Deaf or HearingAuthor(s): Brittany N. Beckner and Donald W.

Helme
Source: American Annals of the Deaf , Vol. 163, No. 3 (Summer 2018), pp. 394-412
Published by: Gallaudet University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26484304

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26484304?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Gallaudet University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Annals of the Deaf

This content downloaded from

191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beckner, B. N., & Helme, D. W. (2018). Deaf or hearing: A hard of hearing individual’s navigation between
two worlds. American Annals of the Deaf, 163(3), 394–412.

Deaf or Hearing: A Hard of Hearing Individual’s

Navigation Between Two Worlds
Brittany N. Beckner and Donald W. Helme

Identity construction and how an individual chooses to navigate or display his or her identity play an
important role in how that person communicates and interacts with others. One group for whom
identity construction and navigation is a difficult process is the hard of hearing population. In the
present study, Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht, 1993) and interactive interviews were used
to gain insight into four layers of identity—personal, relational, enacted, and communal—in the
hard of hearing individual. The authors discuss the themes within each identity layer and the gaps
that are present between layers, as well as the implications of the identified layers and gaps.

Keywords: invisible disability, hearing loss, identity, Communication Theory of Identity

How an individual self-­identifies or
manages and constructs his or her personal
social identity influences many aspects of
that person’s life. According to Jung (2007),
it is claimed in the current literature “that
identity is formed, maintained, and modi-
fied in communication” (p. 3). Jung and
Hecht (2004) examined identity as consti-
tuted by self-­reflection on discourse and
interaction and the idea of identity as being
cocreated in relationships. They concluded
that “people’s identities are asserted,
defined, and/or changed in mutual com-
munication activities” (p. 266). Thus, indi-
vidual identity is constructed and
maintained through one’s communication
and relationships with others.
One such area of identity management
that needs attention is that of hard of hear-
ing individuals who must attempt to navi-
gate between two worlds—the Deaf world
and the hearing world. This navigation is
exemplified by the classification of individ-
uals as either Deaf or deaf (Skelton & Val-
entine, 2003), a distinction based on
whether the hearing loss is being discussed
in a cultural or biological context. If the
community that embraces the cultural val-
ues of being Deaf or an individual within
that community is being discussed (even if
he or she has only a mild hearing loss), the
individual or community is Deaf. However,
if the biological condition of having a hear-
ing loss is being discussed, or if an individ-
ual does not embrace Deaf cultural values,
then the term deaf is used, even if the hear-
ing loss is profound. The establishment of
Deafness versus deafness, then, has more to
do with cultural ideals than with the degree
of one’s hearing loss (Skelton & Valentine,
2003).
Deaf culture often excludes and even
stigmatizes people with hearing loss who
are not native users of American Sign Lan-
guage (ASL), those who communicate
orally, and those with cochlear implants.

Beckner is an assistant professor of communication, Department of Communication, University of Dayton,

Dayton, OH. Helme is an associate professor of communication, Department of Communication, Univer-
sity of Kentucky, Lexington.

394

This content downloaded from

191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 394 7/30/18 12:16 PM

Such individuals often are not considered
to be “pure” deaf, not having immersed
themselves fully in Deaf culture (Davis,
2007). In discussing this separation
between hard of hearing individuals and
Deaf individuals, Hole (2007) wrote that in
ASL “there is a sign—think-­hearing—
that is used, most often in a derogatory way,
to indicate or describe a deaf person who is
not culturally Deaf, but rather, who identi-
fies as culturally hearing” (p. 266). Thus,
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing
may feel unable to connect with, or even
feel unwelcomed by, individuals in the
Deaf community (Bat-­Chava, 2000; Skelton
& Valentine, 2003).
In addition to not completely fitting into
the Deaf community, individuals who are
hard of hearing or deaf also face stigmati-
zation in the hearing world because hear-
ing loss is perceived to be a disability.
Because most people experience the world
as hearing individuals, hearing is assumed
to be “normal”; this mindset stigmatizes
those with a hearing loss who do not have
“normal” hearing. This thought process
promotes the “infirmity model” or “medi-
cal model,” under which deafness is viewed
as an affliction or impairment that needs to
be “fixed” or “cured” (Hole, 2007). Further-
more, as 95% of children who are deaf or
hard of hearing have hearing parents
(Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004), there is often
an identity divide even within families,
which further complicates identity con-
struction within this population (Grosjean,
2010). Generally, our cultural identity is
passed on “overwhelmingly by parents . . .
but this high correlation (not absolute, but
high) between parental cultural identity
and the cultural identity of children is
manifestly untrue in regard to Deaf cul-
ture” (Peters, 2000, p. 264). In the naviga-
tion between the Deaf and hearing worlds,
individuals who are hard of hearing or deaf
may feel excluded or unable to completely
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 395
Navigating Between Two Worlds  395
assimilate into either community, not sure
of where they fit in best (Bat-­Chava, 2000;
Skelton & Valentine, 2003). This popula-
tion’s unique lack of built-­in social group
or cultural identity intensifies the need to
gain a deeper understanding of identity
construction for hard of hearing
individuals.
Something further to consider when
examining the identity construction of
hard of hearing individuals is the fact that
hearing loss is an invisible disability. An
invisible disability is one that is not notice-
able to an observer under normal circum-
stances unless the disabled individual or
another source discloses it (Matthews &
Harrington, 2000). The problems associ-
ated with invisible disabilities further com-
plicate the identity construction process as
individuals attempt to navigate between
disclosing their loss (identifying as a hard
of hearing individual) and keeping the dis-
ability to themselves (and consequently
perhaps not getting the assistance they
need). Thus, hard of hearing and deaf
individuals are not only faced with the
issue of how they identify within the Deaf
and hearing worlds, but how they present
that identity and whether or not they
should disclose it (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts,
2005; Najarian, 2008).
The area of identity construction
deserves attention because, as Kam and
Hecht (2009) have found, identity con-
struction can predict communication out-
comes, influence a person’s general
well-­being, and affect interpersonal rela-
tionships. Additionally, identity gaps are
linked to a number of negative outcomes
such as depression, misunderstanding, and
communication dissatisfaction. Further-
more, a hard of hearing individual’s iden-
tity construction could affect his or her
self-­esteem (Jung, 2007; Nikolaraizi &
Makri, 2004), communication messages,
satisfaction with relationships (Jung, 2007;
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 396  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
Jung & Hecht, 2004; Kam & Hecht, 2009),
education (Grosjean, 2010; Najarian, 2008;
Reagan, 2002; Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung,
2008), and general access to accommoda-
tions related to hearing loss (Najarian,
2008). Given these serious effects, under-
standing how hard of hearing individuals
construct their identity is important.
Further justification for consideration of
hard of hearing individuals’ identity con-
struction can be found in the growing
prevalence of disability, which now affects
one fifth of the American population
(Courtney-­Long et al., 2015; Matthews &
Harrington, 2000). It has been estimated
that of those who have disabilities, 40%
have invisible disabilities, such as hearing
loss that can be hidden, and not immedi-
ately noticed by an observer except
through the disclosure process (Matthews
& Harrington, 2000). However, due to the
potential stigma associated with hearing
loss, disclosure is often a difficult process
(Nikolaraizi & Makri, 2004). Goffman
(1959) explains that stigma is the negative
evaluation of an individual’s differences or
attributes that categorizes the individual as
dangerous, weak, or less than normal.
Stigma can result in devaluation, labeling
as “disabled” or “handicapped,” negative
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
(Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffman,
1959). Such characterization can strain
relationships, discredit the stigmatized
individual, create the risk of rejection, and
diminish self-­esteem (Charmaz, 1991),
potentially making the individual with a
disability less likely to ask for accommoda-
tions or make social support connections
(McCroskey, Richmond, Daly, & Falcione,
1977). Because of the growing prevalence
of disabilities, the negative effects of stig-
matization, and the importance of identity
construction, it is vital that an effort be
made to give voice to the hard of hearing
population in order to understand how its
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 396
members navigate an identity that seems to
lack a community of support.
Communication Theory
of Identity
The Communication Theory of Identity
(CTI) was introduced as a way of explain-
ing how individuals create, enact, and
communicate identity through their inter-
personal and intergroup interactions
(Hecht, 1993). “The theory is concerned
with how individuals and communities
define their identities as well as how those
identities are nested in relationships and
expressed through communication” (Hecht
et al., 2005, p. 31). The main idea of CTI is
that identity is constructed, maintained,
and challenged in one’s everyday interac-
tions and communication (Drummond &
Orbe, 2008). According to Hecht (1993)
and Drummond and Orbe (2008), CTI
focuses on four interpenetrating frames of
reference: personal, relational, enacted, and
communal.
The first frame of identity as posited by
CTI is the personal layer. This layer of iden-
tity examines identity from the frame of
how one sees, defines, and feels about one-
self (Hecht, 1993; Jung & Hecht, 2004).
This level of identity is based on self-­
analysis or self-­concept and examines how
one defines oneself in general as well as in
specific circumstances (Hecht, 1993). In
the case of the population being examined
in the present study, do hard of hearing
individuals self-­define as deaf, Deaf, or
hard of hearing, and how does they feel
about that identity?
The second layer of identity is the rela-
tional layer, or how identity is formed
through relationships and social interactions
(Hecht, 1993). This layer focuses on identity
as shaped by how others see one as one’s
identity is constructed through and influ-
enced by one’s relationships with others
7/30/18 12:16 PM

