Hearing Through Deaf Eyes: A Study of Deaf Culture and The Accessibility Needs of The Deaf Community in Art Museums

HEARING THROUGH DEAF EYES: A STUDY OF DEAF CULTURE AND THE
ACCESIBILITY NEEDS OF THE DEAF COMMUNITY IN ART MUSEUMS
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Art Education
By
Neelam S. Jumma
Department of Art Education

The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
September 2009
Thesis Committee
Advisor: Therese Quinn, Associate Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Reader: Pamela Clohesey, Instructor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................11
Introduction............................................................................................................11
The Deaf Among the deaf......................................................................................12
American Sign Language and the Deaf Community.............................................14
ASL ≠ English........................................................................................................15
ASL is Not a Universal Signed Language.............................................................18
People Who Are Deaf and Lip-reading.................................................................19
Struggles and Issues Within the Deaf Community................................................20
Government Policy Regarding the Deaf Population and Art Museums................26
A Museum’s Responsibility to the Public and the Access Rights of the Public....28
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................31
PARAMETERS.................................................................................................................35
STORY..............................................................................................................................38
DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................50
Gap #1: Training....................................................................................................50
Gap #2: Marketing and Advertisements................................................................53
Gap #3: ADA Enforcement...................................................................................55
A Comparison of Accommodations in England and the U.S................................57
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................63

List of Recommendations for Art Museums..........................................................64
List of Recommendations for Members of the Deaf Community.........................69
Conclusion.............................................................................................................72
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................74
APPENDIXES...................................................................................................................77
Appendix A............................................................................................................77
Appendix B............................................................................................................78
Appendix C............................................................................................................79
Appendix D............................................................................................................80
Appendix E............................................................................................................81
Appendix F.............................................................................................................82
RESOURCE NOTES.........................................................................................................83
Hearing Through Deaf Eyes 3
Introduction
Ever since I can remember, art has been a part of my life in some way, shape, or
form. However, it has always taken somewhat of a backseat to the other interests in my life;
it was more of a hobby—something I did in my free time.
It was not until my freshman year in college, as an official pre-med student, that I
realized I could no longer lie to myself. As I locked myself away and studied hard, I felt a
huge void in my life; there were no visual art classes offered at the college I attended.
Although the lack of art classes could not stop me from drawing and painting in my
sketchbook, I realized that keeping art merely as a hobby wasn’t going to work for me.
Therefore, I decided to apply to a state college with an art program and begin a new
journey as an art student. For admissions into the fine arts program, I did not need to submit a
portfolio or choose a major until after completing all the core fine arts requirements in the
first two years of the program; this seemed perfect for me because I had no portfolio to offer
as an ex-pre-med student. As I took my introductory drawing, color theory, and art history
classes, I realized that I should probably research what I wanted to major in. So I looked into
the majors offered at my college and came across something called “Art Education.” I had
never heard of it, but it sounded intriguing. When I was a pre-med student, I was thinking of
becoming a pediatrician since I enjoy working with children. Prior to college, I had done a lot
of work in children’s camps as a teenager and was an art counselor for two years; my work
with children throughout my teenage years is what motivated me to pursue pediatrics in the
first place. As I read more and more about the art education program, I realized that it was
exactly what I needed to be studying because it would allow me to combine my wish to work
with children and keep art in my life... I could have my cake and eat it, too—I could teach art
to children! Why had I not thought of this earlier?
And that was the beginning of my art education career. I took many studio classes,
regular education classes, and art education classes; did my semester of student teaching;
took the state teacher certification test; and finally graduated with a B.F.A. in Art Education.
Within a couple of months of graduating, toward the end of the public school year, I was
hired as a long-term substitute to replace a retiring art teacher at an elementary school in the
metro Atlanta suburbs. This substitute opportunity could have led to a permanent art-teaching
job, if I had chosen to pursue one. What more could I have asked for? This was what I had
wanted out of my education—a career working with art and children. Or was it?
Again, I felt a void. I had learned what was necessary to become an art teacher at a
primary or secondary school in the state of Georgia. As an art teacher, I could open up my
students’ eyes to a world of art that I was never exposed to as a child. I could teach these
children how to critically create and discuss works of art. But, I wondered, could I teach
them how to critically analyze what the world threw at them through my art curriculum? Had
I even learned how to critically analyze what the world had been throwing out at me?
From the end of my undergraduate education career and moving on to my elementary
teaching experience, I somehow felt that I had not learned enough, that there was knowledge
out in the world that I had not been exposed to. I was not quite sure how to articulate and
explain these thoughts and feelings, not only to others, but to myself. The best way to explain
this sentiment is to say that my thought processes were still immature and I needed help
being more critical. My only solution to this learning deficit was to apply to graduate school.
Here I am at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in the graduate Art Education
program writing my thesis. Prior to this point, during my first semester as a student in this
program, I finally began to understand the “I had not learned enough” void I felt while
completing my undergraduate degree and during my first teaching experience. The following
passages by Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual express my feelings and
ideas about the void I felt:
The particular threat to the intellectual today… is not the academy, nor the suburbs,
nor the appalling commercialism of journalism and publishing houses, but rather an
attitude that I will call professionalism. By professionalism I mean thinking of your
work as an intellectual as something you do for a living, between the hours of nine
and five with one eye on the clock, and another cocked at what is considered to be
proper, professional behavior—not rocking the boat, not straying outside the accepted
paradigms or limits, making yourself marketable and above all presentable, hence
uncontroversial and unpolitical and “objective.” (p. 73-74)
In other words, I was a product of professionalism. Through my undergraduate education, I
was taught to be and do one thing in my life. This is not to say that I do not appreciate my
undergraduate education or that I disregard it as of no value. I would not be where I am had I
not gone through such experiences.
Now that you know how I got to the point of pursuing Art Education, I will explore
the developments of my interest in the Deaf community and art museums. These two subjects
are familiar to me now, but how did I get to the point of deciding to write my thesis about
them? Even those who know me very well may say it seems like a random decision, but I
feel it is due to my tying together a string of five events in my life that led to the completion
of this thesis.
This string first appeared before my adolescent days when I met a Deaf boy who was
a little younger than me through my community of friends. I felt very awkward and
inadequate because I could not communicate with him while a few of my other friends could.
I felt like an outsider in this world of hand configurations. A little later in life, I found my
older brother’s Boy Scout manual and saw the American Sign Language (ASL) alphabet
illustrated within; this was the second string in the series of events.
I tied these first two pieces of string together, end to end, and taught myself the ASL
alphabet. I could now have very basic conversations and become friends with the boy I could
not previously communicate with. I also managed to learn a few other word signs from him.
These brief moments of communication had a profound impact on me as a child, but this
impact must have been latent because I did not actively think about or pursue any further
engagement with ASL until I began my graduate studies. It was not until my first semester as
a graduate student that I realized something I had never before properly articulated to others
or to myself—I wanted to learn more ASL and learn more about the Deaf culture.
As I was researching classes prior to my first semester of graduate school, I decided
to look through the liberal arts classes offered to see if something sparked my interest outside
of my degree requirements. I came upon the languages section of the liberal arts classes and
saw that the school offers American Sign Language 1 and American Sign Language 2; these
two classes represent the third string in the series of events leading up to the genesis of my
thesis.
I tied this third piece of string to the others when I decided to sign up for ASL 1. I
already had an interest in signing and Deaf culture and figured that, as an educator living in
such a multicultural society as the United States, learning another language would only be an
asset to my career. I realize that this line of thought seems purely motivated by
professionalism, but at that point in time I had not yet begun my graduate school career and
professionalism was still a motivating factor. Another reason I decided to take ASL is
because I thoroughly enjoy learning about other cultures and, in my eyes, the best way to
learn about another culture is to study the language associated with it. In my experience, one
cannot learn a language without absorbing information about the culture in which that
language is spoken.
Now that my prior history and experience with ASL and the Deaf culture has been
investigated, it will be much easier to explain the fourth piece of string—my interest in the
art museum aspect of my thesis. This interest mainly stems from my own lack of knowledge
about the realm of museum practices in the education of society and from the information I
have recently gained through museum education courses. On this note of minimal
knowledge, before I delve into my interest in art museums, I would like to quote Edward
Said once again:
In the end, I am moved by causes and ideas that I can actually choose to support
because they conform to values and principles I believe in. I do not therefore consider
myself bound by my professional training in literature, consequently ruling myself
out from matters of public policy just because I am only certified to teach modern
European and American literature. I speak and write about broader matters because as
a rank amateur I am spurred on by commitments that go well beyond my narrow
professional career. (p.88)
Despite my professional training in art education, I would like to follow in the footsteps of
Edward Said and, “as a rank amateur” qualified by my continuing studies and research in the
themes discussed in this thesis proposal, I will discuss matters within art museums that
“spur” my interest.
Throughout my undergraduate training to become an art teacher and throughout my
life in general, I was not able to experience the involvement of museums in art education. I
can hardly recall visiting any museums, let alone art museums while growing up. I, as well as
my parents, had not associated museums with the learning necessary to my future career as a
children’s doctor. I was in my freshman year of college, and still a pre-med student, when I
actually went to my first art museum, where I had a wonderful and memorable experience.
Since then I have been to quite a few art museums, but have not been too critical and
analytical about my experiences within these institutions. The fourth string was tied to the
rest when I began making connections between the Deaf community and art museums.
Ever since I began studying ASL and coming into contact with deaf individuals and
the Deaf culture, I began to notice more and more that the hearing world knows little about
their diverse population and treats them as though they have a deficit in their abilities. People
who are Deaf do not view themselves as having a disability. After all, they live and function
in the same space as hearing people and just use a different language, much like people from
different countries and cultures do. Nevertheless, mainstream society falls short of seeing
Deaf people as individuals who speak another language. Prior to my studies in American
Sign Language and Deaf culture, even I knew very little about the Deaf community and how
Deaf people live their lives in a world full of sounds and verbal communication. Because
Deaf people have formed such a tight-knit community through the use of a common
language—ASL—people who use spoken language to communicate may not share too many
experiences with them. This lack of contact is evident in the way people speak about the
Deaf community and in popular misconceptions about American Sign Language and Deaf
culture, and this is why I feel the need to create more awareness about the needs of the Deaf
community. Additionally, through my studies about the Deaf community, I have noticed that
art museums in the United States seem to focus on accommodations and programs for people
who are physically and visually impaired. This makes sense because physical access is a
general necessity for all people and the collections of art museums are based mostly on
seeing rather than hearing. But are art museums in this country aware of what the Deaf
community needs from them and what possibilities exist in terms of accommodating this
specific community? Is the Deaf community even aware of the existing accommodations that
art museums provide for them?
With four pieces of the string tied together, I will connect the fifth and final string—
this thesis—by analyzing current exemplary practices of art museums in England and the
United States, and by compiling research about the best accommodations to ensure more
meaningful educational experiences for Deaf museumgoers in the United States. In addition,
I will identify the gaps between art museums and accessibility practices in order to identify
where museums are lacking in the area of accessibility and how these gaps can be bridged.
Most importantly, I realize that when discussing a certain group of people and the
issues they face, it may seem like the group in question is being isolated and objectified; I
would like to express to the reader that this is not my intent. The goal of this paper is to
create awareness about the needs of people who are Deaf within the setting of art museums.
To accomplish this goal, I must educate the reader about Deaf culture, the issues that exist
within the Deaf community, what government policies support the Deaf community, and
what accommodations have been and are currently being provided for the Deaf community in
art museums in England and the U.S. I will gather this information through literature,
interviews, and an art museum visit made in conjunction with a focus group discussion with
members of the Deaf community.

