualitative research approach was utilized to capture narratives through semistructured interviews (Creswell and Creswell, 2017) and observations from RISE mentors and scholars. Data collection began in the fall semester of 2017 and concluded in the spring semester of 2020.

SETTING

This study was conducted at RIT. The RIT-RISE program has a primary goal of enhancing D/HH scholars’ research skills through intensive paid research experiences in hearing mentors’ labs and other research environments and preparing them to successfully enter doctoral programs in the biomedical sciences after graduation. The settings were therefore varied in nature and consisted of RIT and off-site research laboratories, individual offices, large meeting rooms and conferences off campus (including exhibit halls). Each setting held different acoustical properties and potential communication barriers for the D/HH scholars and hearing mentors.

PARTICIPANTS

Six scholars participated in the study (see Table 1). According to the demographic questionnaire and the CASS, scholars, between the ages of 20 and 25 years, entered the program with varied skills in ASL and levels of exposure to the Deaf community, but all had basic skills in ASL and had interacted within the Deaf community at the time of data collection. All scholars reported using ALDs such as hearing aids and cochlear implants. Most did not rely on ASL and reported that it was not important for their peers to know basic signs or to have interpreters in the lab. All reported that they felt exhausted from struggling to follow and understand conversations and presentations, but that they could effectively advocate for themselves and their communication needs and could successfully use access services and make requests. The scholars also reported that having a hearing mentor who was culturally competent was somewhat important and that feeling connected to their hearing peers and feeling welcome in the laboratory was somewhat important.

Eight hearing mentors also participated in this study (Table 2).

Three hearing peers in the laboratory participated in this study (Table 3).

Due to the size of the program, participants’ gender, race, ethnicity, and number of years of experience will not be disclosed. Participants vary in gender, race, and ethnicity.

Procedures

Interviews.

The Research Environment Communication Access Assessment (RECAA) team and the coprincipal investigator, Dr. Vincent Samar of the RIT-RISE program, developed the interview protocols. The first set of interviews were conducted in fall 2017 to capture scholars’ and mentors’ backgrounds. In the interviews with the scholars, their communication and education backgrounds starting from childhood through college were identified with the goal of understanding scholars’ communication needs to be successful in the program (see Appendix K for a list of open-ended questions). We also interviewed mentors, who were all hearing, to gauge their experience with mentoring and their familiarity with working with D/HH students (see Appendix C for a list of open-ended questions). Interviewing both participant groups also allowed the RECAA team to build relationships with participants that helped them feel more comfortable with us observing their research activities.

Follow-up interviews were conducted at different times throughout the academic year, typically at the end of the semesters. The questions focused on effective communication practices in the participants’ research environments and the communication challenges they faced (see Appendix E and Appendix F for follow-up questions). All interviews were conducted face-to-face with ASL-English interpreters present. Researchers J.L. and K.K. are Deaf and use ASL primarily, while all participants used spoken English during the interviews. The interviews were either audio- or video-recorded, with an average duration of 30 to 60 min. The interviews were later transcribed.

The team also interviewed some of the scholars’ hearing peers with whom they had worked previously (see Appendix G for a list of questions). ASL-English interpreters were once again present to facilitate the communication between the Deaf researchers and the non-signing hearing peers. The goal of these interviews was to capture hearing laboratory peers’ experiences in working with D/HH scholars and to elicit strategies they used to effectively communicate with RIT-RISE scholars.

Research Environment Observations .

After the initial one-on-one interviews, the team began to observe research activities with the goal of capturing the essence of the mentoring relationship and how the mentor, scholars, and hearing peers communicated in a variety of research contexts, including laboratory meetings, laboratory safety meetings, one-on-one meetings, conferences, oral presentations, laboratory experiments, and poster sessions (see Appendix D). During the observations, ASL-English interpreters were present for the Deaf researchers. The observations occurred at different times throughout fall, spring, and summer semesters from 2017 to 2020. The number and duration of observations varied among scholars and mentors due to scheduling constraints and the nature of the activities.