(Urban & Orbe, 2010). Social interaction
shapes individuals and how they define
themselves. Further, people often define
themselves on the basis of their relation-
ships with others (e.g., as a mother, as a
spouse); those relationships even take on
dyadic identities of their own (Hecht, 1993;
Jung & Hecht, 2004). Thus, when hard of
hearing individuals are under consider-
ation, how do their relationships and inter-
actions with others influence how they
define themselves (i.e., as Deaf, deaf, hard
of hearing, disabled, etc.).
How individuals define themselves (per-
sonal layer) and the relationships that
shape and influence them (relational layer)
are manifested in the third layer of identity,
the enacted layer (Hecht, 1993). The
enacted layer of identity is the identity a
person performs or expresses through
communicative behavior (Jung & Hecht,
2004). This layer is essentially the “front-­
stage self ” (Goffman, 1959)—the identity
that one performs. Hecht (1993) explains
the enacted layer by stating that “not all
messages are about identity, but identity is
a part of all messages” (p. 79). Thus, the
enacted frame of identity examines how
individuals both communicate their iden-
tity and experience identity through com-
munication as their identity emerges
through interactions with others (Urban &
Orbe, 2010). Is the communication of hard
of hearing individuals affected by their
relationships with others? In what ways?
Furthermore, how does their communica-
tion with others influence how they define
themselves?
The fourth and final layer of identity
posited by CTI is the communal layer.
“This frame locates identity in the group,
not the individual or the interaction”
(Hecht, 1993, p. 80). The communal layer
of identity is made up of the collective
identity one possesses as part of a group,
community, or social network (Jung &
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 397
Navigating Between Two Worlds  397
Hecht, 2004; Urban & Orbe, 2010). Given
that most hard of hearing individuals
might experience stigma from both the
hearing community and the Deaf commu-
nity, how do they, or even do they, experi-
ence any sort of communal identity
surrounding their hearing loss?
Hecht (1993) proposes CTI as a dialecti-
cal theory, arguing that the four frames of
identity might contradict each other as
individuals struggle to coordinate their
individual ideas of themselves, their rela-
tionships (and the influence of those rela-
tionships), and their collective identities as
part of a community. Studies examining
identity and identity construction should
consider these four levels of identity as
well as how they overlap, influence one
another, and compete with and/or comple-
ment one another (Drummond & Orbe,
2008). Inconsistencies between layers of
identity can result in identity gaps or rifts
between the levels of identity. “The four
frames of identity are not always consistent
with each other. They can be contradictory
or exclusive to each other” (Jung & Hecht,
2004, p. 267). Identity gaps are negatively
correlated with feeling understood, com-
munication appropriateness and effective-
ness (Jung & Hecht, 2004), communication
satisfaction, assertiveness, apprehension
(Jung, 2007; Kam & Hecht, 2009), educa-
tional satisfaction (Wadsworth, Hecht, &
Jung, 2008), topic avoidance, and relation-
ship satisfaction (Kam & Hecht, 2009).
Becoming familiar with the identity layers
and gaps will advance understanding of the
hard of hearing population and how its
members negotiate their identity as neither
Deaf nor hearing. Thus, by utilizing CTI,
we aimed in the present study to examine
the various identity layers experienced by
hard of hearing and deaf individuals in
order to better understand identity con-
struction and negotiation for this popula-
tion. We posed four research questions:
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 398  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
1. In what ways does a hard of hearing
individual identify with individuals in
the Deaf world and/or in the hearing
world? (communal layer of CTI)
2. What communication difficulties do
hard of hearing individuals describe
concerning the negotiation of their per-
sonal identity? (enacted layer of CTI)
3. How do hard of hearing individuals
describe the communication difficul-
ties they experience with peers and
loved ones? (relational layer of CTI)
4. How do hard of hearing individuals
define themselves? (personal layer
of CTI)
Method
We used the qualitative method of interac-
tive interviewing to explore a hard of hear-
ing individual’s four frames of identity:
personal, relational, enacted, and communal
(see Appendix for interview questions).
According to Matthews and Harrington
(2000), most research conducted on com-
munication and disabilities is done from the
point of view of an able-­bodied researcher
and is biased by that perspective. Thus, in
order to gain a deeper understanding of
how hard of hearing individuals view iden-
tity navigation, it is important that qualita-
tive studies be done to examine how they
view their hearing loss.
The use of interactive interviewing
allows for an in-­depth and intimate under-
standing of people’s experiences as hard of
hearing individuals. According to Ellis,
Kiesinger, and Tillmann-­Healy (1997), the
interactive interview process reflects con-
versations and dialogues in real life (as
opposed to an interrogation) in which one
person’s disclosures can invite another per-
son’s disclosure. Additionally, it is impor-
tant to note that since the researcher
herself (i.e., the lead author of the present
article) has a hearing loss, she was able to
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 398
relate to her participants’ experiences as
well as share experiences of her own. This
enabled the participants to feel more will-
ing to open up about personal experiences
they might not have otherwise shared with
an able-­bodied researcher.
Participants
The participants in the present study were
11 individuals with mild to profound hear-
ing loss. These were the only people who
responded to the recruitment strategies (as
detailed later in the present article). Hear-
ing loss levels were defined as mild (26–40
dB), moderate (41–55 dB), moderately
severe (56–70 dB), severe (71–90 dB), or
profound (91+ dB). In terms of hearing
loss, the sample was distributed as follows:
• profound, n = 1
• profound (left ear only), n = 1
• severe to profound, n = 4
• severe, n = 1
• moderate to severe, n = 3
• mild to moderate, n = 1
Because their hearing levels varied,
depending on the pitch of the sound, most
of the participants self-­identified as being
at more than one level of hearing loss (or as
being between two levels).
All but 1 participant (the individual with
profound bilateral deafness) identified as
“hard of hearing” or “hearing impaired,”
not “deaf.” The participant who identified
as “deaf ” clarified that she considers herself
physically and biologically “deaf,” not cul-
turally “Deaf.” Additionally, of the 11 par-
ticipants, 7 reported wearing hearing aids
full-­time, 1 reported wearing no hearing
aids, and 2 reported wearing hearing aids
only in class or at work. The sample con-
sisted of 5 men and 6 women; all partici-
pants were Caucasian. The age range of the
participants was 18–60 years (M = 32.2).
7/30/18 12:16 PM