Literature Review
The hearing-impaired community makes up quite a large population within the
United States. According to a 1990-1991 survey done by Gallaudet University (a prominent
higher-learning institution for the deaf in Washington, D.C.), there are approximately 20
million people in the United States with hearing impairments. Of those 20 million, about
552,000 people “cannot hear and understand any speech,” which means that the remaining
19,450,000 people fall somewhere along a hearing-impairment continuum ranging from mild
to profound (Holt, et al., 1994). Not only is the hearing-impaired population diverse in their
ability to hear sounds, but in their race, culture, religion, language, sexuality, and every other
way that the hearing population varies (Smith & Bienvenu, 2007). For the purposes of my
thesis, I will concentrate on the culturally Deaf portion of the hearing-impaired community—
the approximate 550,000 Americans who cannot hear at all. Within the larger deaf
community, “persons who view themselves as Deaf… consider themselves members of a
separate Deaf culture, rather than of the larger hearing culture. [Deaf] individuals view and
define deafness as a cultural identity rather than as a disability” (Tucker, 1997, p. 31). In this
literature review, I will continue to elaborate on aspects of Deaf culture (including American
Sign Language) within the larger context of the deaf community. I will also discuss the issues
that Deaf people face within hearing society. As a byproduct of this discussion, I will also
dispel some common misconceptions about the Deaf community. Subsequently, I will
discuss the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and how it applies to people with hearing
impairments and to the art museum setting. Finally, I will discuss specific accommodations
the Deaf community could benefit from in the art museum setting, and how various museums
in England and the U.S. are accommodating this specific group of people.
The Deaf Among the deaf
Within the larger deaf community, there are various levels of deafness. The reader
may have noticed the capitalization, or lack thereof, when I have used the word deaf; this is
not a matter of inconsistency. Within literature I have come across, “deaf” is widely used as
“the audiological experience of not being able to hear sound,” whereas “Deaf” is used to
“describe a cultural identity” (Smith & Bienvenu, 2007, p. 62). Humphries, Padden, and
O’Rourke (1994) explain that these distinctions are made “because there are deaf people,
who are not part of any of these [Deaf] communities, who do not know ASL.” They:
…are distinguishing between those deaf individuals who use ASL (Deaf individuals), and
those who are deaf, but do not participate in the language or community of Deaf people
(deaf individuals). As you can see, just because one does not hear, it does not necessarily
mean that one has learned ASL and is part of a Deaf community. (p. 6)
These distinctions are widely used and necessary when referring to the deaf community at
large or the culturally Deaf population within the larger deaf community.
There are many ways to categorize deafness and the various levels of hearing that
occur within the deaf community. Senghas and Monoghan (2002) suggest that a deaf
person’s inability to hear sound allows some theorists to place him or her in the “medical
model of deafness,” which “is based on deficit theory and holds that deafness is the
pathological absence of hearing and that such a hearing-impaired individual is therefore
disabled because of faulty hearing.” This theory is referred to as the medical model “because
medical procedures (such as cochlear implants) are characteristic of responses made by
(hearing) parents of deaf children and often involve extensive intervention by medical
professionals” (p.78). The phrase “medical intervention” refers to surgeries to improve
hearing, hearing aids, and/or cochlear implants. For my thesis, I am not referring to members
of the Deaf community using a medical model. I prefer to look at Deafness from a cultural
and lingual basis.
Those in the deaf community who may have pursued such medical interventions (i.e.,
the hard of hearing, late deafened, and oral deaf) are generally not considered a part of the
culturally Deaf community because they have hearing loss that ranges from mild to profound,
they associate mostly with hearing people, and/or they do not use American Sign Language
as their primary means of communicating with others (Sivertson, 2008). Please refer to
Appendix A for a graphical chart displaying these levels of deafness. The chart in Appendix
A shows the different characteristics of people with hearing impairments. It shows four
groups (the hard of hearing, late deafened, oral deaf, and culturally Deaf) within the hearing-
impaired world. By no means is this table inclusive of exceptions among the groups; these
are general observations about each group and should not be used to form stereotypes. For
instance, someone who is deaf may have some ability to hear and speak, yet someone who is
hard of hearing may not hear or speak at all; yet, the distinction is made in the community
and culture of association (Humphries, et al., 1994). Also, for clarification, the “Community
of Association” column in Appendix A states whether the group in question mainly
associates with hearing or deaf people according to their own social ties.
Additionally, those who are culturally Deaf consider the late deafened, hard of
hearing, and oral deaf as “hearing people who have lost some of their hearing” since these
people originally had some prior experience in hearing sound and speech (Ladd, 2003, p. 33).
Therefore, due to such cultural, lingual, and social variety within the deaf world, it is
necessary for the purposes of researchers to distinguish between the specific Deaf community
within the general deaf community.
American Sign Language and the Deaf Community
The Deaf population that I am concentrating on primarily uses American Sign
Language (ASL) as their means of communication. Humphries, et al. (1994) acknowledge
that ASL is the language used by 200,000 to 500,000 of the previously mentioned 550,000
members of the culturally Deaf community in this country. The use of ASL is not just a
means of communication, it is a way of life for Deaf people. Because they have created a
culture and community based on this signed language, it is part of their identity. Erting
(1985) likens deafness to ethnicity when considering the formation and social structure of the
Deaf culture. Also, Smith and Campbell (1997) believe that Deaf individuals are similar to
other minorities in the sense that they have formed social groups and organizations within
their culture. These social groups exist in areas of political organizations, religion,
entertainment, and education. Thus, just as various ethnic groups in the U.S. have established
communities and ways of life around a shared language, neighborhoods, churches, etc., the
Deaf community has done the same, particularly around their shared use of American Sign
Language. According to Monaghan and Senghas (2002), “When individuals or groups accept
sign languages, other language-associated practices are also recognized… [and] deaf people
are thus seen as part of larger social entities such as communities” (p. 78). Consequently,
ASL as a language has served in building a cultural group within society and among the
larger hearing-impaired community. Since ASL plays such a large role in the development
and culture of the Deaf community, in order to better understand the needs of the Deaf, I will
begin discussing aspects of American Sign Language.
ASL ≠ English
There is a misconception that exists about American Sign Language and its derivation
from the English language. Although these two languages share some similarities, ASL is a
visual and manual language that is overall quite different from the grammar and syntax of the
spoken English language. Within ASL and other signed languages, facial expressions and
body language are quite important and must also be observed while conversing manually
because facial expressions serve grammatical purposes, hence the strong visual aspect of
ASL. Unlike in the hearing community, conversations cannot take place without eye contact
in the Deaf community. Scientific research shows that as a result of experiencing constant
visual stimulation through the use of American Sign Language, adults who were born deaf
have stronger peripheral vision skills than hearing adults (Bower, 2000). Also, people who
are Deaf watch the entire upper body, face, and hands during a signed conversation, which
also leads to enhanced peripheral vision skills.
Moreover, signed language is so different from spoken English that even the notion of
humor is altered, and jokes do not always translate properly. For example, the following is a
very common Deaf joke:
There is a Deaf man driving along in his car. He is hurrying to get home because his
wife will get very angry if he is late. He then comes to a railroad crossing and the
gates are down. He waits as the train passes. The train is long past and still the gates
are down. The man waits and waits and is thinking of how his wife is going to yell if
he’s late. The Deaf man then gets out of his car and proceeds to the control booth at
the crossing, where there is a person who is in charge of all the controls. The Deaf
man takes out his pencil and paper and tries to think of the English words to put on
the paper requesting that the gates be raised. He thinks and thinks (in sign) and says
to himself, ah ha, and writes the words, “Please b-u-t,” and hands the paper to the
hearing gatekeeper. The gatekeeper does not understand and says, “Huh?”
(Rutherford, 1983, p. 313)
Get it? Unless you know the ASL signs for “open the railroad gates” and “but,” which are
identical, then it is unlikely you understood the joke. For those of you who are unfamiliar
with ASL and the Deaf culture, even knowing that these two signs are the same may not
make the joke very entertaining for you because your cultural references are different from
those of a Deaf person; knowing the language is not enough (Rutherford, 1983). Appendix B
shows a wooden sculpture by Deaf artist Chuck Baird called Please But, which is a physical
representation of the joke. Please But consists of a railroad crossing with a closed set of
gates, the arms of which end in human hands balled into fists with index fingers extended. If
the gates in this sculpture were to open, they would create the movement necessary to sign
both “open the railroad gates” and “but.”

Not only is humor affected by the differences between ASL and English, the types of
buildings Deaf people may efficiently work in differ from buildings in which hearing people
live and work in as well. Because members of Deaf culture have a visual language, Dr.
Benjamin Bahan suggests building “Visu-Centric” spaces for this community. For instance,
Dr. Bahan was consulted in the planning stages of a new learning center Gallaudet University
opened in the fall of 2008. He suggested that the new learning center “should have excellent
sight lines; fewer doors; more glass - mirrors and windows, and lighting” because “open
space in buildings provides the opportunity to facilitate communications through sign
language but also through eye gaze, gestures, and facial expressions” (Lispey & McCarty,
2007, p.3). Such wide-open building designs allow those who are deaf and hard of hearing to
communicate openly with each other without the distractions of too many walls or doors,
which for hearing people allows for privacy and concentration.
Since ASL is so different from English, art museums must not assume that typed
brochures and exhibition guides provide Deaf people with equal access to the information
offered to those who speak, hear, read, and write in English. Because people who are Deaf
can see, they should not simply be provided with reading materials, just as members of the
general public are not merely provided written resources under many art museums’ public
programming. Derycke (1994) says, “Having a catalogue or display card as the sole
introduction to a painting or sculpture is woefully inadequate for a deaf person… who must
struggle to understand a language that… is not their natural form of expression” (p. 48).
Charrow and Wilbur (1975) view Deaf individuals as linguistic minorities who are just like
members of ethnic groups who learned English as a second language and do not learn
English as well as the native speakers. With that said, American Sign Language is quite
different from English and should be more widely recognized by art museums in the United
States.
ASL is Not a Universal Signed Language
Another misconception that exists is that American Sign Language is a universal
signed language. American Sign Language is only spoken in the United States and Canada.
In my own pursuit of learning ASL, I have learned that different countries have different
signed languages. Thus far, through my research, I have come across British (BSL), French
(LSF), Nicaraguan (ISN), and Japanese (JSL) signed languages. However, there are
additional signed languages to accompany most of the spoken languages used around the
world.
Not only are there different signed languages in different countries, there are also
many variations within signed languages such as American Sign Language. Some of these
variations include Pidgen Signed English, Signed English, etc. (Brueggemann, 1995). The
variation known as Signed English is used in school inclusion programs to help Deaf children
learn to understand and read English better. Furthermore, Brueggemann (1995) mentions that
ASL varies in ways that English varies by region. For example, Deaf communities within the
same state have created signs for cities and street names that may not exist in other states
around the U.S.