Focus Groups.

In the preliminary data analysis, we discovered that our data lacked saturation, prompting us to pursue further insights from our participants. To gather additional information, we organized two separate focus groups, one with the six active mentors (see Appendix I for the list of questions) and an additional one with three scholars (see Appendix H for the list of questions) to delve deeper into their mentoring experiences in research environments. The focus groups were conducted via the Zoom videoconferencing platform and the discussions were recorded and transcribed in English for data analysis. Both focus groups were facilitated by one of the coauthors of this paper, A.P., who is hearing and used spoken English with both groups. The first three authors of this paper J.L., K.K, and A.P were actively involved in class observations, laboratory meetings, one-on-one meetings with scholars, mentors, and peers regularly each semester.

Demographic Questionnaire.

All participating scholars and mentors were asked to take a demographic questionnaire. The list of questions was customized based on which type of participant was taking the survey (see Appendix J). In the past, the RECAA team collected RIT-RISE scholars’ communication backgrounds through a different survey, the Scholar’s Communication Background questionnaire (see Appendix A), but the team decided to revise the survey in 2019 and merge some information targeted at mentors and hearing peers that work in the lab into one survey; see Appendix J.

Scholar’s Communication Assessment Self-Rating Scales (CASS).

To gain a better sense of how the scholars rated their communication skills and abilities in different areas, a Scholar’s Communication Background questionnaire was initially developed (see Appendix A) that included multiple choice questions about their preferred communication modes, sign language background, family’s hearing status, and preferred communication tools to optimize their communication experience in the laboratory. In addition, we asked them to express their opinions about the importance of an accessible lab, and to rate their communication skills. In 2019, the team redesigned the questionnaire to include items that used a five-point self-rating scale to assess the scholars’ frequency of use of various communication modes in different research environments. This instrument, Communication Access Self-Rating Scales (CASS), allowed tracking of changes in the scholars’ self-ratings and opinions over time. The CASS also added new rating statements such as, “You can effectively use an interpreter to communicate in your current laboratory or other research settings,” and “When the other members of your current laboratory or research setting talk with each other, they include you.” (See Appendix B for list of items). For the purpose of this study, the data from this instrument was used to describe the participants’ communication and advocacy skills.

Data Analysis

The study utilized Miles and Huberman’s (1994) analysis model, which encompasses three concurrent activities: 1) data reduction, 2) data display, and 3) conclusion drawing/verification. The dataset consisted of transcriptions from individual interviews, focus groups, and field notes derived from observations across various research settings, employing triangulation methods (Salmon, 2015). To ensure confidentiality, all participant names were substituted with pseudonyms, and the data were securely archived in Google Drive.

Following Saldaña’s recommendation (2014), Dedoose, a web-based application that supports online qualitative and mixed methods research analysis, was used to facilitate remote collaboration among team members and enabled the generation of visually appealing data displays. The analysis began with data reduction, involving the summarization of field notes and the condensation of data volume to address our research question effectively. Subsequently, we imported the data into Dedoose and categorized them based on their type, such as one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and laboratory observations. We applied a priori codes derived from relevant literature on mentoring the D/HH population, STEM undergraduate research, accessibility, and inclusive practices with the D/HH population. Examples of these codes included self-advocacy, auditory barriers, laboratory procedures, and communication strategies.

During the data display process, new codes emerged without constraints from preconceived categories, leading to the identification of additional codes known as open coding. These open coding stage codes captured instances of communication strategies, inclusive practices, and self-advocacy shared by the participants.