Seven of the participants were students
(age range 18–26, M = 20.5); the other 4
ranged in age from 45 to 60 (M = 52.2). All
11 participants had been raised in main-
stream hearing society and had lived in it
for most of their lives, used oral communi-
cation, and did not have strong ties to the
Deaf community. Thus, none of these par-
ticipants identified as culturally Deaf. Indi-
viduals who were part of the Deaf
community were not recruited because the
present study focused on examining those
who were unable to assimilate into either
the Deaf world (due to lack of association
and/or acceptance) or the hearing world
(due to their hearing loss).
Procedure
The present study was conducted by means
of qualitative interviews and was approved
by the institutional review board of a large
public university in the Midwest. In an
attempt to recruit participants, the
researcher used advertising and network
sampling. Five participants were from the
researcher’s own family (since her hearing
loss is genetic). “Some researchers now
advocate interviewing peers with whom
one has an already-­established relationship
and making use of everyday situations in
which one is involved. Qualitative
researchers have co-­constructed narratives
with family and friends” (Ellis et al., 1997,
p. 161). After signing an informed consent
form, the participants took part in an in-­
person interview that lasted 30–90 minutes
per participant, depending on the amount
of detail the participant was willing to pro-
vide. The interviews were recorded, tran-
scribed, and coded by the researcher. Given
that all the participants used spoken Eng-
lish as their main form of communication
and no sign language was used in the inter-
views, the interviews were audio-­recorded
to ensure the integrity of the interview
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 399
Navigating Between Two Worlds  399
transcriptions. In order to protect partici-
pant identity, the recordings and accompa-
nying transcriptions did not have any
identifiable information in them; only gen-
eral demographic data were reported. All
participants were randomly assigned
pseudonyms.
Using CTI as a theoretical framework,
the researcher engaged in a priori coding
to identify each of the four levels of identity
present in the transcripts. From there, cat-
egories derived from the initial a priori
coding were collapsed to produce several
subthemes within each layer of identity
based on repetition of issues or comments
that emerged across several participant
interviews. Saturation was reached as later
transcripts failed to provide further theo-
retical categories or subthemes. Finally, all
interview participants were contacted to
engage in member checking. Only three
participants responded to the follow-­up
request in a timely manner (1 week). Pre-
liminary results and themes were shared
with these three participants, all of whom
agreed with the themes presented by the
researcher (Creswell, 2013; Lindlof & Tay-
lor, 2002).
Results
Personal Layer of Identity
The personal layer of identity includes
individual thoughts, beliefs, and feelings
(Hecht, 1993; Drummond & Orbe, 2008).
In the present study, participants were
asked to reflect on their individual thoughts,
beliefs, and feelings surrounding their
hearing loss and how they defined them-
selves so that their personal layer of iden-
tity could be examined. The themes
identified within the personal layer of
identity included describing hearing loss
and its effect, defining hearing loss as a
disability or “handicap,” and thoughts
about gaining “normal” hearing.
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 400  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
Describing Hearing Loss and Its Effect
When asked how their hearing loss had
affected their lives, several participants
were unsure how to answer because it was
not something they had considered—living
with a hearing loss was “normal” to them.
When the researcher asked Sarah if she saw
her hearing loss as “normal,” she agreed
that it was normal to her because it was all
she has ever known. Renee agreed with this
sentiment, explaining, “You know, most of
the time, what I don’t hear, I don’t know
I’m not hearing. So I don’t really know
what I’m missing.” Despite this acceptance
of hearing loss as being part of who they
were, several participants emphasized the
importance of not being labeled only as
deaf or hard of hearing. Ashley summed it
up by stating, “I don’t want to be labeled . . .
I don’t want people to be like that’s the deaf
girl. I don’t want to have that label. I want
people to see me apart from that.” Thus, the
participants didn’t see their hearing loss as
something that defined them or their iden-
tity; it was just a normal part of their lives.
Defining Hearing Loss as a “Disability”
or “Handicap”
When the participants were asked if they
saw their hearing loss as a “disability” or
“handicap,” the researcher received a vari-
ety of answers. Sarah, who had the most
severe hearing loss of all the participants,
did not consider it either a “disability” or a
“handicap”: “I can do anything a hearing
person can.” Shawn shared this sentiment,
stating that he labeled his hearing loss as
more of a “setback” he had to overcome
than a “disability.” Renee said that her
hearing loss was a disability, but not a
“handicap,” because “it is not preventing
me from doing anything. I can walk, I can
talk, I can watch TV—I just use subtitles, I
can listen to music—I just increase the vol-
ume. There’s nothing I can’t do.” This differ-
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 400
entiation between handicap and disability
was echoed by several participants who
emphasized that they were not incapable
of “normal” life. Overall, the participants
showed no clear consensus on how to
define their hearing loss, but they were
adamant about clarifying that their hearing
loss was not something that defined who
they were.
Thoughts Surrounding Gaining
“Normal” Hearing
To gain insight into how closely the indi-
viduals linked their hearing loss to their
identity, the researcher asked whether they
would take “normal” hearing if it were
magically offered to them (without surgery,
costs, etc.). Andrew stated that he would
not give up his hearing loss. As he
explained, “I feel like my hearing impair-
ment has taught me much about being a
better person and overcoming challenges.”
Ashley agreed with this sentiment: “It’s a
part of who I am. . . . It’s made me who I
am. And if anything, it makes me a more
well-­rounded person. So I think I’d say no
[to the offer of ‘normal’ hearing].” Thus,
while hearing loss was not something that
defined the participants, it was a vital part
of who they were, as many of them felt as
though it played a role in shaping their
identity.
Relational Layer of Identity
The second layer of CTI, the relational
layer of identity, is based on interactions
with others and how those interactions
influence identities (Hecht, 1993; Drum-
mond & Orbe, 2008). To examine this
layer of identity, the researcher asked the
participants to reflect on the interactions
they had with others, particularly interac-
tions related to or involving their hearing
loss, and any communication difficulties
they might have experienced related to
7/30/18 12:16 PM