Although ASL is different from signed languages in other countries, it does have
some background in LSF. This is because Thomas Gallaudet, founder of the first deaf school
in the United States in 1817, brought a French deaf teacher named Laurent Clerc to help with
the education of the deaf in the U.S. (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). Nevertheless, over time,
both ASL and LSF have evolved into separate languages that share only a few similar signs
(Humphries, et al., 1994).
People Who Are Deaf and Lip-reading
Lip-reading is not something that all Deaf people have mastered at the level most
hearing individuals might think. Depending on the type of training Deaf people receive, they
might read lips better than others or not very well at all. Furthermore, under the tradition of
Oralism, which prohibits the use of signed languages and flourished in Deaf institutions from
about the 1880s to the early 1970s (and is still practiced today), members of the deaf
community were taught to communicate primarily by speech and lip-reading (Ladd, 2003).
Members of the Deaf community who have been trained in Oralism might be quite good at
reading lips, but that does not necessarily mean they understand every word that is spoken to
them. In order to provide an example of the varieties of deafness and lip-reading, I would like
to share my experience with a deaf professor I encountered at a lecture about art for social
justice in November 2007. I was not aware that the professor was deaf as he introduced the
guest speaker because he delivered his introduction with what seemed like a simple speech
impediment, but while the guest speaker was lecturing I noticed an interpreter on stage
signing for him. It was at this point that I realized he was deaf. The professor lost his hearing
due to a childhood accident at the age of 10, which means that he learned ASL as a second
language after being exposed to the sounds of spoken English. More importantly, I want to
stress the point that just because this deaf professor could speak and be understood, it does
not mean that he did not know ASL or that his eyesight and lip-reading skills were excellent
enough to read someone’s lips in a large lecture setting.
In the context of art museums, having Deaf people join tours and gallery talks in
English with the expectation that they might follow along through lip-reading would not be
an effective way to disseminate information and to educate Deaf museum visitors.
Statistically, those Deaf people who read lips the best can only understand about 30 percent
to 40 percent of what is said to them (Suggs, 2003). Thus, lip-reading is not the most
effective way to communicate with people who are Deaf. If Deaf art museum visitors only
understand 30 to 40 percent of the information given in a lecture or a tour, this form of
education needs to be re-evaluated with consideration to their needs.
Struggles and Issues Within the Deaf Community
We cannot truly know the Deaf community without learning about the struggles and
issues they have faced throughout history as well as those issues they face today. In the past,
those who were deaf were not highly respected as human beings and were ignored since they
were not able to communicate with hearing people. When nobility were affected by deafness
and it threatened their rights to inheritance, discovering ways to teach the deaf became more
important (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). Eventually, people began to realize that deaf people
are just as capable as the hearing but that they require different methods of communication
and education.
In retrospect, the Deaf community has come a long way in terms of establishing
rights for themselves. For centuries, people with disabilities have dealt with inequality in
society. Inspired by groups in the United States who have also been treated unequally such
as African Americans and women, people with disabilities began to speak out against
unequal treatment; the Civil Rights and Women’s Liberation Movements in the 1960s lead to
the Disability Rights Movement. Through protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, and
organizations, people with disabilities have caught the eyes of policymakers in the U.S.
government. Since the beginning of the Disability Rights Movement, there have been a string
of laws enacted to help make equality a reality. I would like to give a brief overview of the
Disability Rights Movement and governmental policies so that the reader can understand the
struggle of people with disabilities who have been and continue to fight for equality.
One of the first laws to directly address access issues for people with disabilities was
passed in 1968 and was known as the Architectural Barriers Act. This act required facilities
funded by the Federal Government to be physically accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, more specifically Section 504, prohibits discrimination by
the Federal Government and whatever they fund in the areas of facilities, programs, and
employment. This act was a pivotal civil rights law that led to the creation and development
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is more specific about how disability is
defined; it branches outside of the Federal Government to include public and private
institutions and transportation and telecommunication services. More recently, in 2008,
amendments were made to the ADA to increase protection for people with disabilities by
creating a broader definition of the word “disability” and the phrase “major life activities”
within the document. Along with these national laws, some states have created their own
accessibility codes as well. The existence of these laws and the 2008 amendments signal a
need to improve accessibility in order for people with disabilities to obtain equality in
societal services.
Despite all the effects of the Disability Rights Movement, there was a particular
injustice in the Deaf community that was brought to light in the late 1980s. It was not until
1988 that Gallaudet University selected its first Deaf president since the school’s 1864
establishment; this was achieved not through elections, but through protests and
demonstrations (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). Initially, the board of directors selected a hearing
president over two equally qualified deaf candidates. This election stirred uprisings known as
the Deaf President Now (DPN) movement in the student community of Gallaudet University.
Since DPN, Gallaudet University’s board of directors must be at least 50 percent Deaf
(Brueggemann, 1995).
Although DPN created more avenues toward equality for Deaf people, there are still
issues that the community faces today. One of these issues is whether or not institutions
should be legally obligated to provide accommodations for the culturally Deaf. As mentioned
earlier, members of the culturally Deaf community do not feel that their deafness is a
disability but a form of identity and way of life. If this is the case, some people feel that Deaf
people should not advocate accommodations through the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). For example, Tucker (1997), who is deaf, mentions, “Deaf people cannot claim to be
disabled for purposes of demanding accommodations under laws such as the ADA, yet claim
that deafness is not a disability” (p. 36). Tucker as well as others, both deaf and hearing, feel
that Deaf culturists are living contradictions and that the Deaf community should not ask for
accommodations under the ADA. Nonetheless, there are others who oppose this view,
including Humphries et al. (1994):
Deaf people may, at times, allow themselves to be categorized as “disabled” out of

social, economic, or political necessity. However, this adoption of a seemingly
contradictory view of themselves does not diminish their sense of themselves as a
culturally and linguistically sophisticated people (p. 10).
This view validates the Deaf community as a cultural entity, and supports their choices in
requesting governmental support for equal access opportunities. Smith and Bienvenu (2007)
compare Feminist Theory to the issues of the Deaf community and suggest developing a
Deaf Theory based on the Feminist Theories that have already been developed. One of their
points is based on the dichotomy between Deaf and hearing people, which states, “Deaf
individuals (like women) can strive to have equal political/social power, while
simultaneously being different than hearing (male) individuals” (p. 61). The authors embrace
this difference and believe there is nothing wrong with needing accommodations from
institutions in order to create equality among people who are Deaf and hearing. I support the
culturally Deaf community in their right to have accommodations, and in this thesis I will
present methods art museums may use to provide meaningful education to Deaf visitors.
Another issue the Deaf community faces today is the curing of deafness through the
use of cochlear implants in children. A cochlear implant is a technological device that
alleviates nerve deafness and is placed in the inner ear through surgery, thus allowing sound
to travel straight to the brain rather than via the ear (Tucker, 1997). Deaf culturists feel that
parents should not decide the fate of their young deaf children by fitting them with cochlear
implants before they are at an age to make the decision on their own. They feel it is a
violation of a child’s human rights. On the other hand, those who support the decisions of
parents to provide cochlear implants to their young children cite scientific research that
shows the earlier a child gets a cochlear implant, the more effective it is against deafness
(Tucker, 1998). Tucker (1998) poses the following argument about allowing deaf children to
decide whether or not to receive a cochlear implant when they are older:
A person who is deaf does not learn to speak at the age of twelve or older, the age at
which the child is arguably old enough to decide for herself how she wants to live her
life. But a child who is deaf who learns to speak and is part of the hearing world
during childhood can learn to sign later in life and join the Deaf world (p. 8).
The arguments of these two opposing parties are being discussed to this day, which shows
how important an issue cochlear implants continues to be in our society.
There are two deaf organizations that continually battle over the preservation of Deaf
culture versus the promotion of cochlear implants and other such technologies, and their
positions are made quite obvious in their missions. The mission of the National Association
of the Deaf (NAD) is “to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf
and hard of hearing people in the United States of America” (2009). The opposing
organization, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG
Bell), states that its mission is “Advocating Independence through Listening and Talking”
(2008). These two organizations butted heads recently over PepsiCo’s Super Bowl pre-game
commercial advocating the use of American Sign Language, which aired on February 3,
2008.1 When the AG Bell organization found out that this commercial was going to be aired
on a day with so many viewers, they wrote a letter to the senior vice president of PepsiCo
Communications expressing how it would promote a single stereotype of the diverse deaf
community and that the money used to pay for the ad could be used instead to provide
hearing aids and other services for the deaf. This letter is placed in Appendix C for reference.
The NAD responded to AG Bell in a letter expressing the organization’s disappointment over
the lack of support for the rights of members of the Deaf culture. The NAD’s response is also
included in Appendix D. From the conflict surrounding this Super Bowl advertisement, one
can see that the issues of preserving Deaf culture and curing deafness are ongoing and have
yet to be resolved.
Tucker (1997) mentions that by 2017 deafness may be completely reversible due to
cochlear implants and other assistive hearing technology—hence, doing away with Deaf
culture. Based on this premise, an argument can be made to free institutions from legal
obligation to provide accommodations for the Deaf community. However, current
governmental policies in the United States have not anticipated or allowed room for such
technological advances, and the issue of the preservation of Deaf culture has not been taken
into account. Thus, institutions are still obligated by law to provide accommodations for the
hearing-impaired population.
Government Policy Regarding the Deaf Population and Art Museums
“Deaf people earn a living, are consumers, and participate as citizens within a society that
defines them as abnormal and is structured in ways that make it difficult for them to share
equally with hearing people the benefits of that society.” (Erting, 1985, p. 227)
For people who are Deaf, there are certain barriers that prevent them from equally
accessing services that are part of our everyday lives. Tucker (1997) discusses three barriers
that have developed over time that members of the deaf community face in our society; these
barriers exist through our communicative technologies such as telephones and television, and
through general barriers in communication in public programming. Currently, barriers that
affect the Deaf population and other people with disabilities are addressed in the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Because of these obstacles, people who are deaf and hard of hearing
were huge proponents of the ADA when it was being drafted and continue to support it
today. Since this is the main law that deals with creating equality for people with disabilities,
I will discuss the ADA in greater detail.
President George H. W. Bush signed the ADA into law on July 26, 1990. The original
aim of this act was to put an end to discrimination against people with disabilities in all
aspects of life in this country, including employment, telecommunications, transportation,