As the Dedoose-generated data displays became available, we conducted axial coding to categorize codes and define the main themes manifested in the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). To ensure the trustworthiness of the data analysis, we decided to conduct interrater reliability (IRR) by involving an independent coder who coded 20% of the data (Krippendorff, 2003). Initially, the interrater agreement was approximately 70% based on Cohen’s Kappa’s statistical test to demonstrate a level of agreement, but through iterative discussions, the coders refined their codes collaboratively, resulting in an agreement percentage of 92%, surpassing the typical IRR rating of 80%. The combination of coding and categorization strategies across all forms of data culminated in the identification of overarching study themes.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified in the data regarding the barriers that D/HH scholars commonly face working in research laboratories with their mentors. Study themes demonstrated both sides of the working relationship: first, D/HH scholars’ responses to barriers and how they overcome barriers by utilizing self-advocacy skills, second, what made an inclusive and accessible laboratory environment for D/HH scholars, and finally, strategies that mitigate communication barriers. Hearing mentors and peers also affirmed that there were barriers in the lab, but described how they could act as agents of change to improve the culture of their research labs to become more inclusive and accessible (see Table 4 for a summary of main themes and sub themes).

Theme 1: Communication and Environmental Barriers in Research Laboratories

Participating D/HH scholars, hearing mentors, and laboratory peers reported that there were communication and environmental barriers in laboratories that could hinder D/HH scholars’ access to spoken science discourse. Prime examples of barriers included auditory barriers, auditory-dominant research procedures, and behaviors that promote miscommunication between D/HH scholars and their hearing mentors and laboratory peers.

Auditory Barriers.

According to all the participants, there are two general auditory barriers in laboratory settings: environmental noises from lab-related machines and equipment and poor acoustics. For example, Isaac, a D/HH scholar, expressed frustration at hearing noises from the vacuum pump, fan, and sonicator, and described how those environmental noises hindered his ability to decipher what his hearing mentors or laboratory peers were saying. Isaac emphasized that environmental noises were common in traditional labs. His experience resonated with Elise, another D/HH scholar who had a few issues when she was sitting next to the fume hood due to its noise. She said, “The only time it, um, bothers me, is the fume hood because it’s really loud when you’re sitting next to it.” Many participating hearing mentors and laboratory peers recognized this challenge of distracting environmental noises and attempted to prevent the problem by turning off equipment or minimizing the noise. Hearing mentor Olivia, for example, mentioned that she sometimes moved to her office for optimum communication with her D/HH scholar.

Poor acoustics presented another type of communication barrier in laboratory environments as Amelia, Cole’s hearing mentor, described: “The acoustics were not good enough in my office or in a conference room. So it took some figuring out of what resources … are available to get the setup as good as possible.” Another acoustic barrier related to using remote captioning services, in which an off-site captioner uses a single microphone to hear what is being said. Archie, a D/HH scholar, noted that large rooms could be challenging because the microphone may not pick up everyone’s comments, causing gaps in access.

Auditory-Dominant Research Procedures.

Some lab-related procedures require the ability to hear well. For example, in one situation, D/HH scholar Archie was asked to conduct a psychology-related experiment where some of the testing required a participant to repeat what they heard. Archie’s hearing mentor, Phoebe, said, “… we do have one component of our assessment battery … where the person has to name words as quickly as possible – [which] is not really accommodating to deaf people.” Archie and Phoebe were forced to figure out how to ensure Archie could understand what the participants were saying. Archie’s strategy was to repeat what the participant said to confirm comprehension.

Miscommunications.

Another common communication barrier was related to often unconscious behaviors that promote miscommunication of hearing mentors and laboratory peers with D/HH scholars, which can lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, hearing mentor Olivia noticed that some of the D/HH students missed out on her information because she was speaking too quickly for them: “… I’m talking so fast, that … they’re only getting like a third or fourth or fifth of what I’m saying.” This can be a problem because sometimes D/HH students may think they understood what was said by the mentors and laboratory peers, when in fact the opposite is true. Similarly, hearing mentors may incorrectly assume that D/HH scholars are following them confidently. This was shared by another hearing mentor, Herman, when he recalled his experience working with D/HH scholars and experiencing miscommunication about a laboratory procedure: “That happened like 10 times with Isaac and even with Dean, I’m assuming they heard too much. [Isaac is] pretty good, but they get overconfident and I get like believing that they actually heard me …”

Theme Two: Creating Accessible and Inclusive Laboratory Environments

The participants shared what would create an inclusive laboratory environment for D/HH students. Examples included becoming mindful of positioning in the laboratory, using visuals such as whiteboards to communicate, monitoring turn-taking in meetings, and modeling how to use lab-related equipment. Inclusive laboratory environments also result from having a principal investigator (PI) comfortable working with D/HH students. As D/HH scholar Lily described, “You need to find an inclusive lab with a PI that is willing to work with you. This will be the first step in a working relationship.”