their hearing loss and interacting with
others. The themes within the relational
layer of identity include negative commu-
nication interactions, the challenges of
group social situations, and the burden of
proof many individuals with hearing loss
face as they navigate interactions with
others.
Negative Communication Interactions
Several participants highlighted the nega-
tive reactions they had received when hear-
ing individuals seemed unsure of how to
communicate with them appropriately.
Sarah explained that she avoided individu-
als who talked to her either really loudly or
slowly because of the negativity of these
communication tactics. Yelling was also
highlighted by Shawn as a negative reac-
tion that would offend him: “When people
are talking at a regular volume to some-
body else and then turn to me and start
shouting, I don’t like that. I don’t like auto-
matically being treated differently.” When
discussing negative interactions in one-­to-­
one situations with a hearing person, Sarah
explained the difficulties involved in telling
a new acquaintance that she was hard of
hearing:
They say, “Oh, I’m sorry,” and then they
won’t talk to you anymore. That’s because
they’ve never been around [a hard of hear-
ing person], and it scares them—they don’t
know how to. So they just walk away from
me like I’m some dummy or something.
Being considered less intelligent or being
labeled “deaf and dumb” was a stigma that
was brought up in several interviews. Renee
highlighted it when she stated that she had
experienced situations in which “a hearing
person will talk to me like I have a mental
handicap rather than a hearing impair-
ment.” In expanding on this negative stereo-
type, Morgan stated, “I hate to be made to
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 401
Navigating Between Two Worlds  401
feel stupid. And that is the biggest thing—is
that you are made to feel inadequate or stu-
pid. People think that if you are hearing
impaired, you’re stupid . . . you’re dumb.”
Several participants stated that their
hearing loss could lead to embarrassing or
hard-­to-­navigate situations. Morgan noted,
“It can be embarrassing at times because
sometimes you are put in a position where
you answer a question you thought was
asked and it wasn’t. You know, there you
are looking like a total idiot.” This difficulty
with navigating certain situations when the
participant did not hear something but did
not want to bring it to others’ attention was
also discussed by Andrew, Shawn, and
Ashley as they explained the use of the
“nod and smile” tactic: You nod along and
smile like you understand when you really
do not. The participants stated that this
tactic, while used often to save face, could
be risky; for example, they described
answering questions awkwardly or walking
out of a classroom with no idea what the
assignment was.
Another negative reaction several par-
ticipants touched on during their inter-
views was the use of “never mind” or the
refusal of other people to repeat them-
selves. Ben explained, “To me that’s an
insult when you say to a deaf person ‘never
mind.’ ” Andrew also identified this as a
negative reaction that he got from hearing
individuals:
The worst that can really make me mad
beyond points of repair is “forget about it”
or “don’t worry about it” or “never mind.”
I’m just, like, repeat it one more time, just
one more. They will say it doesn’t even mat-
ter. Well, let me decide if it matters or not.
They decide for you what is important for
you to hear.
Overall, the participants reported a range
of negative reactions to their hearing loss
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 402  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
that included altered communication,
avoidance, being perceived as less intelli-
gent, being embarrassed, and experiencing
a loss of autonomy. Individuals with hear-
ing loss have to balance these potential
negative responses against the benefits of
disclosing their hearing loss (e.g., in order
to get important information or needed
accommodations) as they navigate their
identity as a hard of hearing individual.
Challenges of Group Social Situations
The difficulty involved in navigating
group situations was a theme several par-
ticipants discussed during the interviews.
Renee described the challenge of commu-
nicating in a group situation and how this
affected her communicative behavior: “If
I’m with a group of people, I miss a lot of
conversation, and I know I do, so I’m qui-
eter.” The struggle was further explained
by Andrew: “In group settings when it is
really hard because you can’t look at
everyone at once and the conversation
goes around, I’m like, what did I really
miss? Did I miss something important?”
This concern or worry about missing
things was conveyed by seven other par-
ticipants as one of their major concerns
when they were communicating with
hearing individuals. Morgan said,
It is difficult to participate in a group con-
versation because you miss so much because
everyone is talking and you can’t read lips
from everybody at once. And if they don’t
know, they won’t accommodate that, and a
lot of times, even if they do know, they don’t
accommodate it because they can’t identify
with that. It can be very frustrating,
demeaning . . . it can make you feel stupid.
Generally, group social situations are chal-
lenging for individuals with hearing loss as
the spontaneous conversation and lack of
accommodation can function as obstacles
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 402
to enjoyable social situations, making them
stressful and perhaps best avoided
altogether.
Burden of Proof
Facing a “burden of proof ” was discussed
by several participants in the context of
hearing loss as an invisible disability. When
dealing with his hearing loss with col-
leagues in the workplace, Will said he often
faced a “burden of proof ”: “They think I
select my hearing and I don’t hear when I
don’t want to hear.” Nick also identified this
issue in his description of an event in
which a coach thought that he was ignor-
ing him: “He thought I was ignoring him,
but I just didn’t hear what he said.” When
Nick explained that he was hard of hearing,
the coach did not believe him: “He didn’t
believe me. He thought I was being
sarcastic.”
In addition to having to “prove” the
presence of a hearing loss, hard of hearing
individuals also might have to face ques-
tioning surrounding the extent of that
hearing loss, particularly if the individual
wears hearing aids. Will highlighted this in
his discussion of understanding (or the
lack thereof) when it came to the distinc-
tion between hearing noise and making
sense of it:
A lot of people don’t understand there’s two
ways of hearing. Yeah, you can hear noise,
but you have to know what’s going on to
understand what they are saying. Oh man,
sometimes people just don’t get it. Or maybe
they don’t want to get it. And they think that
because I have hearing aids it fixes every-
thing. That’s wrong. They don’t fix it. I have
nerve loss. It just makes everything louder—
doesn’t make it so I can understand. It’s not
the same as normal hearing.
Getting hearing aids might only cause
additional challenges, as participants
7/30/18 12:16 PM