and public services. The ADA handbook establishes that “public accommodations are private
entities that affect commerce” and that “the ADA public accommodations requirements
extend, therefore, to a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’
offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums [italics added], libraries, parks, private schools,
and day care centers” (Harrison & Gilbert, 1992, p. 53). The law clearly states that museums
must provide accommodations for disabled members of society, which is one of the reasons
why I want to study the accessibility needs of the Deaf community in art museums. But how
is disability defined by these government policies and to what extent are museums
responsible for providing such accommodations?
The ADA defines disabled individuals as having “a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individuals, a record
of such an impairment or being regarded as having such impairments” (Harrison & Gilbert,
1992, p. 75). According to this definition, someone with a hearing impairment may be
considered to have a physical disability that considerably affects his or her life. As well as
defining hearing-impaired individuals as disabled, the ADA also establishes the extent of
accommodations that institutions are required to provide for them. For those who are hearing
impaired, the ADA requires “services and devices such as qualified interpreters, assistive
listening devices, notetakers, and written materials” (Harrison & Gilbert, 1992, p. 54). On the
other hand, the ADA does set a limit on the level of accommodations that institutions such as
art museums must provide—the law “does not require the provision of any auxiliary aid that
would result in an undue burden or in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods or
services provided,” but institutions are “not relieved from the duty to furnish an alternative
auxiliary aid, if available, that would not result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden”
(Harrison & Gilbert, 1992, p. 55). According to this law, institutions such as art museums are
required to provide accommodations for those who are hearing impaired but in a manner that
does not excessively inconvenience the institution or force the creation of a completely
separate program for hearing-impaired individuals. However, each institution’s capabilities
and resources vary, and therefore the types of accommodations these institutions provide will
differ. Despite such varying capabilities and resources, I am researching and proposing
methods that will create meaningful experiences for members of the culturally Deaf
community within the art museum context. I will pursue the discovery of appropriate
methods that can enhance a Deaf person’s experience in an art museum in hopes that
museum professionals can utilize this research to fit the needs of their audience and
institution.
A Museum’s Responsibility to the Public and the Access Rights of the Public
Outside of the legal reasons, art museums have a responsibility to provide all-
inclusive, equal access to the public, especially if they receive any public funding. Most
museums in England receive public funding and are considered public institutions. Hence,
English museums have a greater responsibility toward the public’s various learning needs.
However, in the United States, many museums receive a mix of public and private funding.
Should this mean that the needs of the public get left out of museum programming because
they do not contribute 100 percent of the funding? This is an irresponsible way to address the
needs of museum visitors. Paying admission fees, putting money in the donation box, and/or
government funding in an art museum should be repaid to the public through services and
programming. Despite the fact that an art museum can be privately funded does not mean
that the public will visit less or that the museum will only concentrate on protecting and
storing its collection. Privately funded institutions still provide public programming and must
remember that the public is comprised of individuals with varying capabilities. In his essay
The Quality of Visitors’ Experiences in Art Museums, Philip Wright (1989) says, “There is no
such thing as the ‘typical visitor’, and there is no single level which can be expected and then
addressed. The museum has to cater for increasingly fragmented publics who want to learn
and do different things at different speeds” (p. 119). According to Wright, art museums need
to cater to various audiences and this is and has been happening increasingly in art museums
around the world. For instance, art museums provide specifically catered programming and
educational opportunities for various audiences, including families, school groups, teachers,
young professionals, adults, seniors, the community, etc. These various audiences have
received plenty of attention in the museum education arena, but museums need to start
putting forth more of their energy and resources toward improving educational programming
for people with varying learning abilities, including Deaf individuals.
Also, many of these educational programs involve learning through interaction versus
learning through individual reflection and discovery. At any point in time a Deaf person can
walk into an art museum and experience the works on display independently, just like any
other visitor. Yet, I am in search of methods that allow Deaf people to interact with others to
provide a sense of shared learning, which currently is not being practiced widely enough in
the United States. The prominent education philosopher John Dewey (1916) says that as
social beings, we learn in social environments (such as schools and museums) and that social
learning is an important aspect in the entire learning process. However, one can be excluded
from experiences in group learning if he or she has any sort of impairment or disability,
which is the current situation faced by the Deaf community in most art museums. Because art
museums provide specialized programming for various audiences, it is a Deaf person’s right
to have the same access to programs as anyone else. As a result, art museums and other
educational institutions must continually strive to include members of the Deaf community in
their social learning initiatives.
From the literature referenced thus far and from my action research, I hope to
discover better and more detailed methods for providing programming for the Deaf
community. I will also continue to research about the laws that affect the accommodations art
museums provide for the Deaf community. In addition, I will continue to look into the
accommodations provided for the Deaf community by art museums in England and the
United States. With my thesis and fieldwork, I hope to compile a set of recommendations for
accommodations that art museums—and various other types of museums—can provide for
their Deaf audiences in order to create more meaningful experiences for them in these
settings. I will also include a set of recommendations for members of the Deaf community in
order to inform them about how they can play a part in increasing museum accessibility.
Methodology
My research process began as an ethnographic study of the culturally Deaf
community. By ethnographic study, I mean research into a cultural group (the Deaf
community) to provide information about how this group of people lives in hopes of
understanding them better (O’Leary, 2004). As I continued to develop my topic and
methodology in detail, this project formed into a case study, which O’Leary defines as a
“method of studying elements of the social through comprehensive description and analysis
of a single situation or case, for example, a detailed study of an individual, group, episode,
event, or any other unit of social life organization” (p. 115). This particular case study
involves the Deaf community and the comparison of art museum accommodations for this
community in the United States and England. The methodologies involved in this case study
include an ethnographic study of the Deaf community and action research into the
accommodations of a particular museum. With the help of my ASL professor, I gathered a
group of five Deaf adults so that I could conduct this action research with them in the form of
a focus group discussion. O’Leary (2004) defines the goal of action research as “work[ing]
with stakeholders to generate knowledge in order to action change” (p. 98). Through the use
of a focus group discussion, I was able to find out how members of the local Chicago Deaf
community feel about a sign language-interpreted tour provided by the Art Institute of
Chicago. Another component of my action research is based on creating a blog that will
allow the general public, museum professionals, and the Deaf community to access my
research; I will e-mail the blog address to various museum education departments and Deaf
organizations.
In order to learn more about Deaf culture and the issues faced by the Deaf population,
I used books, journal articles, and Web sites to gather information. The journal articles
helped me the most in my research as they provided more recent information on this
relatively new topic of accommodations for Deaf people in museums, as well as on current
debates in the Deaf community. These journals also gave me insight into the nuances of
American Sign Language and the culturally Deaf population. I used Web sites to gather
information on and from Deaf groups and associations, and for information on museum
accessibility, current issues, and general information on deafness. Additionally, I have
gathered information from my ASL classes as a student of the culture and language of the
Deaf community, and from my experiences with people from the Deaf community.
Some of my research about museums and their accessibility practices comes from the
Web sites of museums in the U.S. and England. According to a marketing company that
gears its work toward people with disabilities, four out of ten people with disabilities spend
an average of 20 hours per week online conducting business and personal activities
(Solutions Marketing Group, 2008). Although museum Web sites may not provide
comprehensive information about accommodations, visitors often use the sites to find out
information about institutions prior to a visit. Through my research, I have found that
museums that provide physical and programmatic access for people with disabilities usually
have a section on their Web site with information about their accessibility practices and how
to contact the museum if accommodations are required. Consequently, I have found that
searching through and evaluating museum Web sites is an important part of figuring out what
accessibility options museums openly provide for people with differing abilities.
Another method I used to gather information about the best accessibility practices at
museums today is through literature about this specific topic. Organizations for the arts,
researchers of museum studies, as well as accessibility organizations have published
literature geared toward museums about recommended accessibility practices. In my
research, I have sifted through this literature and chosen the best recommendations that art
museums may use to increase and enhance their accessibility programs for the Deaf
community.
Rather than simply relying on the literature I found about proper accommodations for
people with disabilities, I decided to create and implement an action research project to
increase the depth of my research and create a blog to allow more people access to this
information. Conducting a focus group discussion allowed me to stay grounded and directly
learn the opinions of the people for whom museum accommodations are required. I decided
to take my participants on a regularly scheduled gallery tour with a sign language interpreter
at the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC). I chose this institution specifically because it advertised
on its Web site interpreter services for gallery talks and tours with a two-week advance
reservation. I also chose this museum because during the time of my fieldwork, I was an
intern in the Museum Education Department and was able to get support for my field of
research. Furthermore, I decided to base my focus group discussions on an AIC visit because
other art institutions in Chicago did not advertise the use of interpreters on their Web sites;
this lack of interpreter services would prevent me from evaluating the effectiveness of their
accessibility practices. A focus group discussion based on a visit to the AIC empowered my
participants to offer their direct input about the museum’s practices in accessibility for people
who are Deaf.
The participants in my focus group consisted of four women and one man above the
age of 30. I decided to work with adults so that I could get detailed feedback about the
museum’s accessibility practices. I scheduled the tour and the interpreter through the
museum as if I were an average person looking for accommodations. Thus, I went to the
museum’s Web site, found the accessibility section, and used the e-mail address provided to
request an interpreter for a gallery talk that was on the museum’s schedule of events. I
planned the tour for a free evening, when the museum is accessible to people of all socio-
economic backgrounds who might not otherwise afford a museum visit. The tour itself was
30 minutes long and was followed by a focus group discussion in which the goals were to
evaluate the interpreter, the content of the tour, the format of the tour, and to discuss
strategies that the museum can employ that would make visits for Deaf people more
enjoyable.
Parameters
A major delimitation of my research is the lack of discussion about museum funding.
Specifically, I decided not to address the amount of funding art museums set aside for
accommodating people with disabilities or whether or not they have set aside such funding at
all. This decision is based on the fact that museums may always use a lack of funding as a
reason for not providing accommodations for people with different abilities, the hearing-
impaired population in particular. In an article published in Museum News, the authors argue
that “no matter how limited the staff or funding, you can usually start with some action if you
utilize your resources well” (Richner, Prezant, & Rosen, 2006). Although funding is an issue,
I agree with the Museum News article and feel that financial concerns blocking accessibility
initiatives can be bypassed using grants, tax benefits through the ADA, and budget
adjustments; accessibility programs must be made a priority by each individual institution as
an investment in visitor services, otherwise lack of funding will be used as an excuse to do
the bare minimum or nothing to resolve access issues.
One of the primary limitations of my study is the fact that I am a hearing person
studying the culturally Deaf population as an outsider. American Sign Language is not my
first language and I have not been exposed or immersed in the Deaf culture for very long at
all. My understanding of the Deaf culture may not be thorough since I am not part of this
culture. Also, my studies will not include those members of the deaf population who may
have some hearing capabilities and may use hearing aids or other assistive hearing
technology; my focus is exclusively on the culturally Deaf who use American Sign Language
as their primary means of communication. Moreover, when I conducted the focus group
portion of my action research, I did not have a large pool of Deaf people to work with.
Therefore, my studies will involve a very small sample of people from Chicago’s Deaf
community. However, despite these limitations, I believe my research will be quite relevant
to the entire culturally Deaf population, and perhaps to other hearing-impaired populations as
well.
There is bias in my personal views about the rights of Deaf people to maintain their
community and culture despite medical and technological advancements toward curing
deafness. Deaf people have developed a rich culture based around their language, and I feel
they should be able to maintain it if they choose to do so. I also believe that institutions
should try their best to accommodate the Deaf population in accordance with ADA
regulations. Even though a majority of Deaf individuals would not change their inability to
hear with the advent of new medical advancements, public and private institutions should
still try to provide accommodations for the Deaf community. Overall, my beliefs advocate
the preservation of the culture of the Deaf community, but I am using these beliefs to help
make learning institutions such as art museums more accessible to people who are Deaf.
A final set of biases that have influenced my study comes from the participants in my
focus group. Knowing that I am developing a publication to help the Deaf community and to
raise awareness about accessibility issues may have influenced how participants answered
my questions. It is possible that they provided answers that would support my ideas about
accommodations for the Deaf community in art museums rather than expressing their true
feelings.
Story
In this section of my thesis, I would like to narrate the process of preparing for,
conducting, and analyzing the results of my focus group. In order to help with data gathering,
the entire focus group discussion was videotaped and I took field notes during the tour itself.
Another aspect of this story is the research I gathered on the gaps I have noticed between art
museums and accessibility services; these gaps will be mentioned in this section and
elaborated upon in the Discussion section that follows. It is important to identify these gaps
so that solutions can be devised to bridge them.
While planning and preparing for my focus group, I was working as an intern in the
Museum Education Department of the Art Institute of Chicago. The internship, an eight-
week program, including two weeks of training, provided me an invaluable experience. Not
only did it allow me to give tours to people of all ages, it allowed me to learn how the various
departments of the museum function. This internship helped me realize what it takes to create
effective educational programs and tours for all school-aged children, adults, families, and
senior citizens. With the knowledge from my internship, I was better able to understand the
ways in which to evaluate the tour that my focus group participants would be taking.
Outside of these internship experiences, I was continuing my studies in American
Sign Language. Having studied American Sign Language for a year does not make me an
expert in ASL. I can communicate my thoughts through sign language, but my ability to read
what others sign to me—in other words, my reception skills—are at a lower level of
comprehension. I do not have a lot of exposure to other ASL users outside of my classes and
the occasional Deaf social event. Therefore, the idea of conducting a focus group in a
language that I am not fluent in made me nervous and caused me some anxiety. I thought
about hiring an interpreter, but I decided to do it on my own because I really wanted to
immerse myself in the language and I do not get much exposure to the language outside of
the classroom. There were quite a few steps I took in order to prepare myself for the focus
group.
First of all, I made sure to re-study my ASL textbook from beginning to end, focusing
on building up my vocabulary and properly relaying grammar through non-manual signs or
facial expressions. In addition to using ASL texts, I watched videos in sign language to
practice my reception skills and improve my comprehension of what individuals may sign to
me. During this process I was also developing questions and topics for the focus group
discussion. Once I had finalized the questions, I converted them into American Sign
Language and practiced signing them until they came naturally to me. I also thought about
possible answers from my participants so that I could recognize the signs and practice my
responses. These preparation measures helped me feel more confident about my ability to
communicate with fluent ASL users.
Another part of the planning process was notifying the Art Institute of Chicago about
a group of people who wanted to reserve the services of an interpreter so that they could join
one of the museum’s regularly scheduled tours. I decided to request an interpreter the way
any visitor would in order to see how the request would be processed; I did not want the fact
that I worked there to influence the museum staff’s handling of the request. I started by
browsing through the museum’s Web site for the section about accessibility needs. Once I
found the right page, I discovered three ways to contact the museum to request an interpreter:
via standard telephone, TDD/TTY (telecommunications device for the deaf/teletypewriter),
and e-mail. The page specified that a request for an interpreter must be made at least two
weeks prior to the planned tour.
I decided to contact the museum via e-mail exactly two weeks prior to the date of the
tour. I received a prompt reply from the museum education assistant who said that he
received my request and would work on scheduling an interpreter. We e-mailed periodically
over the two weeks prior to the tour to confirm my contact information and details such as
how many people would be attending and who would require an interpreter. The education
assistant also informed me that the museum would work on coordinating with the interpreter
and the docent about the information and artworks that would be discussed so that the
interpreter would be prepared.
After preparing myself, practicing my ASL skills, booking an interpreter, and
reserving and setting up a room for the focus group, the only thing left was actually going
through with the tour and the focus group discussion. On the day of the tour, I set out to meet
the group in front of the museum 15 minutes prior to the tour to allow for introductions and
brief conversation. However, because the five adult participants did not arrive until a few
minutes before the tour, we only had time to learn each other’s names. Since admission was
free on this night, we walked directly into the museum and went straight to the meeting area
for tour participants. Besides our small group, there were about twenty additional people
waiting in the area for the tour. Since our group was signing to each other, the interpreter
realized we were her audience and introduced herself before the docent began the tour. This
tour was known as a Highlights Tour and was 30 minutes long. The docent decided to talk to
the group about three works of art; two paintings and one Chinese bronze funerary sculpture.
Once we arrived at the first work of art, the docent stood on one side of the painting,
while the interpreter stood on the opposite side. Everything was going well—the docent was
asking questions and giving information about the painting, and the interpreter was signing
the translation. Anytime a visitor would ask a question or answer one of the docent’s
questions, the interpreter would relay this information in sign language as well. Also, when
members of my focus group answered the docent’s questions or had questions to ask the
docent, the interpreter would use her voice to translate for the docent and hearing visitors on
the tour. However, a few minutes into the tour a hearing member of the audience asked the
interpreter to move because he could not see the painting properly. The interpreter stood her
ground and said that she had to remain where she was so that she could be seen and heard by
everyone. After this interaction, it occurred to me that this audience member could have
easily moved a couple of feet to the side to see the painting rather than interrupting the
interpreter.
Although minimal, this brief interaction between the man and the interpreter can be
considered a barrier. If one looks at the situation from a broader point of view, the man who
asked the interpreter to move partially represents our society’s attitude toward people with
disabilities and the provision of accommodations for them; it is a case of a lack of awareness
and a what-does-this-have-to-do-with-me attitude. The term that includes these attitudes is
called ableism, which Pelka (1997) describes as “that set of often contradictory stereotypes
about people with disabilities that acts as a barrier to keep them from achieving their full
potential as equal citizens in society” (p. 3).
Retired ASL interpreter Amanda Torrey spoke in an interview of her experiences in
the 1970s as an interpreter for a Deaf student in the graduate Architecture program at a
Chicago-based university. She mentioned that the professors she worked with were quite
ignorant about how to communicate with a Deaf person and had no knowledge about the
culture of Deaf people (Personal communication, March 25, 2009). Torrey also spoke of her
interaction, during the same time period, with a staff member of a Chicago museum who felt
that it was not an institution’s responsibility to provide interpreters; she said that this staff
member absolutely could not understand the importance of providing accommodations for
people with disabilities until she explained it to him from another point of view. Torrey’s
interactions with people during her time as an interpreter demonstrate that there is not only a
lack of awareness about the Deaf community and Deaf culture, but also an improper ableist
attitude toward providing accommodations for people who are Deaf. Despite the fact that
Torrey’s experiences date from the 1970s, she still feels that the general public lacks
awareness about Deaf people and Deaf culture even though institutions such as museums
have become better about providing accommodations. Author Fred Pelka (1997) also
acknowledges the presence of ableist attitudes in current society despite all the positive
changes that have occurred in the wake of the Disability Rights Movement. The experience
with the man on my focus group’s tour, my own ignorance about Deaf culture prior to my
studies in American Sign Language, and the same ignorance of people I have spoken with in
my own life all demonstrate society’s continued lack of awareness about the Deaf
community. These ableist attitudes pervade our society and institutions thereby preventing
equal access for all. But what is the root of such attitudes?
As a society, most of us do not see each other as people of different abilities who can
coexist equally. Instead, we tend to single out people who are different, which allows the
singled-out to be placed in established cultural groups or to form cultural groups of their
own, leaving them marginalized on the fringes of the established “normal” culture. In the
article Culture as Disability, McDermott and Varenne (1995) express that such societal
outlooks on disabilities are created by culture. In our world, people who are Deaf have been
marginalized, pushed aside for centuries, and forced to create their own culture through a
shared language. Usually, we see culture through an optimistic lens because it is through
culture that groups of people are unified according to the way they live, learn, think, feel, and
behave; however, it is also through culture that people learn to identify and label those who
are not able to live, learn, think, feel, and behave like the rest of the members of a shared
culture (McDermott & Varenne, 1995). Through such labeling, separation, and cultural
generalizations, society has created disabilities. It is idealistic to think that such labeling and
divisions will be eliminated in the future. Instead of using this aspect of human nature to
divide ourselves, we should use it as a way to shed light on how we can accommodate each
other’s varying abilities.
Going back to my group’s tour, it seemed as though the man who asked the
interpreter to move did not know or realize that the interpreter was in that position for a
purpose because he was not utilizing her services himself. By diverting the interpreter’s
focus, he caused her to stop what she was doing, creating a barrier for the Deaf members of
the tour. Despite the subtleness of the situation, a barrier is still a barrier, whether intentional
or not. In this case, the barrier is culture and society. As preservers, researchers, makers, and
disseminators of culture, art museums can set an example for society at large by treating
people who are Deaf—and different in other ways—as equal members of society rather than
as a group of people with their own culture and methods of living.
As the tour progressed and the group moved to the remaining works of art, everything
seemed to go quite smoothly. At the second painting, both the docent and the interpreter
stood side by side to the right of the painting explaining the details of the work. The final
work of art was a three-dimensional piece in a glass case along the wall. The docent and the
interpreter stood on opposite sides of the sculpture while discussing this piece. Finally, the
tour was finished and the docent and interpreter departed.
When the tour was complete, I took my group across the street to the room in which
we would be having our discussion. Since we did not have time before the tour, I began by
introducing myself in a little more detail and talking about my thesis project. I wanted this to
be an informal talk so that the participants would feel comfortable with me and each other, so
I tried to keep the environment laid-back and provided post-tour snacks for the group. Once
everyone was done snacking and chatting, we began the discussion.
The subjects of the focus group discussion were organized into three main sets of
questions—introductory questions, questions dealing with this particular museum visit and
tour, and questions directly addressing some of the topics in this thesis. These questions are
included in Appendix F. The introductory questions were aimed at finding out about the
participants’ previous experiences with museums and their frequency of attendance. The
questions regarding this visit were geared toward evaluating the accommodations for this
tour. They also addressed the tour’s content, the skills of the docent and interpreter, and the
logistical matters of the tour. The final set of questions concentrated on topics I came across
in my research, such as marketing, possible tour strategies for Deaf visitors, and educational
programs targeted toward Deaf visitors to art museums. Through these questions, I hoped to
retrieve information from local Deaf Chicagoans about their experiences and how art
museums could better serve the Deaf community.
When asked about the frequency of their museum attendance, two of the five
participants said they had visited an art museum between one and three times within the last
year. Two other participants said they had attended a science or a history museum, while the
fifth participant had not visited any other museums in the last year. The participants that had
made other museum visits said that they had enjoyed their experiences. Therefore, most of
the participants had had some sort of museum experience prior to our visit as a group.
In reference to the tour we had taken together at the AIC, the participants said they
had enjoyed the experience. They felt that the docent’s knowledge of the art was thorough
and that the interpreter did a great job of conveying all of the information. The participants
also agreed that they would recommend the experience to other Deaf friends and family
members. When asked if they had known about the interpreter services provided by the Art
Institute of Chicago, the participants said they were aware due to marketing initiatives taken
by the museum a few years earlier. Because the advertising campaign was done years ago
and there is currently no set marketing initiative, the museum does not seem to be attracting
Deaf audiences on a regular basis. Thus, marketing is one of the gaps in museum
accessibility practice.
Members of the AIC’s Education Department mentioned in a variety of conversations
that the museum used to do a great deal of marketing toward the Deaf community about its
sign language-interpreted tours. However, because attendance was low, the museum ceased
offering scheduled sign language programs and switched to providing interpreters upon
request. Since marketing is an important part of providing educational accessibility, I asked
my focus group about effective marketing strategies to attract people who are Deaf. The
participants were asked to recommend specific ways the museum could make more Deaf
people aware of its interpreter services, and the general consensus was to advertise through
local Web sites for Deaf people, including www.deafillinois.com and the Deaf Line page on
www.chicagohearingsociety.org, and by sending representatives from the museum to Deaf
churches such as St. Francis Borgia Parish. Access literature for arts organizations suggest
utilizing local Deaf organizations and people as resources to evaluate the museum’s
accommodations and provide advice on marketing and advertising (AAM, 1992; Deafworks,
2001; NEA, NEH, NASAA, JFK Center for Performing Arts, 2003).
Yet, I am not so sure that marketing through the right channels would be enough to
attract Deaf visitors. As mentioned in the Introduction of this thesis, Deaf people are part of a
series of tight-knit communities. In the past, Deaf people created clubs across the nation in
order to keep in contact outside of the residential schools they attended (Humphries, Padden,
& O’Rourke, 1994). These days, Deaf people in the Chicagoland area meet monthly at bars
and restaurants for an event called Duppies. This is a wonderful way for people in the local
Deaf community to connect and keep in touch, and the event is attended by a loyal following.
Perhaps if a large art museum such as the Art Institute of Chicago provided a scheduled sign
language program that included a networking or socializing element, it could attract more
Deaf visitors and become a regular addition to the museum’s calendar. Another good way to
reach Deaf people would be to work with the organizer(s) of Duppies to hold one of the
gatherings at the museum, thus combining an educational art program with a social event.
According to Rebecca McGinnis, an access educator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York, once the museum began adding a social element to its programming for the Deaf
community, the museum started to attract larger crowds of Deaf visitors (Personal
communication, December 1, 2008). In London, three out of ten museums reviewed in a
publication by the Deaf organization Deafworks also offer a social aspect to their educational
programs for Deaf visitors, which has “contributed to the deaf audience feeling they are
patrons to the venue rather than just visitors” (2001, p. 10).
Overall, the participants enjoyed the experience of the sign language-interpreted tour
at the AIC and found it quite interesting. One participant suggested that the docent should
have allowed more time for the interpreter to translate information and for asking questions.
This participant felt that educating the docent about Deaf culture and how an interpreter
works in a mixed crowd could resolve this issue. At the time of my focus group’s visit, the
AIC had no program in place to train docents and other members of the education staff about
how to work with interpreters and Deaf audiences or with other guests of varying
communication and learning abilities. Staff training is a key component of educational
programming for audiences with different abilities, yet it is a missing component in many art
museums, and I consider it to be, along with the lack of marketing and advertising, an
additional gap in museum accessibility practices.
Another suggestion—this one influenced by the tour member’s request for the
interpreter to move—was to somehow keep Deaf tour members separated from hearing ones
so that the Deaf people could see the interpreter at all times and vice versa. However,
according to Deafworks, separating hearing and Deaf patrons for a tour may be complicated
because it is difficult to distinguish who is Deaf and who is hearing (2001). Due to this
complication, museums must figure out what methods work for their individual institutions
in terms of distinguishing between guests. For example, prior to a gallery talk for which an
interpreter has been requested, Deaf visitors might check in at a designated place and receive
a sticker or pin that would identify them as requiring an interpreter. If this process were
explained to visitors when they contacted the museum to request an interpreter, then Deaf
and hearing audiences for the same gallery talk might easily be distinguished from one
another without anyone feeling alienated.
The suggestions made by the participants of my focus group were also found in the
access literature that I have read, but to hear them expressed firsthand allowed me to
concretely understand what members of the Deaf community need in order to have equal
access to the educational programming at art museums. After receiving this feedback and
reading further about the Americans with Disabilities Act, I began to notice another gap in
museum accessibility practices—the enforcement of the ADA within art museums. I feel that
there could be a stronger, more influential manner in which to enforce the ADA in order to
enhance the level of accommodations that art museums may or may not provide for people
who are Deaf. In the following section of this thesis, I will discuss in detail the three main
gaps I have discovered in museum accessibility practices and begin to analyze various forms
of accommodations for Deaf visitors.