Positioning.

The position and proximity of the D/HH scholar to the hearing mentor and other laboratory members contributes to improving accessibility and avoiding potential visual or auditory distractions. For example, Charlotte, a hearing laboratory peer, explained how she did not initially realize that Lily’s cochlear implant was on her right ear:

A similar experience was shared by a hearing laboratory peer, Maeve, who worked closely with D/HH scholar Archie: “If there is ever a problem, he’s very quick to say, like, ‘Hey my cochlear implant’s not working,’ or ‘I’d prefer you talk to me on this side,’ and that’s been really helpful.”

Another important strategy to improve access in the laboratory is being mindful of sightlines. Archie and Elise, two D/HH scholars, shared that they liked having a monitor at the front of the classroom and having the tables arranged in a square so they could see everyone speaking; Archie’s hearing mentor, Phoebe, also mentioned meeting at a circular table to have effective communication. Elise added that she advocated for preferential seating arrangements and suggested that mentors and teachers should be sensitive to seating arrangements to ensure clear communication. Lily also noted that it is always best to sit across from the interpreters to see them clearly. She added that she had one preferred seat that she occupies for every class and laboratory meeting.

Using Visuals.

Utilizing visuals like whiteboards in the laboratory settings is another way to communicate, especially when access services are not readily available. Charlotte, a hearing peer mentor, worked with Lily for one summer and found it beneficial to meet in a conference room that had a whiteboard:

Lily echoed Charlotte’s sentiments about the whiteboard. Lily’s mentor Deborah also mentioned using a whiteboard during their one-on-one meetings. Using a whiteboard is not only helpful for communication, but also notetaking. Herman, another hearing mentor, noticed that Isaac regularly took pictures with his smart phone of his visual aid materials, including the “to-do” list on the board.

Moderating Meetings.

Some D/HH scholars expressed a strong preference to work in smaller labs with few laboratory members so they could follow conversations with ease. D/HH scholar Archie described:

Archie emphasized that when working with larger groups, it is crucial to set the tone for effective communication and appropriate turn-taking. Archie’s hearing mentor Marcus noticed that Archie struggled to follow laboratory meetings because it included many hearing laboratory members and rapid turn-taking, “I think he has, obviously, more trouble in the meeting ‘cause the meetings are crazy.” Marcus felt that Archie could follow more easily in one-on-one meetings.

Lily’s hearing mentor Deborah also noticed that speaking one at a time was critical to running effective laboratory meetings and that their meetings improved over time. Deborah recalled that she had to remind laboratory members to moderate turn-taking. Lily’s hearing peer Charlotte also noticed how clear turn-taking helped Lily carry conversations with ease, saying, “… I think overall, especially when one person is presenting, that we’re all taking care to take turns, and I think that seems to help Lily.”

Demonstrating and Modeling.

Both mentors and scholars shared that seeing the process of doing something in the laboratory or using visual cues was beneficial for D/HH scholars. Jose, Elise’s hearing mentor, explained how he used visual gesturing while giving instructions:

Lily’s hearing peer mentor, Charlotte shared how she discussed the experiment first with her undergraduate students: “Once you start an experiment, it’s hard to kind of be telling somebody, like all the steps as you’re doing it; it’s easier, usually, to preview it with them so they have an idea of the workflow.”

Another example of demonstration was when Lily met with her mentor, Deborah, for laboratory safety orientation, Deborah carefully went through the laboratory binder and pointed at the written reference materials as she explained them, which seemed to help Lily differentiate between topics.