reported that wearing hearing aids can
actually prompt further questioning. Given
that hearing individuals often view hearing
aids as a “cure-­all” for hearing loss, wearing
them can prompt hearing individuals to
doubt hearing-­aid users when they say they
did not hear something. Will explained
that his hearing aids might amplify things
for him, but they did not give him “nor-
mal” hearing—there were still issues with
clarity. Ben supported this view by clarify-
ing the difference between hearing and
understanding: “Hearing noise is one
thing, but understanding what you heard is
another thing.” Additionally, Morgan dis-
cussed how her boss had been pressuring
her to get hearing aids, but that she wor-
ried because she knew that getting them
would not “cure” the problem: “He thinks
that by me getting a hearing aid, I’m going
to be perfect. That is going to be another
challenge, to explain that just because I
have a hearing aid, I’m not going to hear
like he hears.”
Thus, even after hard of hearing individ-
uals makes the difficult decision to disclose
their hearing loss, they may then face fur-
ther questioning surrounding the legiti-
macy of that hearing loss, making the
disclosure process potentially even more
uncomfortable or challenging and adding a
cumbersome layer to negotiating their
identity with others. In addition to the bur-
den of proof surrounding having a hearing
loss, hearing-­aid users may also have to
educate the non–hard of hearing person on
the extent of the hearing loss and the func-
tion of hearing aids, a process that adds
further to the burden of negotiating their
personal identity.
Enacted Layer of Identity
People’s expressions of identity, or the way
they choose to enact their identity, consti-
tute the third layer identified in CTI
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 403
Navigating Between Two Worlds  403
(Drummond & Orbe, 2008; Hecht, 1993).
To explore how participants in the present
study chose to enact their identity (or not)
as hard of hearing individuals, they were
asked to discuss how they expressed or
communicated about their hearing loss,
including any challenges in negotiating
that component of their identity. The five
subthemes that were identified within par-
ticipants’ enacted identities, explored fur-
ther below, are (a) doing nothing differently
despite the hearing loss, (b) being hard of
hearing in the school or workplace, (c) dis-
closing the hearing loss, (d) dealing with
stigma, and (e) using humor.
Doing Nothing Different Despite
the Hearing Loss
In discussing how they navigated their
hearing loss on a daily basis, several partic-
ipants highlighted the fact that they did not
feel that they needed to do anything differ-
ently than a hearing person. Sarah dis-
cussed how she did not let her profound
hearing loss stop her from doing anything
a hearing person could do, even if the
activity requires hearing, such as using a
drive-­through. Will also reported not let-
ting his hearing loss guide what activities
he could participate in. Thus, participants
often enacted their hard of hearing identity
in the same manner as someone with “nor-
mal” hearing, highlighting that they did
not see their hearing loss as a defining
characteristic of who they were.
Being Hard of Hearing in the School
or Workplace
Several participants highlighted the obsta-
cles and stigma they faced when navigating
school or employment with their hearing
loss. In discussing school and life in gen-
eral prior to college, Andrew stated, “Grade
school and high school were hell. I’m not
going to lie. They were hell.” He went on to
explain that the teachers were not skilled at
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 404  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
working with a student with a hearing loss,
and this made his academic career difficult.
Despite the accommodations he was now
receiving in college, Andrew highlighted
the fact that he had to do double the work
of most hearing students because he had
to not only attend class but spend time
outside of class re-­reading the transcripts
of what was said in class that were provided
to him.
In describing how they did (or did not)
express their hearing loss, several partici-
pants also discussed difficulties in the
workplace. Sarah described how she did
not tell her employer about her hearing
loss until after he had hired her because of
the worry that he would dismiss her right
away: “They think, ‘They can’t do it—it’s a
deaf person—we don’t want to deal with
that.’ Or, ‘I don’t want to take the time with
that person because she’s deaf.’ ” Will
echoed this concern when he stated that
his biggest worry was about losing his job:
“I’m worried if I ever lost my job, I’m
screwed. Because society today . . . if you
ever lost your job and with my hearing and
something like that, I’m not going to get
rehired.” Even once hired, participants
stated that they continued to face issues.
Morgan described how even though her
boss knew she was hard of hearing, he
could be very unaccommodating and
rudely blunt about her hearing loss. She
explained, “It makes you feel very small.
And it’s very degrading. It makes you feel
stupid.” She went on later to say, “The thing
is, he doesn’t understand. He has no idea
what it is like.” Furthermore, participants
reported relying on technology to work
around their hearing loss, often using writ-
ten forms of communication such as e‑mail.
Ben even reported the use of instant mes-
saging in meetings as a behind-­the-­scenes
way to ask others about what he had
missed. Even if it posed certain challenges
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 404
in school or work, the participants often
emphasized finding ways “around” their
hearing loss in order to lead their lives as
“normally” as possible and/or avoid being
the object of the stigmatizing attitudes of
others.
Disclosing the Hearing Loss
Disclosure was an issue that was addressed
differently by each of the participants. Mor-
gan and Sarah explained that they preferred
to talk to the other person for a while
before disclosing their hearing loss. Sarah
explained further: “I do that on purpose
because I want them to know, just because
I am deaf, I can still communicate with
them.” Ben, Nick, and Lexi also discussed
how they put off disclosure until it becomes
absolutely necessary. Ashley described dis-
closure as the “worst part” of a beginning of
a relationship, as past experiences in which
disclosure had caused others to avoid her
had made her wary: “[Hearing peers are]
like, ‘Eehhhh . . . disabilities?’ And they
back off.”
In discussing the choice of whether or
not to disclose, Renee explained that she
avoided disclosure at first because she did
not want others to immediately identify
her in connection with her hearing loss:
“I don’t want their first impression of me
to be that’s the girl with the hearing loss. I
want them to know me for me. Yeah, that’s
part of who I am, but that’s not who I am.”
Beth also stressed that she wanted the
hearing person to realize that she was not
any different once the hearing person knew
about her hearing loss: “I am still the same
girl that you knew before.” Andrew touched
on this issue as well as he explained the dif-
ference between being identified as the
“deaf student” and being recognized as the
“student who happened to have a hearing
loss.” Shawn emphasized, “I don’t want
people to meet the deaf guy. I want them to
7/30/18 12:16 PM

