Deaf and non-deaf research collaboration on Swiss German ...
DEAF PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION FINAL v.1.2
-
Upload
clement-manoko -
Category
Documents
-
view
43 -
download
0
Transcript of DEAF PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION FINAL v.1.2
1
DEAF PEOPLE’S EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION
ABSTRACT
Like many South Africans, deaf people need access to public services. Government
communication regarding public services and assistance available for people with
disabilities, including deaf people, can facilitate access to the necessary services
and interventions for the development and empowerment of deaf people. This study
attempts to determine the views and experiences of deaf people on government
communication. The study was qualitative and used a questionnaire to collect data.
Twelve deaf people who live within the City of Tshwane Metropolitan area
participated in the study. The findings suggest that deaf people’s experiences with
government communication and the public service in general need improvement.
The use of the South African Sign Language (SASL) and interpreters when offering
services to deaf persons is considered as an intervention that can potentially
address the communication needs of many deaf people.
Key words: disability; government communication; deaf people; public service
communication; South African Sign Language
2
1 INTRODUCTION
Many governments across the world face a number of persistent challenges, some
of which are economic and socio-political and contribute to social and economic
inequality. One of the challenges that governments have to deal with involves
ensuring that policies and public services address the needs and aspirations of all
their citizens, including those with disabilities. Access to information and knowledge
allow humans to contribute to social development where they can make better
choices, and share the riches of life with those around them. The conditions, special
capacities and abilities of each individual to learn should never be an obstacle or an
impediment to their individual development (UNESCO, 2013:v). Naturally, people
with disabilities experience greater difficulties than those without them. Therefore,
when a government establishes and offers services to ensure equality, a concerted
effort should be made to ensure that communication facilitates access to those
services. Failure to communicate effectively to people with disabilities regarding
public services will, in all likelihood, contribute towards their continued
disempowerment and inequality. Although the South African Constitution and other
laws give directives on issues relating to addressing the needs of people with
disabilities, particularly by government, there seems to be little progress in the
implementation of communication programmes. The studies by a number of
researchers (Aarons & Akach, 2002; Dagut & Morgan, 2003; Dube, 2005;
Liebenberg & Lotriet; 2010; Murphy, 2006; Museva, 2012; Oyedunni et al. 2013;
Ram & Muthukrishna, 2001) have been focused on engaging directly with people
with disabilities and in some cases their immediate families and communities to
explore challenges and barriers to services such as healthcare, education,
telecommunications and the justice system. While these studies provide a sound and
solid framework to understanding communication barriers affecting people with
disabilities, they do not explore the experiences of people with disabilities,
particularly with regard to government communication programmes and practices.
Most previous research in this area focused more closely on the legislative
framework and the public service, particularly with regard to employment equity and
training. There is general agreement and consensus among researchers that people
with disabilities face enormous communication challenges that have an impact on
3
their ability to access public services (Aarons & Akach, 2002; Dagut & Morgan, 2003;
Murphy, 2006; Museva, 2012). However, as Collier, Blackstone and Taylor
(2012:205) point out, the accessibility requirements of people with communication
needs are not necessarily adequately documented in the existing accessible
literature. Dagut and Morgan (2003:29) assert that communication hindrance or
failure results in violations of the rights of the deaf to equal protection and benefit of
the law, freedom of expression, access to information, and a fair trial in South African
courts.
Most developing countries experience communication problems regarding access to
information and services by citizens, but this is more evident by people with
disabilities. Collier, Blackstone and Taylor (2012:205) note that human rights
legislation and anti-discrimination and accessibility laws exist in many countries and
through international conventions and treaties. To varying degrees, these laws
protect the rights of people with disabilities to full and equal access to goods and
services. However, the accessibility requirements of people with communication
needs are not well documented in the existing academic body of knowledge on
accessibility. Legislation and policies such as the Integrated National Disability
Strategy (INDS) White Paper and the Constitutional directives regarding equality for
all persons, including people with disabilities, necessitates in-depth understanding of
experiences of government communication that do facilitate access to information
and services.
People with disabilities include deaf persons and various studies have confirmed that
they too experience communication barriers that affect access to public services.
Deafness is a condition characterised by a lack or a loss of hearing that makes it
impossible for an individual to understand speech through hearing alone (The
American Heritage® Medical Dictionary, 2007). Although some deaf people do not
regard themselves as disabled but rather, as linguistically oppressed, deafness is
universally regarded as a physical disability, and is most often classified along with
blindness and other physical disabilities (Aarons & Akach, 2002:154). The
international convention in the literature on deafness uses the capital “D”, “Deaf”, to
refer to people who have audiological loss and regard themselves as members of
the signing Deaf community (Akach & Naude’, 2002:4). Akach and Naude (2002:4)
4
define South African sign language (SASL) as a visual-gestural language created
and used by deaf South Africans to communicate with one another. This study
focuses on deaf people’s communication with government and will use “the Deaf”
and “deaf people” interchangeably to refer to the same community. Arulogun et al.