Theme Three: Communication Strategies

Asking for Clarification or Repeating Information.

Both the scholars and mentors recognized the importance of asking for clarification as a strategy for successful communication. However, as mentioned in the section above on miscommunication, sometimes the scholars did not realize that they missed information or were reluctant to ask for clarification. A hearing mentor, Phoebe, described how she would repeat and clarify information for Archie:

Ian, a hearing mentor who also worked with Archie, noted:

Charlotte, Lily’s hearing peer mentor, noted:

Not only did the scholars sometimes miss information, but also sometimes they were misunderstood because of what is often referred to as a “deaf accent”, a distinctive speech that indicates the deaf person has learned speech without hearing feedback. Archie described how he asked one of the hearing laboratory participants to define “panacea” and the hearing participant didn’t catch what he said, so he had to repeat himself.

Communicating via Written English.

In a focus group with mentors, Jose, a hearing mentor, reflected on how he communicated with one of his D/HH students in his laboratory by writing back and forth. Marcus, another hearing mentor, added that he would text his D/HH scholar to keep their line of communication open. Olivia, another hearing mentor, also described how she wrote things down or used automatic speech recognition software to effectively communicate with her D/HH students:

Olivia, a hearing mentor, shared how she communicated via email: “All lab meeting notes and group plans are communicated through email, so nothing is left out.” Cole, a D/HH scholar, and their hearing mentor Amelia, also found it helpful to have Cole take notes at their meetings so that Amelia could review the notes and ensure nothing was missing or misunderstood. Amelia said, “It’s a good way to kind of check in and make sure that, like, we talked about this, and is that reflected in their notes about the meeting.”

Charlotte, a hearing peer mentor, said she used platforms to communicate with D/HH scholars such as text and WhatsApp, and that they were very effective for communication.

Being Mindful of ALDs.

Some D/HH scholars talked about the benefit of ALDs to help ease their communication experience in the lab. Mentor Jose noted that his D/HH scholar

Marcus noticed that a tool Archie brought in for group meetings was helpful: “Archie brought these little devices [Roger Table Mics] that he put across the classroom and it helped him.” Archie liked using the FM system for classes and lectures, but not for group conversations: “I only use it when I really need to, for subjects like math, which are really challenging to me, I’ll definitely use the FM for something like that, so I don’t miss any details whatsoever.” He explains that using FM system for group conversation is hard for him to follow especially that conversations overlap quickly.

Elise, another D/HH scholar, reflected on her experience in high school and how participating in large groups was hard for her, especially when passing around the FM system to her peers to hear them, which slowed the group discussion down. She expressed that using the FM system was easy when working one-on-one with her laboratory partner.

Choice of Access Services to Match Situational Need.

While ASL interpreting is commonly recognized as an accessible service, the majority of D/HH participating in the program reported not being fluent in ASL. As a result, they did not primarily rely on interpreters for communication unless the situation specifically called for it. Several D/HH scholars stressed that they preferred different accommodations in different settings and there was no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Cole, a D/HH scholar, shared:

Lily, another D/HH scholar, also shared that she didn’t typically use any access services in her “home” laboratory with her hearing mentor, Olivia, because she was familiar with her peers and the laboratory setting, but she did work with interpreters with her other hearing mentor, Deborah, because they helped her keep up with fast-paced meetings and supplemented her understanding. Isaac, another D/HH scholar, shared that although he wasn’t fluent in ASL, he sometimes felt that interpreters were more helpful than captioning because they could keep up with the pace of conversation while the captions often lagged.

Both Archie and Elise noted that they typically used captioning in classes and large group meetings, but not in smaller meetings. Archie also noted that captioning could benefit everyone, not only D/HH people:

The two scholars also shared that they had been in settings with interpreters but found captioning to be more helpful given their limited fluency in ASL.