meet me.” Thus, disclosing their hearing
loss is a dilemma that individuals with
hearing loss may face as they interact with
others, often having to decide between
avoiding stigma and making sure they get
the accommodations they need to follow
along.
Dealing With Stigma
In dealing with stigma, the participants dis-
cussed several different strategies. Sarah
stated that she usually let it go unless some-
one said something rude or mean. Renee
stated that being on offense was one way she
dealt with stigma and people who “saw
themselves as better than me because of [the
hearing loss] and they thought it would be a
good idea to rub it in my face.” She said that
due to her aggressive, outgoing personality
and the fact that her “opinions intimidated
people . . . [they] knew better than to say
anything” to her. On the other hand, Will
and Andrew talked about dealing with
stigma in a more passive way. Will stated,
“If they don’t want to talk to me, what am I
going to do? If you can’t deal with people
the right way, then don’t talk to me.” Will
also said he quit wearing his hearing aids
for a while when he was younger because
they highlighted his hearing loss and caused
others to pick on him. Similarly, Renee
described how she faced ridicule because of
her hearing aids and eventually quit wearing
them: “I was made fun of, of course, for my
hearing aids when they were in, so I took
them out, or if I wore them, I wore my hair
down.” Many participants reported that fac-
ing stigma was a major communication
challenge in managing their identity as a
hard of hearing individual. Further, they
talked about how that fear of stigmatization
often altered the way they communicated
about their hearing loss or what information
they chose to share with others, essentially
altering their enacted identity.
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 405
Navigating Between Two Worlds  405
Using Humor
Several participants mentioned using
humor to deal with the disclosure process
and stigma. Renee said “I get the good
scoop sometimes” as she joked about the
advantages of being able to read lips.
Andrew laughed as he talked about how
getting hearing aids can be an adjustment
when you are startled by the fact that
something like paper makes so much noise
or that the turn signal in a car is so annoy-
ing. Shawn joked about having to “buy one
of his senses” when he had to go purchase
batteries for his hearing aids: “Whenever
one of my batteries goes out, I have to go
out and pick up what everyone else has
already . . . just implanted in their head.”
Andrew drove home the importance of
using humor as a coping mechanism when
he stated, “You have to laugh and make fun
of it sometimes. If you take your disability
seriously all the time, you would die by the
time you were 30 from the stress of dealing
with it.”
Despite the positive use of humor, sev-
eral participants mentioned that there was
a line when it came to humor—there was a
point at which it was not appropriate any-
more. Andrew stated, “Jokes can be a sensi-
tive subject. I don’t mind joking about my
hearing, but it kind of depends on the per-
son. There is definitely a line between what
is OK to joke about and what is not.” Echo-
ing this sentiment, Shawn said,
There’s a difference between joking around
and being malicious. You don’t want some-
one to be malicious toward you . . . they can
get in your head. As positive as you are, peo-
ple can be mean, and they can use [the hear-
ing loss] to make you look bad or make you
feel bad. I’m positive about it and I’ll make
jokes about it, but if you’re using me as a vic-
tim and categorizing me as a weakling or a
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 406  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
handicapped person or something, I’m not
going to be happy.
Overall, humor provided many participants
with a way to have fun with or be positive
about their hearing loss in an effort to com-
bat stigmatization.
Communal Layer of Identity
The last layer of identity proposed by CTI
is the communal layer. The communal level
of identity extends to consider the groups
to which people belong that influence their
identity through collective beliefs, rituals,
and practices (Drummond & Orbe, 2008;
Hecht, 1993). The study participants were
asked to reflect on the communities and
groups with which they identified (or not)
in order to examine this layer of identity.
The main theme that arose from explora-
tion of the participants’ communal layer of
identity, or their social identity, concerned
their connection (or lack thereof) to the
Deaf community.
The Deaf Community
When examining their connection to the
Deaf community and whether it was a
source of support from other individuals
with hearing loss, many participants dis-
cussed the separation and exclusion they
felt from this community. Ben, the partici-
pant who reported the most involvement
with the Deaf community, described a feel-
ing of disconnect from it that several other
participants also identified: “They’ll single
you out because even though you’re hear-
ing impaired, you grew up in the hearing
world. They’ll say, ‘Oh, he’s a hearing world
person.’ Most of the Deaf people I know, a
lot of them single me out.” Renee also dis-
cussed this feeling of exclusion from the
Deaf community as she explained how she
felt when she attempted to participate in a
Deaf event: “I felt like an outsider even
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 406
though I was one of them more or less.”
Shawn stated that he had no problem with
the Deaf community, but he did not con-
sider himself part of it: “There’s nothing
against the Deaf community and stuff, but
I’d rather be a deaf . . . like a person who
happens to be deaf. Like a person with
glasses, but my ‘glasses’ just happen to be
on my ears.”
Ben expanded further on the disconnect
between the Deaf community and hard of
hearing individuals who grow up learning
to speak instead of sign. He said that the
Deaf community is “a culture, and they
don’t associate with the hearing world.” He
talked about how the Deaf community
considers it as disrespectful to Deaf culture
when a hard of hearing person grows up
without learning to sign. However, Ben
explained why he viewed that issue differ-
ently: “It has nothing to do with respect. It’s
just your life is so much easier when you
understand someone who speaks.” This
statement showcases the clear divide
between the Deaf community and its cul-
tural values and the hard of hearing indi-
viduals in the present study.
Not Fitting Into Either World
The lack of communal identity the hard of
hearing individuals in the present study
reported can create a feeling of isolation
because people who are hard of hearing do
not “fit into” either the hearing world or the
culturally Deaf community. Several partici-
pants did have family members with hearing
loss, and they reported leaning heavily on
those family members for support and to
have someone to relate to. However, this is
not the norm—most children who are deaf
or hard of hearing are born to hearing fami-
lies and may not meet or know anyone else
with a hearing loss (Peters, 2000). Andrew
stated that he had no friends his own age
with a hearing loss until he accidentally met
someone at college. He stated that meeting
7/30/18 12:16 PM