Discussion
“Accessibility does not have to be expensive. Experience has repeatedly shown that
accommodations designed to serve people with disabilities generally improve the quality of
programs for the broader public. In short, museums cannot afford not to make their programs
accessible to all visitors.” (Majewski as cited in NEA, et al., p. 26, 2003)
Since museums began making accessibility changes, each has developed its own
strategy according to what works best for their individual institution. After all, since
museums vary in size and location, each must find ways to serve the needs—whether
socioeconomic, educational, or social—of the community in which it resides. Admittedly,
every museum is different and some strategies may not work for all museums and their
specific audiences. Therefore, in this section of my thesis, I would like to discuss my
research on the best accessibility options art museums provide for the Deaf community
today. Furthermore, I will discuss the gaps in accessibility mentioned in the previous section.
I talk about not only the accessibility practices I found in U.S. art museums, but some that I
discovered in England as well.
Gap #1: Training
Of a typical museum staff, the employees who deal with the public most include
those who work at the entrance of the institution, gallery guards, docents, and those involved
in educational programming. I have discovered a gap in the training of these employees with
regards to accommodating individuals with different abilities. According to the director of
education at an Illinois university museum, both the staffs of her current place of
employment and of the art museum where she previously worked had received little or no
training with regards to working with disabled visitors (S. Prajapati, personal
communication, October 29, 2008). It is hard to imagine how welcome visitors with
disabilities might feel when visiting institutions that are not prepared to communicate with
and provide accommodations for them. For instance, one woman in Massachusetts who
frequents museums with her hearing dog must constantly explain the presence of the animal
to the staff at museum entrances, as well as to the guards and other patrons she encounters in
museum galleries (Cassedy, 1993). This situation results when members of the museum staff
are unfamiliar with the accommodations available to visitors with different abilities. Coming
across so much resistance during a museum visit can discourage one from visiting again.
In order to bridge this gap, museums can work with organizations or consulting
companies that specialize in the area of disabilities. These organizations and consultants can
help create and/or implement training programs for a museum’s staff and audit the museum’s
accessibility practices. For instance, in the city of Chicago, the Mayor’s Office for People
with Disabilities provides disability awareness training for the workplace. Also, according to
its Web site, the Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC), a national
organization made up of ten regional centers, offers training in several disability-related
subjects, including programs tailored to individual institutions, and provides information,
referrals, and resources about the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the case of university
museums, because they serve the school and its student population, they should develop a
relationship with and consult the department for students with disabilities to assist in
obtaining accessibility resources and/or creating a training program for museum employees.
It is quite important for programmatic accessibility that museum staff members who
are in any way involved with educating the public receive training on how to work with and
educate Deaf audiences. But what exactly should museum educators know about the Deaf
community and about educating this audience? During training about deaf populations,
educators should learn about the different types and levels of deafness that exist; the
difference between deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf people; information about American Sign
Language and other types of signed languages; how to communicate with people who are
deaf and hard of hearing; and teaching strategies for deaf learners. It is also essential to train
educators about the assistive technologies available in the museum for d/Deaf audiences and
how to use these devices. Additionally, museum educators should know the roles of sign
language interpreters in the lives of Deaf people and how to work with interpreters in a
museum setting. For instance, educators who are working with interpreters should provide
the interpreter with an outline of what will be discussed as well as a list of technical art and
historical terms that will be used; know where and how to stand so that both the interpreter
and educator can be seen; and know the appropriate pace at which to speak so the interpreter
can translate properly. Most importantly, any type of disabilities awareness training should
emphasize the person and his or her needs instead of focusing on the disability alone; no
matter what, everyone wants to be treated with respect and dignity (NEA, et al., 2003). After
all, we are all disabled in one way or another—not one person is perfect in every aspect of
life. Once training programs have been established and implemented for appropriate (if not
all) staff members and the art museum is equipped to accommodate members of the Deaf
community, a marketing plan should be developed so that all efforts and preparations do not
go unused.
Gap #2: Marketing and Advertisements
An additional gap I have noticed between art museums and accessibility practices is
the lack of marketing targeted at members of the Deaf community. Art museums that have
difficulty attracting Deaf audiences to scheduled programs may have flaws in their marketing
methods. Just as art museums have different marketing strategies for school programs,
community programs, family programs, and adult programs, these institutions should also
consider creating advertisements that are targeted directly toward members of the Deaf
community.
As mentioned by my focus group participants in the previous Story section, some
very good ways to advertise toward members of the Deaf community include placing ads on
the Web sites of local Deaf people and Deaf organizations and sending museum
representatives to Deaf churches. Additionally, in order to improve upon existing marketing
plans, museums can solicit Deaf organizations and local Deaf art museum goers for
marketing help and advice. It would also be wise for museums to acknowledge people of
varying abilities in all advertisements through the simple use of logos such as the sample
shown in Appendix E. Acknowledging accommodations in general advertising would create