Theme Four: Self-Advocating for Effective Communication

The participants emphasized ways to improve the research laboratory communication experience. In some instances, hearing mentors and laboratory peers advocated for D/HH scholars’ communication access needs to ensure they had equitable access to scientific discourse. The scholars in this study shared numerous examples of how they advocated for themselves, both in the moment and proactively by communicating about what was not working and what would optimize their communication experience.

The scholars shared that they often had to advocate for their communication needs throughout their lives, including with their families. Advocating for themselves becomes part of their nature. Elise, described her experience advocating for herself when her hearing mentor was not looking directly at her:

Herman, a hearing mentor, reported that his D/HH scholar, Isaac, demonstrated an ability to advocate for his needs by telling Herman that the noise from the laboratory equipment was interfering with his ability to do work or communicate in the lab. Generally, as Elise, a D/HH scholar, emphasized, D/HH students are sometimes not comfortable advocating for themselves and that hearing mentors need to acknowledge this and take a more proactive approach. For example, Marcus, Archie’s hearing mentor, noted:

Archie’s self-reflection reinforced the importance of D/HH students’ advocating for themselves particularly when following the experiment protocol:

Cole, a D/HH scholar, agreed with Elise and Archie: “It’s just important to be able, like, to advocate for yourself, like, to speak up whenever you’re having trouble understanding something.” Cole further explained that their mentor was supportive in advocating for their needs. “I know [Amelia’s] been a good advocate and wants to work to make sure that I have all the access services that I need…For example, like, conference calls.”

Two hearing laboratory peers, Maeve and Charlotte, described their D/HH peers as being very open about their communication preference and needs. For instance, as mentioned earlier, Archie self-advocated when facing challenges due to issues with his cochlear implant. He took the initiative to ask Maeve to move closer to him. Charlotte felt similarly about working with scholar Lily, saying,

DISCUSSION

The findings from this study on the experience of D/HH students in undergraduate research environments align with prior research underscoring the significance of inclusivity within the laboratory (Pagano et al., 2015; Braun et al., 2017; Gehret et al., 2017; Marchut, 2017; Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Majocha et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2020). This inclusivity encompasses factors like facilitating communication access and ensuring mentors possess cultural competence in collaborating with D/HH students (Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Majocha et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2020). This qualitative study, however, delved into specific subpopulations D/HH who utilized spoken English and ALDs while participating in undergraduate research activities. By focusing on this subgroup, the study aimed to deepen our understanding of how to cultivate research environments that promote inclusion. Insights were gathered from the participants, allowing for more nuanced perspectives on fostering inclusion and identifying researchers’ observations of the laboratory culture. The study participants all recognized the value of inclusion and access, highlighting the importance of ongoing training, constructive feedback, and consistent communication among all members of the lab. These are crucial for optimizing communication access and dismantling barriers within laboratory settings. Additionally, fostering advocacy skills for D/HH students was identified as pivotal for surmounting these barriers.

Consistent throughout all themes were a shared experience of barriers that D/HH students face in undergraduate research and the importance of having mentors and peers attuned to the needs of D/HH individuals and actively integrating them into the labs culture fabric. The culture of inclusive laboratories has the potential to create an environment that not only supports, but also nurtures, the aspirations of D/HH students to pursue careers as scientists. These findings align with previous studies on the impact of laboratory culture upon D/HH students’ aspirations for careers in science (Pagano et al., 2015; Braun et al., 2017; Gehret et al., 2017; Marchut, 2017; Listman and Dingus-Eason, 2018; Majocha et al., 2018; Lynn et al., 2020). Mentors being aware of D/HH students’ challenges in navigating research environments allows them to tailor their approaches and support the students paving their ways into the scientific communities.

Implications for Mentors and Peers

The findings of this study provide a detailed view on how to create inclusive laboratory environments for D/HH undergraduate students, particularly those who use spoken English and ALDs. The foundation to creating an inclusive laboratory environment is ensuring the principal investigator or mentor is trained in cultural competency and knows how to work with heterogenous groups of D/HH students. Inclusive practices include taking professional development workshops about the lived experience of deaf/hard of hearing community, Deaf culture, ASL, communication strategies, and accommodations. Not every university disability services office carries expertise about these topics; however, it is important to contact them and request resources.