her “was like a fairy tale. I’ve never known
someone my own age with a hearing loss, so
it was so cool to find someone to finally
relate to.” Finding someone to relate to can
be challenging for individuals with hearing
loss, especially if there are no family mem-
bers who are in a similar situation (which is
often the case). Since there are often no
family ties to a cultural group of others like
them and family is a major way most of us
learn cultural values or gain access to cul-
tural groups, the participants struggled to
develop a communal identity related to their
hearing loss.
Discussion
In attempting to construct an identity
within a hearing world that considers them
to be “disabled” or even “deaf and dumb,”
many of the participants in the present
study emphasized the challenges they faced
surrounding the navigation of their hear-
ing loss. Despite these challenges, most of
the participants stated that they would not
give up their hearing loss if they were
granted the opportunity to have “normal”
hearing. Their hearing loss was too much a
part of who they were; it was too central to
their personal layer of identity (Drum-
mond & Orbe, 2008; Hecht, 1993). Further,
their hearing loss was not only identified as
a part of who they were—several partici-
pants went on to describe how their hear-
ing loss had shaped them as a whole
person, making them stronger and more
capable of overcoming challenges.
Although several participants stated that
their hearing loss was a part of who they
were (personal layer of identity), they also
said they did not want to be labeled “as the
deaf boy or deaf girl.” This juxtaposition of
having a hard of hearing identity while still
attempting to avoid being labeled as “dis-
abled” or “incapable” creates a unique
struggle for hard of hearing individuals as
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 407
Navigating Between Two Worlds  407
they navigate their interactions with others
(relational layer of identity) and the way in
which they express their identity (enacted
layer of identity). The struggle that partici-
pants identified in aligning the various lay-
ers of their identity indicated the presence
of identity gaps between the personal and
relational layers of identity, the personal
and enacted layers of identity, and the per-
sonal and communal layers of identity
(Drummond & Orbe, 2008).
The identity gap between the personal
and relational layers of identity seemed to
be based on participants’ attempts to man-
age or avoid negative reactions from others
upon disclosing their hearing loss, as well
as concerns surrounding social interactions
because of their hearing loss. Therefore,
while all the participants viewed hearing
loss as a part of who they were (personal
layer), they often felt that the hearing loss
interfered with their relational layer of
identity since it made it challenging to
interact with others and placed them at
risk of stigmatization. Given that identity
gaps in and of themselves are negatively
correlated with communication satisfac-
tion, the feeling of being understood, and
relationship satisfaction (Jung, 2007; Jung
& Hecht, 2004; Kam & Hecht, 2009), stig-
matizing disabilities such as hearing loss
might pose additional challenges in inter-
acting with others and potentially be isolat-
ing. The stigma surrounding having a
“disability” could act as the cause of an
identity gap for individuals among this
population and also worsen the effect of
the identity gap itself. Further research that
focuses on populations with disabilities
needs to be conducted to examine the rela-
tionship between stigma and identity gaps.
Another gap in the identity layers dis-
played by the study participants was
between their personal identity as hard
of hearing individuals and how they
expressed that identity (enacted layer).
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 408  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
The participants reported ways in which
they got “around” their hearing loss and
attempted to live as “normally” as possi-
ble, avoiding disclosure about their hear-
ing loss, in order to avoid stigmatization.
Fear of stigmatization altered the way they
communicated about their hearing loss
(enacted identity) and the information
they were willing to share, with one con-
sequence often being a lack of accommo-
dations. Thus, even though individuals
personally identified as hard of hearing,
this often was not the identity they chose
to enact. There was a tension between the
enacted layer of identity (asking for
accommodations or disclosing) and the
personal layer of identity (avoiding being
labeled as the “deaf person”) that had to
be managed.
Again, there seems to be a relationship
between stigma and identity gaps for peo-
ple who are hard of hearing and, poten-
tially, for other populations dealing with
disability or stigmatization. Stigma may
complicate identity construction due to
the inherent “choice” individuals with
invisible disabilities must make surround-
ing whether they disclose their disability
(and personal identity), which can put
them at risk of being stigmatized. This
decision whether or not to disclose seems
to add a layer of complexity to identity
navigation for hard of hearing individuals
as they struggle to maintain pride in their
personal identity while simultaneously
attempting to hide a component of that
identity in order to avoid stigma. However,
this attempt to avoid stigma can be prob-
lematic, as it might force individuals with
disabilities to forgo accommodations
(Grosjean, 2010; Najarian, 2008; Reagan,
2002), even if it means not doing as well in
a class or being as successful in the work-
place. Additionally, over time, individuals
might internalize the social stigma sur-
rounding their disability in a way that
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 408
might be detrimental to their self-­esteem
or self-­worth (Charmaz, 1991; Goffman,
1959). Given the negative impact both
stigma and identity gaps can have on indi-
viduals, further research should be done to
examine identity gaps in other stigmatized
populations as well as stigma’s relationship
to identity gaps.
A final gap identified among the partici-
pants was that between their personal
identity as hard of hearing and their com-
munal identity (social identity). Partici-
pants reported an overwhelming sense
of a lack of communal identity since they
felt they could not fit in completely with
either the Deaf community or the hearing
world—they fell somewhere in between.
Many participants explained the inability
to fit into the hearing world by discussing
hearing individuals’ inability to identify
with what it is like to be hard of hearing:
They do not get what it’s like to be hard of
hearing because they have not experienced
it. Further, general communication obsta-
cles, along with the stigmatizing label of
being “disabled,” prevent assimilation into
the hearing world and perpetuate this feel-
ing of disconnect experienced by individu-
als with hearing loss. In addition to feeling
disconnected from the hearing world, par-
ticipants shared that they also felt sepa-
rated from the Deaf community. This
inability to connect to the Deaf community
stemmed from several factors: feelings of
being unwelcome, an inability to commu-
nicate (ASL vs. oral communication), dif-
ferent cultural values, and feelings of being
an outsider despite having a hearing loss in
common. Between the difficult effort to fit
into the hearing world and the disconnect
from the Deaf community, the participants
struggled to find any clear communal iden-
tity that supported their personal identity
as hard of hearing individuals.
Future research could examine other
populations of people with disabilities and
7/30/18 12:16 PM

the presence of communal identities for
individuals within those populations.
Future research should also examine the
ways in which communal identity might be
related to social support, particularly for
people with disabilities and people who are
stigmatized. Social support or access to a
community of support surrounding the
personal layer of identity as an individual
with a disability might be a critical compo-
nent of helping such individuals cope with
stigma, isolation, or feelings of low self-­
esteem or depression related to their dis-
ability (Charmaz, 1991). Examining ways
in which doctors, physical therapists,
teachers, and others involved with individ-
uals with disabilities can facilitate commu-
nal connections might be key in helping
them reconcile their personal identity as
individuals with a disability with a com-
munal identity.
Conclusion
It is important to make note of several
limitations of the present study relating to
the composition of the sample. All of the
participants had had their hearing loss
since birth or infancy. The fact that they
had never had to live as hearing individu-
als and had never experienced what it is
like to hear normally might have affected
their outlooks on their hearing loss as
well as how they constructed their iden-
tity. The construction of an identity
as a hard of hearing individual is most
likely a completely different process for
people who lose their hearing later in life
and can remember what it is like to have
normal hearing. Thus, future research
should investigate the differences between
these two populations of hard of hearing
individuals and how the timing of the
onset of hearing loss can affect identity
construction and the potential for identity
gaps.
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 409
Navigating Between Two Worlds  409
Another limitation relating to the sam-
ple is that a majority of the participants (7
out of 11) reported having family members
with a hearing loss. It is important to note
that this is not the norm: Fully 95% of chil-
dren who are deaf or hard of hearing have
hearing parents (Mitchell & Karchmer,
2004). Hard of hearing individuals who do
not have a family network may have more
difficulty constructing an identity or find-
ing support. Additionally, many of the
study participants reported having limited
access (if any) to friends or other individu-
als outside their family who were hard of
hearing. Thus, individuals without this
family connection may have no social sup-
port at all.
The sample size was limited as well. As
hearing loss is often an “invisible disability”
(Matthews & Harrington, 2000), many
individuals choose not to disclose their
hearing loss in order to avoid stigma;
therefore, many potential participants
might not have been comfortable stepping
forward to participate in the present study.
In addition, the 11 individuals who did
step forward seemed to have positive atti-
tudes and effective coping mechanisms,
which might not be the case with individu-
als who were not participants in the study.
It might be that those who did not step for-
ward had more negative attitudes and were
unwilling to talk about their hearing loss.
Future research should consider hard of
hearing individuals who are less willing to
step forward to see if there are differences
in their identity construction.
The use of interactive interviewing
helped free the present study from an able-­
bodied bias and thus gave a voice to the
hard of hearing population. Shawn empha-
sized the fact that hearing researchers and
doctors are “on the outside looking in.”
Sarah echoed the need for giving individu-
als with hearing loss a voice because “the
doctors do not understand because they do
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 410  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018
not go through what we do. They can’t
understand because they’ve never lived
like this.” Since the researcher herself has
a moderate to severe hearing loss, she was
able to relate to the experiences the par-
ticipants shared surrounding identity con-
struction and the struggle to navigate
between the Deaf and hearing worlds.
Thus, the use of interactive interviews
separates this study from others that have
been conducted by able-­bodied research-
ers and could be a viable method to use
for future studies on individuals with
disabilities.
Through their discussions of the stigma,
communication difficulties, and various
other challenges, the participants in the
present study demonstrated how they felt
disconnected from both the hearing world
and the Deaf world. Thus, they had to navi-
gate hearing loss within a hearing world
without true ties to either their hard of hear-
ing identity or the hearing world they lived
in. This disconnect from both communities
is exemplified by something Sarah said: “I
can do anything [hearing people] can do
except hear. I am not part of the Deaf world
and never will be. I can go through life just
like a hearing person; I’m just deaf.”
Notes
The present article is based on a paper pre-
sented at the annual conference of the
International Communication Association
in June 2013 in London, England. All cor-
respondence concerning the article should
be directed to Brittany N. Beckner, Univer-
sity of Dayton, Department of Communi-
cation, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH
45469. E‑mail: bbeckner1@udayton.edu
References
Bat-­Chava, Y. (2000). Diversity of deaf identities.
American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 420–428.
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 410
Charmaz, K. (1991). Disclosing illness. In Good days,
bad days: The self in chronic illness and time (pp.
107–133). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
sity Press.
Courtney-­Long, E. A., Carroll, D. D., Qing, C. Z.,
Stevens, A. C., Griffin-­Blake, S., Armour, B. S., &
Campbell, V. A. (2015). Prevalence of disability
and disability type among adults: United States,
2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
64(29), 777–783. Retrieved from Centers for
­Disease Control and Prevention website: https://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
mm6429a2.htm?s_cid=mm6429a2_w
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social
stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,
pp. 504–553). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Davis, L. (2007). Deafness and the riddle of identity.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, 5–8.
Drummond, D., & Orbe, M. (2008, November).
Complexities of identity: Contemporary struggles
of multiple identity gaps. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Communication
Association, San Diego, CA.
Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C. E., & Tillmann-­Healy, L. M.
(1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking about
emotional experience. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflex-
ivity and voice (pp. 119–149). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in every-
day life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingualism, biculturalism, and
deafness. International Journal of Bilingual Educa-
tion and Bilingualism, 13(2), 133–145.
Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002, a research odyssey:
Towards the development of a communication
theory of identity. Communication Monographs,
60(1), 76–82.
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Cul-
ture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theo-
ries. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.) Intergroup
communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21–42).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hole, R. (2007). Narratives of identity: A poststruc-
tural analysis of three Deaf women’s life stories.
Narrative Inquiry, 17(2), 259–278.
Jung, E. (2007, November). Mediating function of
identity gap between communication input and
outcome variables. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Communication Associ-
ation, Chicago, IL.
7/30/18 12:16 PM

Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the
Communication Theory of Identity: Identity gaps
and communication outcomes. Communication
Quarterly, 52(3), 265–283.
Kam, J. A., & Hecht, M. L. (2009). Investigating the
role of identity gaps among communicative and
relational outcomes within the grandparent-­
grandchild relationship: The young-­adult grand-
children’s perspective. Western Journal of
Communication, 73(4), 456–480.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative
communication research methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matthews, C. K., & Harrington, N. G. (2000). Invis-
ible disability. In D. O. Braithwaite & R. L.
Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication
with people with disabilities: Research and applica-
tion (pp. 405–421). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Fal-
cione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the relationship
between communication apprehension and self-­
esteem. Human Communication Research, 3,
269–277.
Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing
the mythical 10 percent: Parental hearing status
of deaf and hard of hearing students in the
United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138–163.
This content downloaded from
191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 411
Navigating Between Two Worlds  411
Najarian, C. G. (2008). Deaf women: Educational
experiences and self-­identity. Disability and Soci-
ety, 23(2), 117–128.
Nikolaraizi, M., & Makri, M. (2004). Deaf and hear-
ing individuals’ beliefs about the capabilities of
deaf people. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5),
404–414.
Peters, E. (2000). Our decision on a cochlear implant.
American Annals of the Deaf, 145(3), 263–267.
Reagan, T. (2002). Toward an “archeology of deaf-
ness”: Etic and emic constructions of identity in
conflict. Journal of Language, Identity, and Educa-
tion, 1(1), 41–66.
Skelton, T., & Valentine, G. (2003). “It feels like being
Deaf is normal”: An exploration into the com-
plexities of defining D/deafness and young D/
deaf people’s identities. Canadian Geographer,
47(4), 451–466.
Urban, E. L., & Orbe, M. P. (2010). Identity gaps of
contemporary U.S. immigrants: Acknowledging
divergent communicative experiences. Communi-
cation Studies, 61(3), 304–320.
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008).
The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and
acculturation in international students’ educa-
tional satisfaction in American classrooms. Com-
munication Education, 57(1), 64–87.
7/30/18 12:16 PM
 412  American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 163, No. 3, 2018

Appendix

Interview Questions

1. How long have you had a hearing loss? About how old were you when your
hearing became impaired?
A. If you don’t mind my asking, how did it happen?
2. Do you consider yourself part of the Deaf community?
A. If so, how much do you participate in that community?
B. If so, how important is it to you to be part of the Deaf community?
3. Describe any experiences you have had with the Deaf community or any
Deaf events.
A. Were these experiences positive or negative?
1. If positive, how?
2. If negative, how?
4. Are many (if any) of your friends and family members deaf or hearing
impaired?
A. If any, are they part of the Deaf community?
1. How much do they participate in the Deaf community?
2. How important is being part of the Deaf community to them?
5. Describe your hearing impairment and its effect on your life as a whole.
A. Do you consider your hearing loss to be a handicap? Why or why not?
6. Describe the differences you have experienced in communicating with a
deaf individual versus communicating with a hearing individual.
A. Who was this individual?
B. How often do you interact with this person?
C. If hearing, are they typically accommodating or nonaccommodating to
your hearing differences?
7. Do you typically disclose about your hearing impairment with people that
you meet for the first time?
A. If so, how do you typically go about that disclosure process?
1. Describe an instance where you had to disclose about your hearing
impairment to a hearing individual.
a. How did they respond?
b. Were they positive, negative, or indifferent in their response?
8. How do you talk (if at all) to friends and family members about your com-
munication difficulties or need for accommodation due to your hearing
impairment?
A. Are they helpful? If so, how?
B. Are they not helpful? If not helpful, how do they make things more
difficult?
9. Describe how you navigate your hearing impairment in day-­to-­day activities/
work/life.
10. What are the biggest fears/concerns/worries you face when taking part in a
communicative interaction with hearing individuals? How do you navigate
those?

This content downloaded from

191.102.221.174 on Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:57:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19197-AAD163.3.indd 412 7/30/18 12:16 PM