awareness about these services to everyone who sees the ads, thus revealing this valuable
information to the friends and family members of someone who is Deaf or has a different
type of ability (Deafworks, 2001; NEA, NEH, NASAA & JFK Center for Performing Arts,
2003). Such marketing initiatives can also help create awareness about people with different
abilities and their rights to accommodations. Plus, accommodations that are used by people
with disabilities can also serve the general public (NEA, NEH, NASAA & JFK Center for
Performing Arts, 2003). For instance, wheelchair accessibility benefits people with strollers
and anyone who has trouble walking, while captioned films can help English language
learners and young children enhance their reading skills and better understand films. These
are all logical methods and appropriate reasons for art museums to develop marketing
initiatives targeted toward members of the Deaf community, but what about the financial and
economic reasons?
Most people do not consider art museums as a business, but rather as a source of
entertainment or as a supplemental educational resource. Nevertheless, there is a business
aspect to museums; these institutions must attract visitors for additional revenue or to keep
the outside funding they receive so that works of art can be preserved, protected, viewed, and
researched for years to come. After all, what is the point of a museum if people do not
attend? People with disabilities are a growing demographic that businesses such as art
museums gloss over as potential visitors, customers, audience members, etc. According to
Solutions Marketing Group, a marketing company that specializes in consumers with
disabilities, people with disabilities in the United States have $220 billion in discretionary
income (2008). Although I could not find statistics specific to the Deaf community, the
reader can imagine that even a 1 percent portion of $220 billion is a considerable chunk of
money. Additionally, considering the fact that anyone can become or develop a disability at
any point, preparing and advertising educational programs for people with disabilities is
surely of relevance to any service provider looking to increase revenue and attendance.
Gap #3: ADA Enforcement
Since the ADA was passed in 1990, several books and other resources have been
published about making private and public cultural institutions accessible to people with
disabilities. If this is the case, why do issues regarding accommodations for museumgoers
persist to this day? I believe that the largest gap between art museums and accessibility for
visitors with disabilities owes to the implementation of the ADA. According to the ADA,
institutions are excused from providing accommodations for patrons with disabilities if such
accommodations cause an undue financial burden (Jasper, 2008). This burden is loosely
defined, which makes sense since each institution’s ability to provide accommodations may
differ. Nonetheless, this room for interpretation should not be used as a way for institutions
to wiggle out of their responsibility for providing equal access to visitors with disabilities.
Also, within the ADA, there is no method of enforcement that makes service
providers directly responsible for minimizing barriers to people with disabilities. However,
the ADA states two methods of challenging such barriers: by reporting instances of
discrimination to the Department of Justice and by filing an individual lawsuit with the U.S.
District Court. If one files a complaint to the Department of Justice, the complaint is assessed
through an investigation, leading to a settlement. If the situation cannot be settled, then the
complaint will be taken to court on behalf of the government (Jasper, 2008). One of the main
problems with these two methods of enforcement is that such court cases may take a long
time to settle. In addition, these methods of enforcement fail to put the responsibility of
compliance on the institutions; it is the person with the disability who is held accountable for
reporting an institution that does not comply with ADA laws. These two types of
enforcement do not directly motivate art museums or any other institution to prevent
accessibility barriers. As a result, different terms of enforcement and accountability need to
be established in order for institutions such as art museums to become more proactive in
changing their accessibility practices. Concerned citizens and members of the Deaf
community can play a role in improving ADA enforcement.
There are changes that could be made to improve the enforcement methods prescribed
by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to enhance the law’s effectiveness. One such
possible change would be to create a committee in each state that would provide assistance to
cultural institutions such as museums to improve their level of ADA compliance. A good
example of such a committee is the New York State Council on the Arts’ access advisory
committee. This committee provides arts organizations in the state with resources on how to
be more accessible to people with disabilities. For individual museums, access advisory
committees can be formed at the local art institution as well.2 An access advisory committee
can be made up “of board member(s), executive director, program directors, Accessibility
Coordinator, and consultants who represent and/or have disabilities. The consultants may be
artists, cultural administrators, educators, accessibility experts, interested legislators,
participants and audience members” (National Endowment for the Arts, 2004). Another way
to bridge the ADA gap in art museums is to have museum organizations such as the
American Association of Museums (AAM) create more stringent accessibility standards for
physical and educational access when considering museums for accreditation or membership.
Additionally, local Deaf and/or arts organizations can create an accessibility report card that
grades the accessibility methods and programs of art museums in the area.3 A report card can
be an effective way for Deaf organizations to evaluate the Web site, educational programs,
and physical accessibility of a museum; it can let a museum know what it is doing well and
what it can improve on in the area of accessibility, while at the same time empowering Deaf
organizations and community members. Enforcement methods such as these would allow
public and private institutions in our society as a whole to take more responsibility in
providing equal educational access for members of the Deaf community.
A Comparison of Accommodations in England and the U.S.
Through my research, I discovered that England has a law similar to the ADA called
the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was put into effect in 1995, five years after
the ADA. The DDA is quite similar to the ADA even in wording. Nevertheless, museums in
England have taken more steps than museums in the U.S. to provide accommodations for
their Deaf audiences.

Although there is no definitive research explaining why the DDA has been more
effective in arts institutions than the ADA, I believe this difference could be due to the fact
that the English government has taken a more proactive role in informing service providers
of their duties under these laws. A 2007 report by the U.S. National Council on Disability
(NCD) called Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges, Best
Practices, and New Opportunities for Success outlined the NCD’s research into effective
implementation of the ADA laws and what factors could be preventing such implementation.
One of the implementation issues mentioned in the report is a “lack [of] information,
education, and training on how the ADA applies to [Title III entities, which include art
museums] and how to take steps to comply”; to solve this issue the NCD recommends
compiling a report with information about the ADA and how to comply and sending it out to
various service-providing associations such as the Council of Better Business Bureaus or, in
the case of art museums, national and statewide arts councils and arts organizations.
Whatever the reasons may be for the difference between the implementation of disability
laws in England and the United States, art institutions in England have come up with some
great solutions for involving the Deaf community in the arts.
One of the most impressive initiatives I discovered in England is a consortium of
sixteen museums in London catering to the deaf and hearing-impaired community called
MAGIC (Museums and Galleries in the Capital). 4 Museums that participate on the MAGIC
Web site include the British Museum, the Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, the National
Gallery, the Royal Academy of the Arts, Tate Britain, Tate Modern, the Victoria and Albert
Museum, and more. The Web site posts all the events that each museum provides for the
Deaf community in London and allows online visitors to provide feedback about these
museums’ programming. The site also includes videos in BSL with information about the
service. The events posted on the Web site consist of lectures and/or tours that may be either
interpreted or conducted by a person who is Deaf. These museums do not all provide the
same accommodations; some of the sixteen represented on the site seem to provide more
accommodations than others. The MAGIC Web site is a wonderful way of consolidating
information so that Deaf visitors can find programs for multiple museums at once.
After my search for a consortium of equal caliber in the United States, I came away
empty-handed. In the United States, if a Deaf person wants to know whether art museums
can accommodate their needs, they must navigate the museums’ Web sites individually
and/or contact them via e-mail, TTY (teletypewriter, which is a telephone system connected
to a keyboard), or relay service (a third-party operator service that allows people who are
deaf or hard of hearing to connect from their TTY, Web cam, or video phone with someone
on a standard phone).
Another exemplary museum program is part of the Wolverhampton Arts and
Museums, which consists of an art gallery, a historic home and park, and a craft gallery in
Wolverhampton, England (near Birmingham). Visitors to the Bantock House Museum’s Web
site can see that the museum provides services for the Deaf community in British Sign
Language; it includes a link to a series of BSL videos that give information about the
museum and the exhibitions. The site also announces that the museum provides handheld
video guides for Deaf visitors who primarily communicate using BSL. In this way, visitors
are assured that the museum is accessible to the Deaf community.
In a search of several U.S. art museum Web sites, I was unable to find any that
advertised ASL video guides or similar services for Deaf visitors. In terms of technology,
there is a U.S. company called Keen Guides, Inc. that is in the process of developing ASL,
closed captioned, cued speech, and audio tour guides that are downloadable for portable
media players such as iPods. It is not yet in full swing, but there is a sample of their services
available online for the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.5 Once up and running, Keen
Guides will offer their services to museums, galleries, monuments, college campuses, or any
other institution that provides tours for visitors. The company will also offer a package of
preloaded media players for institutions to rent. Currently, there are many larger art museums
in the U.S. that use similar technologies for self-guided tours, but I was not able to find any
that provide ASL video guides.
In the United States, there is an exemplary accessibility program at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art (MET) in New York. It has a wonderful access program for people with
visual impairments, blindness, hearing impairments, deafness, learning and developmental
disabilities, and dementia. These programs are largely due to the fact that the museum has
two access educators in charge of creating programming for people with varying abilities. I
spoke with one of these access educators, Rebecca McGinnis, about the MET’s programs for
the Deaf community. She said the MET not only provides ASL interpretation for tours, it
offers ASL tours with a voice interpreter—meaning the tour is given in ASL and those who
are able to hear are provided an English interpreter. The MET also provides ASL
interpretation for one family program per month. Two to three times a year, it also hosts a
large-scale event for people who use American Sign Language called “An Evening of Art
and ASL” that includes interpreted and sign language tours and a catered post-tour reception.
McGinnis said that bringing a social aspect to museum events for the Deaf community allows
Deaf visitors an opportunity to interact and develop a trusting and loyal relationship with the
museum (Personal communication, December 1, 2008). These programs provided by the art
museum are free of charge with admission and do not require an appointment. In addition,
the MET’s Web site includes a downloadable brochure, updated monthly, with the dates and
times of the aforementioned events.
While searching through the Web sites of U.S. art museums, I have found a few other
major New York art institutions that have also developed exemplary programming for
members of the Deaf community. These museums include the Museum of Modern Art
(MoMA), the Whitney Museum of American Art, Guggenheim New York, and The Frick
Collection. With so many of its museums offering regular programming for Deaf individuals,
the city of New York seems the most likely candidate to create a Web site equivalent to
England’s MAGIC. Perhaps the New York State Council on the Arts can partner with local
Deaf organizations and New York museums to create a central Web site for Deaf
programming.
After speaking with Rebecca McGinnis of the MET and ASL interpreters like
Amanda Torrey, and looking into successful museum programs for the Deaf, I realized
something important about programming for the Deaf community in art museums. Torrey
mentioned the importance of creating a team or a sense of camaraderie and cooperation when
working with clients (Personal communication, March 25, 2009). Meanwhile, McGinnis
cited the added success of the MET’s sign language programs once the museum began
incorporating a social element (Personal communication, December 1, 2008). Their input
helped me realize that it is quite important for an art museum to develop a relationship with
members of the Deaf community through social interaction instead of merely by providing
programming in American Sign Language. It seems that members of the Deaf community are
more likely to participate in a museum event that allows them time to interact with one
another and members of staff.
By identifying the gaps in art museum programming for the Deaf, looking into Deaf
programming at various art institutions, and conducting a focus group with Deaf adults, I
have gained insight into how museums can provide quality programs for people in the Deaf
community. In the following section, I would like to conclude the ideas from this thesis and
provide recommendations for institutions on how to design programming that can enhance
the experiences of Deaf museumgoers.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The main focus of this thesis is to identify those accommodations art museums
provide for Deaf visitors that can enhance their experiences within these institutions. In order
to reach this goal I have provided information about Deaf culture, American Sign Language,
issues that exist within the Deaf community, and government policies that affect art museums
with regard to people who are Deaf. In addition, I discussed the gaps that exist between art
museums and the creation of successful programming for the Deaf community, and provided
examples of effective art museum programs in place today. My purpose was not to criticize
any museum, but to critically analyze what art museums are missing when considering
programming for people who are Deaf and to distinguish which accommodations are most
effective.
Furthermore, to conclude this thesis with the results of my research, I am providing a
list of recommendations for art museums on how to develop or enhance their programs for
the Deaf community. I am also including a set of recommendations for the Deaf community
on how to maximize their influence in the museum world and how to create equal access to
educational programming. Also, in order to make my research more accessible, I have
created a blog that will allow museum professionals to access this research, which will be e-
mailed to various art museums and Deaf organizations in Illinois and other states.6 For more
detailed information about these recommendations, the reader can refer to the Story and
Discussion section of this thesis.

List of Recommendations for Art Museums
Since all museums are different, these recommendations can be adjusted and chosen to fit
the requirements of each institution and the communities they serve. Additionally, it is
important to note that making a museum more accessible for visitors who are Deaf or have
different abilities will not happen overnight; it takes a lot of time, planning, and trial and
error to find the most effective ways to provide accommodations for visitors. It is also
important to note that once accessibility for Deaf visitors has been achieved, museums should
try to accommodate people with other disabilities as well; it is better to include groups of
people into an accessibility plan one at a time to ensure the effectiveness of the programs.
The following list includes steps that museums can take to enhance accommodations and
programming for people who are Deaf:
1. Access coordinator.
Museums with successful accessibility programs have people on staff—usually in the
Education Department—who are responsible for developing, creating, and evaluating
programs for people with varying abilities (Deafworks, 2001). Having an access
coordinator or access educator on staff would not only help with the development of
programs for people with disabilities, it would also help the museum create awareness
about the needs of people who have different abilities.7 The work of an access
coordinator or access educator can be assigned as a full-time job or combined with the
responsibilities of someone in a similar, existing position at the museum; it is up to each
museum to decide which option best fits their institution. However, it is important that
whoever takes on these responsibilities has a background in or has access to being trained
in providing services for people with disabilities. For instance, the Education Department
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has two access coordinators who work
on creating and implementing programs for visitors with varying abilities. Because of the
work being done by these access coordinators, the institution is a great example of an art
museum that provides equal access in programming for visitors who learn in many
different ways.8
2. Audit.
In conjunction with a local Deaf organization, local Deaf people, and/or a disability
organization, museums can conduct an audit of their physical environment and the
accessibility programs they provide for the Deaf community. To help with such an audit,
museums in the Chicago area can work with disability organizations such as Access
Living, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD), the Open Doors
Organization (ODO), and the Midwest branch of the Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Center (DBTAC) as well as deaf organizations including the Illinois Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Commission (IDHHC) and the Chicago Hearing Society (CHS). 9 Once
an audit has been completed, museums should work with the auditors or consultants to
come up with ways to eliminate physical and social barriers and improve programming.
Another good option would be to create an access advisory committee, which can be
made up of members of the local Deaf community, Deaf organizations, and the museum
staff, to continually evaluate the state of the access programs that the institution provides
for the public.10
3. Trainings.
It is essential that all museum employees be aware of and trained in the museum’s
accessibility policy and practices. And since these employees come into contact with the
public the most, docents, educators, gallery guards, and security staff—if not all members
of staff—should be trained on how to communicate and work with members of the Deaf
community. Docents and other educators should receive more detailed training on how to
work with an interpreter and other strategies that would help with educating and
communicating information to people who are Deaf. Art museums in Chicago can work
with the groups and organizations mentioned in the previous Audit section to create
and/or administer trainings for museum employees.
Furthermore, museums can start a docent training program for skilled sign language
interpreters or for people who are Deaf and have an interest and/or background in the arts
so that the museum can offer regularly scheduled tours and programs in sign language by
informed docents. Since the 1970s, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has been providing
such a docent training program (Rebecca McGinnis, personal communication, December
1, 2008). By involving members of the Deaf community in its education process,
museums can encourage and empower the Deaf community to become more active and
integrated into general society as well as create close, long-term ties with the community,
which could result in a beneficial increase in attendance by Deaf visitors.
4. Marketing.
If a museum or other arts organization wants to provide programming for the Deaf
community, the institution must develop a marketing plan to communicate this information
effectively. Access icons that convey accommodations such as sign language interpretation
and closed/open captioning should be included in all general marketing schemes if the
institution provides these services. Advertisements should also include contact information
via TTY, TDD, or e-mail so that a consumer who is Deaf can contact the institution easily.
Including such information in all marketing and advertising initiatives would help reach more
people and increase awareness about accessibility. Also, museums can contact local Deaf
groups, clubs, organizations, churches, and schools about giving presentations on Deaf
programming, handing out marketing materials, or coming up with programs specifically
catered to a particular Deaf group. In the Chicago area, the Open Doors Organization (ODO)
helps businesses in the field of disability marketing.
a. Web site development.
Since people with disabilities rely heavily on the Internet for information,
museums and other arts organizations must have an “accessibility” section that is
easy to find on their homepage (Solutions Marketing Group, 2008). Art museums
should provide as much information about accessibility and accessible events on
their Web site as possible. For example, a downloadable calendar of accessible

events would be helpful for online visitors. Furthermore, including a brief video
in American Sign Language about the accessibility options for Deaf visitors
would show all visitors to the Web site that the museum welcomes sign language
users and provides appropriate accommodations. Web sites’ accessibility sections
should also include TTY, TDD, and/or e-mail contact information that a Deaf
person can use if he or she has any questions or concerns. The Bantock House
page on the Wolverhampton Arts and Museums Web site is exemplary; it offers
informational videos in British Sign Language about the museum and its
exhibitions.11 Another great resource for the British Deaf community is MAGIC,
which is a consortium of sixteen museums in London that provide programming
for members of the Deaf community and use the MAGIC Web site to post
information about Deaf programming.12 These two Web sites are favorable
examples of how to communicate institutional and programmatic information to
Deaf museum visitors.
5. Social component.
Because the Deaf community is very tight-knit, I have found from my research of
various museum programs for the Deaf that adding a social component to educational
programming helps increase comfort levels and build loyal attendance (Rebecca
McGinnis, personal communication, December 1, 2008; Deafworks, 2001). This social
component may consist of a reception with food and drinks or any sort of informal
gathering where Deaf visitors can socialize with each other and museum staff members
before or after a program. Art museums in the Chicago area can work with the Chicago
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Cultural Center (CDHHCC) to bring social and art education-
related events to the art museum setting.13 Local museums might also contact the
organizer(s) of Duppies, a Deaf happy hour that takes place at various Chicago area bars,
and offer to host one of the monthly gatherings. This would provide a great opportunity
for museums to introduce their facilities and services to members of the Deaf community
and for museum staff to learn more about the local community.
List of Recommendations for Members of the Deaf Community
When changes are needed in an established institution, both the institution and the
people it serves should play a role in facilitating those changes. If members of the Deaf
community want museums to improve their accessibility programs and accommodations,
then the Deaf community must put forth effort to help the museums do so. The following is a
list of steps that Deaf organizations and members of the Deaf community can take to help art
museums make the necessary changes to assure equal access:
1. Forge relationships.
Before making any other move, members of the Deaf community should take initiative in
forging relationships with art museums. Many members of society, including those who work
at art museums, are unaware of the needs of the Deaf community or are unaware of the Deaf
population in their city. Thus, it would be advantageous to Deaf organizations to introduce

themselves to their local art museums and attempt to forge long-term relationships. Deaf
organizations can contact the director of education or another museum employee involved in
public education programming and provide them with information about local Deaf groups,
organizations, and schools that would enjoy making more visits to the art museum if
appropriate accommodations were provided. From there, the Deaf community and the
museum could work together to enhance museum programming utilizing the resources
available at the museum and within the Deaf community.
2. Raise funds.
All art museums vary in their ability to serve as well as in their methods for serving
visitors. Some museums are unable to or do not consider setting aside part of their budget to
increase accessibility for visitors with different abilities. Hence, members of the Deaf
community might consider organizing with art museums to raise funds specifically for
enhancing accommodations and equal-access programming. Before fund-raising methods are
organized, it is important that the Deaf community establish a mutual relationship with the
art museum. Once the relationship is established and both the Deaf community and the art
museum are ready to work together to enhance accommodations and programming for Deaf
visitors, then members of the Deaf community should suggest and attempt to raise money for
Deaf programming in the museum.
3. Volunteer.
Providing funding alone may not suffice when it comes to helping museums increase
programmatic access for Deaf audiences. An art museum may have funds to increase and
enhance accommodations for the Deaf community, but it may not have the manpower to do
so. Thus, members of the Deaf community can provide human resources that may be lacking
in the art museum. A combination of fund-raising and volunteering is the best way to help a
museum increase and improve its programming for people who are Deaf. Again, it is
advisable to first establish a solid and mutual relationship with the museum in order to ensure
initiatives are productive and effective.
4. Create a report card.
A local Deaf organization and/or members of the Deaf community can create a report
card to evaluate museum Web sites and programming based on the needs of the Deaf
community. For example, the report card may rate a museum Web site based on its
accessibility information or museum staff members on their ability to communicate with
Deaf visitors. Meanwhile, a museum might be rated for its ability to provide programming in
sign language or sign language interpreters, etc. Completed evaluations could be combined in
a report and sent to museums to let them know how they can improve their accommodations
as well as to Deaf organizations throughout the U.S. as encouragement to create their own
report cards. The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance created an excellent report card that evaluates
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) issues in programs that
prepare educators to work in schools across Illinois; Deaf organizations may use this report
card as an example of how to evaluate programs and institutions.14

5. Report injustices and inequality.
It is the right of all people, regardless of ability, to be treated equally. Therefore,
members of the Deaf community should report any instance of inequality they experience at
art museums, as well as elsewhere. However, before a complaint is filed against an art
museum, one must give the institution in question an opportunity to arrange accommodations
with the resources it has available. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides two ways
of ensuring enforcement of accessibility laws. One way is to file a complaint with the
Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will then investigate the matter and try to
mediate a settlement or take the matter to court. The other method requires the victim of
injustice to sue the accused party at his or her own expense. On a more local level, Deaf
Chicagoans can contact the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (CCHR) to report
cases of unequal treatment.15 Chicagoans can also contact Access Living for legal counseling
on discrimination claims.16
Conclusion
With the completion of my thesis, I tie the fifth string to the other four. From here, I
will tie the ends of the combined string together to create a full circle by sharing my research
with the people and institutions that might benefit from the work. For the future, I would like
to continue sharing my research with art museums, arts organizations, and the Deaf
community to enhance museum programming for people who are Deaf. My hopes for the
future also include increased attendance at art museums by members of the Deaf community
and a higher number of Deaf museum volunteers and employees. Last but not least, I hope
that museums in the United States begin taking on the responsibility of providing services for
all people of all abilities and serving as a role model for other institutions.
References
AG Bell. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing home page.
Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?linkid=1.
American Association of Museums (AAM). (1992). The accessible museum: Model

programs of accessibility for disabled and older people. Washington, D.C.: AAM.
Bower, B. (2000). The brain spreads its sights in the deaf. Science News, 158(13), 198.
Brueggemann, B. (1995). The coming out of Deaf culture and American sign language: An
exploration into visual rhetoric and literacy. Rhetoric Review, 13(2), 409-420.
Cassedy, S. (1993, January/February). The hearing dog’s tale: Campaign to raise awareness
in the museum community about hearing dogs and the laws pertaining to them.
Museum News, 72, 14-16.
Charrow, V.R., Wilbur, R.B. (1975). The Deaf child as a linguistic minority. Theory into
Practice, 14(5), Language Use and Acquisition, 353-359.
Deafworks. (2001). Access for deaf people to museums and galleries: A review of good
practice in London. London: Deafworks.
Derycke, B. (1994). Deaf guides in French museums. Museum International, 46(4), 48-50.
Derycke, B. (1995). Vive la communication [International Visual Art Association for Deaf
People]. Museums Journal, 95(6), 39.
Dewey, John. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Erting, C.J. (1985). Cultural conflict in a school for deaf children. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 16(3), 225-243.
Fleischer, D.Z., Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to
confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Holt, J., Hotto, S., Cole, K. (1994). Demographic aspects of hearing impairment: Questions
and Answers (3rd ed.). Retrieved March 3, 2008, from Gallaudet University, Center
for Assessment and Demographic Studies, Gallaudet Research Institute Web site
http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/factsheet.html#Q3.
Humphries, T., Padden, C., O’Rourke, T. (1994). A basic course in American sign language.
(2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers, Inc.
Jasper, M.C. (2008). Americans with disabilities act. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. New York: Multilingual
Matters, Ltd.
Lipsey, D., McCarty, K. (2007). Envisioning a new campus culture of collaboration.

Gallaudet University: SLCC Visioning Workshop. Washington, D.C.: ADR Vantage,
Inc.
McDermott, R., Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 26, 323-348.
National Association for the Deaf (NAD). National Association of the Deaf home page.
Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.nad.org/about-us.
National Council on Disability (NCD). (July 26, 2007) Implementation of the Americans with
disabilities act: Challenges, best practices, and new opportunities for success.
Retrieved April 2, 2009, from
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2007/implementation_07-26-
07.htm#_Toc167075604.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Nation Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), & The John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts. (2003). Design for accessibility: A cultural administrator’s
handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). (December 14, 2004). Accessibility planning and
resource guide for cultural administrators. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from
http://arts.endow.gov/resources/accessibility/Planning/index.html.
O’Leary, Zina. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Pelka, Fred. (1997). The ABC-CLIO companion to the disability rights movement. Santa
Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Richner, N., Prezant, F., & Rosen, P. (2006). All access pass: Making a small museum
disabled-friendly. Museum News. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from the Web site of
the American Association of Museums at
http://www.aamus.org/pubs/mn/MN_JA06_richner-allaccess.cfm.
Rutherford, S.D. (1983). Funny in deaf. Not in hearing. The Journal of American Folklore,
96(381), 310-322.
Said, E.W. (1994). Representations of the intellectual. New York: Vintage Books.
Senghas, R.J., Monaghan, L. (2002). Signs of their times: Deaf communities and the culture
of languages. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 69-97.
Smith, M.E.G., Campbell, P. (1997). Discourses on deafness: Social policy and the
communicative habilitation of the deaf. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers
Canadians de sociologie, 22(4), 437-456.
Smith, K.L., Bienvenu, M.J. (2007). Deaf theory: What can we learn from feminist theory?
Multicultural Education, 15(1), 58-63.
Solutions Marketing Group. (2007). Disability facts. Retrieved on November 15, 2008, from
http://disability-marketing.com/facts/.
Suggs, Trudy. (2003). Alpha teach yourself American sign language in 24 hours.
Indianapolis: Alpha Books.
Tucker, B.P. (1997). The ADA and deaf culture: Contrasting precepts, conflicting results.
Annals for the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549, 24-36.
Tucker, B.P. (1998). Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. The Hastings
Center Report, 28(4), 6-14.
Wright, P. (1989). The quality of visitors’ experiences in art museums. In P. Vergo (Ed.), The
new museology (pp. 119-148). London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Appendix A
Main
Hearing Level of Communication Knowledge Community
Impaired Hearing Method of a Signed of More Information
Group Loss (U.S. & Canada) Language Association
• Consider
themselves as
hearing people who
have developed a
hearing impairment
Hard of Mild to Spoken or written None or very
Hearing • Make up vast
Hearing profound English little
majority of hearing
impaired
• Many do not take
action to help with
hearing loss
• People who
became deaf after
acquiring spoken
Written English, Varies - language
Late Severe to speech reading, Learned as a • Easily confused
Hearing
Deafened profound and/or a form of second with the hard of
signed language language hearing group
• More likely to
seek help in dealing
with hearing loss
• People who were
Written English, Varies - born deaf or
Severe to speech reading, Learned as a became deaf at a
Oral Deaf Hearing young age
profound and/or a form of second
signed language language • Have sought help
with hearing loss
• People who were
born deaf or
Fluent -
became deaf at a
Culturally Severe to American Sign Learned as
Deaf young age
Deaf profound Language first
• Do not consider
language
themselves as
disabled
Information in chart from
www.hearinglossweb.com
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
1. Introductory Questions:
a. How often have you been to an art museum in the last year?
i. What about other museums?
b. Why do you choose to go so often/not so often?
c. Was there ever a specific experience that influenced you to attend/not to attend art
museums?
d. Does your frequency of attendance have anything to do with the accommodations that
art museums provide?
e. Do you feel that art museums must provide accommodations for Deaf visitors?
2. Questions Regarding this Visit:

a. How do you feel about the accommodations made for this tour?
b. How did you feel about the content of the tour?
c. Was there a part of the tour that you particularly enjoyed?
d. Was there a portion of the tour that you did not enjoy?
e. What do you think about the skills of the interpreter?
f. Were you able to see the artwork properly while following the interpreter?
g. Did you feel as though you had enough time to ask questions?
i. Would you prefer asking questions during the tour or after the tour?
h. What are your overall feelings about this art museum experience?
i. Would you recommend this experience to other Deaf friends or members of the
community?
3. Thesis-Related Questions:
a. Were you aware that the AIC provides interpreted gallery talks for Deaf people?
b. What are some things the AIC could do to make more Deaf people in the community
aware of their accommodations?
c. What changes would you make to gallery talks to make them more enjoyable for
members of the Deaf community?
d. Would you prefer an interpreted gallery talk (like tonight) or would you rather attend
a gallery talk with a guide who is fluent in ASL (without an interpreter)?
e. Would you rather go on a tour with a mixed hearing and deaf audience (like tonight)
or would you rather be in a deaf only crowd?
f. If the AIC set aside one day every month for ASL speakers, would you be more likely
to come?
i. Would it help attendance if there were some sort of gathering for the deaf audience
afterwards?
ii. If you were approached by the museum to volunteer your time to be trained and do
tours once a month in ASL, would you accept?
Resource Notes
1. This commercial can viewed at http://www.pepsiusa.com/index.php?panel=bobshouse.
2. The publication titled Accessibility Planning and Resource Guide for Cultural
Administrators has a section that explains specifically how to create an access advisory
committee and is available for download at http://www.nea.gov/resources/Accessibility/
Planning/index.html.
3. A great example of a report card can be downloaded and read using Adobe Acrobat
Reader. This report card evaluates lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning
(LGBTQ) issues in programs that prepare educators to work in schools across Illinois. It
can be found at http://www.illinoissafeschools.org/page_attachments/0000/0030/
VisibilityMatters_ReportCard.pdf.
4. The MAGIC Web site address is http://www.magicdeaf.org.uk/.
5. This sample can be found at http://www.keenguides.com/view-a-tour/.
6. The blog is titled Accessibility for the Deaf Community in Art Museums and can be found
at www.museumaccess4deaf.blogspot.com.
Administrators has a section specifically about designating an access coordinator and is
available for download at http://www.nea.gov/resources/Accessibility/Planning
/index.html.
8. To see the programs the MET provides for visitors with disabilities, please visit their
Web site at http://www.metmuseum.org/events/visitorsdisabilities/.
9. Access Living’s Educational Presentations:

http://www.accessliving.org/index.php?tray=topic_inline_all&tid=top655&cid=109
MOPD Training Services:

http://cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@
@@1216834882.1252428870@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadeifgmkjlecefecelldffhdfhk
.0&contentOID=9714&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept
&blockName=Disabilities%2FTraining+Services%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&chann
elId=0&programId=0&entityName=Disabilities&deptMainCategoryOID=-536884740
ODO Corporate Programs:

http://opendoorsnfp.org/page4.html
DBTAC Great Lakes Training:

http://www.adagreatlakes.org/ProgramsAndServices/Trainings/
IDHHC Public Awareness:

http://www.idhhc.state.il.us/familyInfo/publicAwareness.htm
CHS Social Services & Advocacy:

http://www.chicagohearingsociety.org/Programs/Social_services_advocacy.htm
Administrators also has a section specifically about creating an access advisory
committee and is available for download at http://www.nea.gov/resources/Accessibility/
Planning/index.html.
11. http://www.wolverhamptonart.org.uk/bantock/the_house/bsl
12. To view the MAGIC Web site, visit http://magicdeaf.org.uk/.
13. Visit the CDHHCC’s Web site at http://www.embracedeafculture.org/html/home.htm.
14. To view the Alliance’s report card with Adobe Reader visit
http://www.illinoissafeschools.org/page_attachments/0000/0030/VisibilityMatters_Repor
tCard.pdf
15. CCHR Guide to Discrimination Complaints:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionI
D=@@@@0789180013.1252435410@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadeifhdlhjdcefecelld
ffhdfif.0&deptCategoryOID=-
536892645&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=H
uman+Relations&deptMainCategoryOID=-536891473
16. Access Living Legal Counseling:

http://www.accessliving.org/index.php?tray=topic_inline_all&tid=top653&cid=107

Hearing Through Deaf Eyes: A Study of Deaf Culture and The Accessibility Needs of The Deaf Community in Art Museums

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hearing Through Deaf Eyes: A Study of Deaf Culture and The Accessibility Needs of The Deaf Community in Art Museums

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HEARING THROUGH DEAF EYES: A STUDY OF DEAF CULTURE AND THE

ACCESIBILITY NEEDS OF THE DEAF COMMUNITY IN ART MUSEUMS

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

Department of Art Education

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................63

it was more of a hobby—something I did in my free time.

to children! Why had I not thought of this earlier?

From the end of my undergraduate education career and moving on to my elementary

ideas about the void I felt:

In other words, I was a product of professionalism. Through my undergraduate education, I

undergraduate education or that I disregard it as of no value. I would not be where I am had I

not gone through such experiences.

As I was researching classes prior to my first semester of graduate school, I decided

Said once again:

Throughout my undergraduate training to become an art teacher and throughout my

art museums provide for them?

members of the Deaf community.

The hearing-impaired community makes up quite a large population within the

United States. According to a 1990-1991 survey done by Gallaudet University (a prominent

community, “persons who view themselves as Deaf… consider themselves members of a

The Deaf Among the deaf

pathological absence of hearing and that such a hearing-impaired individual is therefore

medical procedures (such as cochlear implants) are characteristic of responses made by

professionals” (p.78). The phrase “medical intervention” refers to surgeries to improve

and lingual basis.

of Association” column in Appendix A states whether the group in question mainly

within the general deaf community.

American Sign Language and the Deaf Community

The Deaf population that I am concentrating on primarily uses American Sign

Language (ASL) as their means of communication. Humphries, et al. (1994) acknowledge

begin discussing aspects of American Sign Language.

also leads to enhanced peripheral vision skills.

very common Deaf joke:

both “open the railroad gates” and “but.”

space in buildings provides the opportunity to facilitate communications through sign

which for hearing people allows for privacy and concentration.

ASL is Not a Universal Signed Language

Another misconception that exists is that American Sign Language is a universal

around the U.S.

(Humphries, et al., 1994).

People Who Are Deaf and Lip-reading

enough to read someone’s lips in a large lecture setting.

an effective way to disseminate information and to educate Deaf museum visitors.

understand 30 to 40 percent of the information given in a lecture or a tour, this form of

education needs to be re-evaluated with consideration to their needs.

Struggles and Issues Within the Deaf Community

funded by the Federal Government to be physically accessible to individuals with disabilities.

institutions and transportation and telecommunication services. More recently, in 2008,

including Humphries et al. (1994):

Deaf people may, at times, allow themselves to be categorized as “disabled” out of

use of cochlear implants in children. A cochlear implant is a technological device that

how important an issue cochlear implants continues to be in our society.

obligation to provide accommodations for the Deaf community. However, current

Government Policy Regarding the Deaf Population and Art Museums

through general barriers in communication in public programming. Currently, barriers that

I will discuss the ADA in greater detail.

aspects of life in this country, including employment, telecommunications, transportation,

responsible for providing such accommodations?

The ADA defines disabled individuals as having “a physical or mental impairment

separate program for hearing-impaired individuals. However, each institution’s capabilities

for people with varying learning abilities, including Deaf individuals.

their social learning initiatives.

My research process began as an ethnographic study of the culturally Deaf