Numerous educational online resources are available to assist mentors and peers in collaborating with D/HH students within academic and scientific environments. These resources are tailored to enhance learning accessibility for D/HH students and promote integration into the workforce. Notable resources include the National Deaf Center (NDC) and DeafTEC both offering comprehensive guidance (See Appendix L for website links). In addition, a wealth of evidence-based recommendations and considerations are available that encompass a broad understanding of the D/HH population and navigation through academic and scientific communities, as well as strategies for fostering inclusivity and accessibility. Noteworthy sources include work by Lynn et al. (2020) and Braun et al. (2018), along with YouTube videos of D/HH scientists created by the RIT Bridges to the Doctorate Program (see Appendix L for links).

Equipped with a foundation of cultural awareness through cultural competency training, laboratories can then evolve to become more inclusive, advocating for diversity and equity. Concrete actions can be taken, such as implementing diversity and inclusion training, providing a comprehensive onboarding laboratory manual, and arranging individual meetings to ascertain the unique needs of each student. Mentors can also address space of the laboratory considerations such as engaging in discussions on optimal positioning to eliminate auditory and visual barriers such as seating arrangements, using appropriate visual aids like whiteboards, and technological solutions like speech-to-text recognitions.

The effectiveness of facilitating laboratory meetings and laboratory social events holds a critical role in fostering inclusion because communication barriers are typically more prevalent in those situations. It may be beneficial to confer with the D/HH student to develop communication strategies particularly for laboratory meetings. This could involve designating a moderator to regulate turn-taking, enabling seamless participation. Mentors are also encouraged to model turn-taking moderations for others’ benefit. Furthermore, incorporating demonstrations and modeling techniques become instrumental in enhancing visual comprehension for D/HH participants, especially when using intricate instruments or experiments.

Finally, a primary recommendation is to take the initiative in engaging with D/HH students and inquire about their communication needs and convey a genuine willingness to learn, underscored by a dedication to facilitating their integration into scientific communities that might not inherently include them. Moreover, mentors are encouraged to proactively acquaint themselves with their university disability office services, attend diversity training workshops, and learn from D/HH scientists particularly on social media.

Limitations and Recommendation for Future Studies

This study has several limitations and recommendations for future exploration. The study’s primary intention was to encompass a diverse range of D/HH individuals, including those who used sign language, spoken English with ALDs, and/or both. However, the sample predominantly consisted of individuals who preferred spoken English and ALDs. Future studies should delve into the complexities of intersectional identities such as the impact of race and gender, as well as the perspectives of those who use ASL only. These investigations could provide greater understanding of how inclusive laboratories are perceived and the surrounding obstacles.

Additionally, the mentors in this study might be influenced by their familiarity with working with D/HH scholars at RIT. There is a need for further exploration of mentors who possesses limited background knowledge and skills in collaborating with D/HH individuals. Future studies could delve in how cultural competency training has impacted mentors’ ability to effectively collaborate with English speaking D/HH students and their ability to transform their laboratory culture into inclusive environments. Incorporating quantitative methodologies such as employing the CASS tool with a significantly larger sample population could also illuminate the effects of mentoring programs on perceptions and the experiences of D/HH individuals and examine for validity and reliability of the instrument.

CONCLUSION

The findings revealed the importance of hearing mentors and laboratory peers recognizing and acknowledging the experiences of D/HH scholars navigating undergraduate research environments and ways to create inclusive laboratory environments. This includes being trained on cultural competency and becoming more aware of how to work with D/HH students. As mentors prepare the next generation of scientists, it is critical that they remove barriers and become more inclusive. Becoming more mindful of possible resources and having open minds and hearts to becoming even more inclusive is only the beginning of a successful mentee–mentor relationship.

FOOTNOTES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES