Author(s)

Kimberly K. Pudans-Smith¹, Katrina R. Cue², Ju-Lee A. Wolsey³, M. Diane Clark²

¹Department of ASL and Deaf Studies, Gallaudet University, Washington DC, USA.
²Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA.
³Deaf Studies, Interdisciplinary Programs, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA.

Names are both personal and political, as they relate to identity. Woodward’s 1975 etic article first mentioned a naming convention for D/deaf and prominent scholars have debated the issue since. To evaluate current preferences, the research team used an online questionnaire to gather emic insights and opinions from the community, as well as a more etic perspective from hearing individuals for work with these issues. Data from these three self-identified groups of participants, Deaf, deaf, and hearing, were analyzed. Results found high variability among responses related to the terms, D/deaf, and whether or not certain terms should remain in the lexicon. Results are discussed and presented both to contribute and to further research in the field. It is recommended that the usage of existing term(s) be adhered to and that an individual’s preferred naming conventions be respected and utilized whenever possible.

Deaf, D/deaf, Deaf emic perspective, Deaf identity, Deaf terminology usage, Deaf naming conventions, Deaf community, Deaf culture

Pudans-Smith, K. , Cue, K. , Wolsey, J. and Clark, M. (2019) To Deaf or not to deaf: That is the Question. Psychology, 10, 2091-2114. doi: 10.4236/psych.2019.1015135.