(2013:85) note that the delivery of health services to people with hearing impairment
is poorly understood in Nigeria and limited research has been done to enlighten
people on the process involved. Communication barriers are a challenge not only to
people with hearing impairment but also to providers when it comes to
communicating within a care setting.
There is currently a very limited theoretical foundation on integrated models,
practices, and processes on government communication targeting deaf people.
Therefore, this study aims to make a contribution towards an academic and
professional perspective on government communication, including the development
of new communication tools for people with disabilities, be presenting insight on this
topic. This study seeks to contribute to the academic literature on existing and future
strategic government communication management practices aimed at satisfying the
information needs of deaf people, particularly those in South Africa.
Furthermore, the study anticipates assisting the government communication and
information system (GCIS) and communication practitioners to develop and
implement appropriate strategies and tools, when delivering messages to people
with disabilities, particularly the deaf. Some studies (Crous, 2004; Kasiram &
Subrayen, 2013; Morrison, Brand & Cilliers; 2009) have focused mainly on
challenges faced by students with disabilities at higher education institutions (HEIs)
who experience communication challenges relating to services offered by HEIs.
However, these students are also a target group for government communication.
Therefore, organisations such as HEIs and private companies could benefit from this
study with respect to the well-being of their deaf students and employees.
The purpose of this study is to explore how government manages communication
with deaf people, and to determine the experiences and perceptions of deaf people
on government communication.
5
2 BACKGROUND
The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines disability as a complex phenomenon
that reflects the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the
society in which they live; overcoming a disability requires interventions to remove
environmental and social barriers. Approximately 9% of South Africa’s population
have a disability (Statistics South Africa, 2011). Although this may be a relatively
small percentage of the South African population, people with disabilities deserve
equal rights and privileges enjoyed by all other groups in society. In terms of section
9(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the state may not unfairly
discriminate, directly or indirectly, against anyone on one or more grounds, including
those of disability and language. The South African government has committed itself
to facilitating and offering communication and information services to all citizens by
establishing agencies such as the Independent Communications Authority of South
Africa (ICASA) and the GCIS. In his 2014 State of the Nation Address in the National
Assembly, President Jacob Zuma reiterated that there is an “expectation that
improved communication and marketing will promote an informed citizenry and also
assist the country to promote investments, economic growth and job creation”. This
statement indicates that the South African government regards communication as a
critical element that can facilitate access to public services by all citizens, including
people with disabilities.
Access to communication, therefore, forms an integral part of the equalisation of
opportunities for people with communication disabilities, such as deaf people. The
Integrated National Disability Strategy White Paper of 1997 makes recommendations
with regard to access to communication, particularly regarding access to information
by people with disabilities. For example, the White Paper recommends that the
following bodies should facilitate a process for the development of comprehensive
access to information policy: Office on the Status of Disabled Persons, Office of the
Deputy President, in consultation with the GCIS the communication divisions within
all line functions, the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DEAFSA), the South African
6
National Council for the Blind (SANCB), Disabled People South Africa (DPSA) and
public and private media. The communication barrier is a major hindrance to people
with disabilities and, as Baker, Hanson and Myhill (2009:47) point out, people with
disabilities already affected by disparities in many areas of society, suffer further
marginalisation in accessing information, therefore, disability creates an additional
barrier to their access to critical information needs and participation in the
community. The development and implementation of policies and programmes
aimed at improving access to information and facilitate communication between
government and people with disabilities is regarded as one of the ways that can
eliminate some of the barriers experienced by people with disabilities.
People with disabilities face multiple challenges in their daily lives. One of the
challenges they face is access to information about the public services available, due
to inadequate communication and other factors. The communication challenge often
results in the disempowerment of people with disabilities and their inability to
participate meaningfully in the various discourses of society. Article 21 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities directs states and
other parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that those with disabilities can
exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and
through all forms of communication of their choice. They should:
i. Provide information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities
in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of
disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;
ii. Accept and facilitate the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and
alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and
formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official
interactions;
iii. Urge private entities that provide services to the general public, including
through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and
usable formats for persons with disabilities;
7
iv. Encourage the mass media, including providers of information through the
Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities; and
v. Recognise and promote the use of sign languages.
There appears to be a general problem for people with disabilities to access
programmes and services, including government services such as health services,
education, and justice, with communication as one of the core areas hindering easy
access.
Oyedunni et al. (2013) have conducted a study to describe the experiences of 167
girls with hearing impairment in accessing reproductive health services in the Ibadan
state of Nigeria, using a validated questionnaire. The study found that almost 95% of
respondents had never visited a health facility for reproductive health issues. Of
these 41% percent indicated that communication was one of the key barriers to
access while 37% percent were too embarrassed to ask questions in the presence of
an interpreter. A total of 86% indicated that they would use the facility if hearing-
impairment-friendly services were provided. Communication barriers seem to be a
challenge not only for people with hearing impairment or who are hard-of-hearing but
also to providers of services when it comes to communicating within a healthcare
setting. According to Oyedunni et al. (2013:92), the main barrier experienced by
young women with hearing impairment is communication, a problem not necessarily
specific to the healthcare environment, but also experienced within the broader
society.
Murphy (2006) has explored perceptions of communication between people with
communication disability and general practice (GP) staff in Scotland, United
Kingdom. The study found that GP staff expressed frustration with not being
understood, as well as, not understanding what people with a communication
disability were trying to convey. GP staff recognised the significance of poor
communication in terms of access to health services and agreed that the extent of
the problem was greater than they had previously believed, while people with a
communication disability, on the other hand, described the significant problems they
had experienced during the entire process of consultation. Although some
acknowledged that they needed help from their carer(s), most objected to staff
8
speaking to the carer and not to them directly. People with communication disability
are more likely than the general population to have conditions requiring health
intervention yet they are the group who have the greatest difficulty in accessing
health services (Murphy, 2006:49). Thus, the problems experienced by people with a
communication disability may escalate due to lack of communication or
miscommunication. Murphy (2006:49) argues that communication disability can
cause a serious problem in primary healthcare as inadequate communication could
result in the wrong diagnosis, inappropriate medication and prevent the client’s
access to a proper assessment. People with communication disabilities are unable to
change their ability to express themselves adequately. However, the communication
environment in which they find themselves and the manner in which other people
interact with them can be changed to enable meaningful communication and action.
Murphy (2006) finds that GP employees require information on communication
strategies and specific tools to help improve consultations with people with
communication disabilities. They also require greater knowledge of communication
disabilities in order to change their attitude and thereby reduce the barriers that exist
in their working environment.
Many governments, including those on the African continent, claim to be addressing
the needs and aspirations of all their citizens, including those with disabilities by
developing specific programmes relevant for the community. However, the impact of
such programmes does not seem to have been felt by people with disabilities.
Museva (2012) has investigated the level of participation of women with disabilities in
economic empowerment programmes in Gweru District, Zimbabwe. The study
explores community views on the participation of women with disabilities and
examines the barriers that limit the participation of women with disabilities in
economic programmes. A descriptive survey method was used to collect data from a
sample that comprised thirty women with disabilities, three non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), two government departments, and three community leaders.
The study finds that participation by women with disabilities in economic
empowerment programmes is very low and that very little has been done to enhance
their participation in community programmes. Museva (2012) concludes that cultural,
social, psychological, and physical barriers are the major problems that limit the
participation of women with disabilities in economic empowerment programmes.
9
Communication and access to information can be placed within the social context of
the barriers that women face and that hinder their participation in many socio-political
and economic activities. Museva (2012:962) recommends that:
The role of government officials at all levels who represent persons with
disabilities in planning meetings and in decision-making must be strengthened
to ensure the inclusivity of disabled persons.
There should be a concerted effort to inform women with disabilities about
mainstream government programmes and services, and to encourage the
participation of these women.
There is a need to incorporate information on respecting the rights and dignity
of women with disabilities into the existing training programmes of
government officials, for example, police, justice officials, health workers and
others who interact with women with disabilities.
A clear acknowledgement and understanding of disability by decision-makers,
including government leaders and officials, can play a major role in ensuring the
development of viable programmes and services for everyone, including deaf
people. In other words, it should be acknowledged that deaf people also have
aspirations and needs in all spheres of life, such as education, arts and culture, the
economy, and health services. This recognition would enable the government and
service providers to develop appropriate mechanisms to communicate clearly and to
ensure access to those services.
People with disability experience problems not only in healthcare services, but in
other areas, including the justice system. Dagut and Morgan (2003) observed eight
cases involving deaf people in magistrates’ courts in and around Gauteng, to assess
the experiences of deaf people in the South African justice system. They found that
the first problem arose when an accused deaf person or complainant was required to
make a statement in the absence of a skilled interpreter. It was found that the deaf
person was unable to make the statement or to convey facts accurately without an
interpreter with the result that statements that did not reflect or mirror the facts as
understood by the deaf person were produced and used in courts for the trial of the
deaf accused or complainant. Secondly, the study revealed problems and barriers in
10
courtrooms, in the form of miscommunication and a communication failure between
interpreters and the deaf, resulting in disadvantage to the deaf. Dagut and Morgan
(2003:) argue that deaf persons who are required to make police statements are
frequently victims of miscommunication, arising from, and leading to, violations of
their rights including the right to skilled interpreters and to a fair trial as accused
persons.
Aarons and Akach (2002:153) claim that the barrier to inclusion of the deaf in
mainstream education facilities is a matter of language, and not of physical disability.
The study by Ram and Muthukrishna (2001) aimed to gain insight into the South
African deaf culture and explored the implications of deaf culture for the education of
Deaf learners in South Africa. They administered a questionnaire to 18 deaf adults
from four provinces in South Africa. The findings of their study suggest that there
needs to be a re-assessment on the nature of the educational curriculum for the
deaf, particularly with regard to the philosophy and discourses that underpin it, the
status of sign language, the quality of educators, the socialisation of deaf students,
and the issue of mainstreaming so that deaf learners may be educated in the most
enabling environment. Ram and Muthukrishna (2001:51) found that participants in
the study were vehement that the voice of the Deaf should be heard in all decision-
making processes for the Deaf, particularly with respect to the provision of
education. This confirms Museva’s view (2012) that people with disabilities need to
be represented at decision-making structures not only to ensure inclusivity, but to
address the real issues experienced by people with disability. There has been active
engagement from the Deaf community at various levels in the transformation
process in South Africa and it is clear that a definite paradigm shift has occurred
from the perception that deaf people are merely pathologically deficient in hearing to
an emphasis that deaf people form a culture of their own with their own distinctive
language. Aarons and Akach (2002:153) support this view and argue that SASL as a
medium of instruction in centres of education is the most effective way of removing
barriers of learning for the Deaf and empowering them to function meaningfully
through using a medium to which they have full access.
Across the world, people with disabilities have poorer health outcomes, lower
educational achievements, less economic participation and higher rates of poverty
11
than people without disabilities. This is partly because people with disabilities
experience barriers in accessing services that many of us have long taken for
granted, including health, education, employment, and transport, as well as
information. These difficulties are exacerbated in less advantaged communities
(World Report, 2011:xi). To address some of these barriers, many interventions,
including telecommunications aimed at assisting people with disabilities have been
developed and implemented. Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) have investigated
telecommunication practices and challenges among the Deaf in South Africa,
focusing on products such as cell phones, e-mail, fax messaging, and instant
messaging (IM). Their research shows that the Deaf consider IM as the most
successful technology for both business and social communication. E-mail is rated
most often used for business communication, whereas e-mail and SMS are rated
most used for social communication. Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) also note that the
main drawbacks experienced by deaf users of telecommunications technologies
involve connecting with, and understanding people. Their research findings indicate
that the Deaf would like to see heightened public awareness of deafness and its
challenges in telecommunication. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicate
that they have a fair chance to access South African services. However, 75% of
respondents indicate that South African services are not accessible enough for the
Deaf and that they would not be able to rectify a problem without asking someone
else for assistance or without making the effort of visiting the business for a face-to-
face encounter. The respondents stated that they do not have the easy access to
services that hearing individuals would have. For example, the hard-of-hearing
individuals argued that when making a call to a call centre, officials or operators are
not trained to speak to hard-of-hearing people; they shout, speak fast and become
impatient when they struggle to understand the caller or request that a word be
repeated.
According to Dube (2005:6), it was during the period 1994–2004 that legislation,
policies, interventions, and programmes were formulated with the aim of influencing
the environment in order that equity goals over the medium- to long-term, and also
immediate goals were addressed to ensure that an increased number of people with
disabilities could access government services and programmes. Dube (2005) has
investigated the extent to which those policies and legislation programmes post-1994
12
have provided greater access for ordinary disabled people. The research focused on
the identification and analysis of key features of the South African government’s
efforts to provide better access to government services for people with disabilities
through the implementation of policies and inclusive legislation, with particular
emphasis on the work of national and provincial government departments for the
period 1994–2004. One finding was that “generally, the development of disability
policies within government departments at both national and provincial levels is in its
infancy, with the majority of departments having only draft policies. Such policies are
generally not backed up by funded strategies; hence no meaningful implementation
of these policies has occurred” (Dube, 2005:10). The White Paper on an INDS was
adopted in 1997. The objective of the INDS was to provide government and the
broader society with a framework or guidelines to promote non-discriminatory
development planning, programme implementation, and service delivery.
Implementation of the INDS at many levels of the public sector and society as a
whole remains a challenge which unfortunately has negative implications for people
with disabilities in South Africa.
The successful implementation and monitoring of communication with citizens,
particularly people with disabilities, necessitates an integrated and coordinated
management system for planning, implementation and monitoring of communication
interventions at all levels and within all spheres of government, as well as a capacity-
building plan for officials.
3 METHODOLOGY
Du Plooy (2009) argues that quantitative and qualitative research designs or
approaches should not be seen as mutually exclusive because in most cases, when
either one of them is applied, it tends to include characteristics of both approaches.
This study requires participants to give opinions and views on their experiences of
government communication in South Africa. Du Plooy (2009) points out that
qualitative data can provide information about the “human” side of an issue. In other
words, it has the capability to assist in ascertaining the behaviours, beliefs, opinions,
emotions and relationships of individuals on specific issues or problems. This study
13
acknowledges the differences between qualitative and quantitative designs; these
differences include their analytical objectives; the types of questions they pose; the
types of data collection instruments they use; the forms of data they produce; and
their degree of flexibility. The researcher is aware that by using quantitative data-
collection methods, such as questionnaires, all respondents are asked identical
questions, in the same order, and that the response categories are closed-ended or
fixed. The positive aspect about the lack of flexibility in quantitative design is that it
simplifies the comparison of responses offered by the participants.
Qualitative methods, on the other hand, are typically more flexible and allow the
researcher to adapt his interactions with the participants, in order to probe and obtain
clarity on responses. Qualitative methods ask open-ended questions that are not
necessarily worded in the same way for each participant. According to Reagan
(2006:110), open-ended questions are useful when the researcher does not know
what the responses are likely to be, such as when asking about opinions, attitudes or
perceptions that have not been examined by other studies. Open-ended questions
allow respondents to customise their responses, making them more personal and
reflective. This study aims to determine the experiences and attitudes of participants
to government communication, which means that the researcher must allow
respondents to explain and elaborate their responses. A critical advantage of
qualitative methods in exploratory research like this, as Du Plooy (2009) points out,
is the use of open-ended questions and probing, which gives participants the
opportunity to respond in their own words, rather than forcing them to choose from
fixed responses. The fact that open-ended questions have the ability to evoke
responses that are meaningful and explanatory, and unanticipated by the
researcher, is considered to be a positive aspect of obtaining customised data
inputs. Triangulation is used, so as to deploy all the positive aspects of quantitative
and qualitative methods, to obtain adequate information and data.
This study is cross-sectional and exploratory, and seeks to determine the
experiences and opinions of deaf people on government communication. The study
focused on deaf people residing within the Tshwane Metropolitan municipality. A
total of 15 questionnaires were distributed from which 12 replies were received.
Although the research sample is small, it is acceptable for the purpose of this limited
14
exploratory study. The sample comprised male and female respondents, aged from
20 to 50 years. Fifty percent (50%) of respondents were male and 50% female.
There was no scientific method or approach deployed in the selection of the sample,
but consideration was given to the accessibility and the limited time that was
available to complete the study. A self-administered questionnaire was used to
collect information on respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, awareness
and experiences in accessing government information. The questionnaire included
closed and open-ended questions.
4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
The questionnaire included questions regarding the frequency at which respondents
interact with government departments, their awareness or knowledge of GCIS, their
participation in government’s outreach programmes, such as Izimbizo, and how they
do communicate, or would prefer government to communicate with them. Table 1
and 2 below summarise the frequency of interaction as well as the awareness,
participation and level of satisfaction with government communication.
Table 1: Frequency of respondents’ interaction with government
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
nu
mb
er
of
pe
op
le
Frequency of interaction with government
Interaction with government
Every day
Every week
Every month
Sometimes
Never
Other (please specify)
15
Table 2: Knowledge of GCIS, participation and level of satisfaction with government
communication
A likert scale was included in the questionnaire where respondents were asked to
state whether they “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neutral”; “Agree”; and “Strongly
agree”. Twenty-five percent (25%) strongly disagree that government communication
caters for the needs of people with hearing impairments, 33% disagree, 17% are
neutral and 25% agree that government communication caters for people with
hearing impairments. Seventeen percent (17%) strongly disagree that people with
hearing impairments can access government services easily, 17% disagree, while
25% are neutral, 8% agree and another 8% strongly disagree. The role of
government employees, particularly those at the front-end of customer service, is
crucial in facilitating access to services. Seventeen percent (17%) of respondents
strongly disagree that government officials are always willing to assist people with
hearing impairments, 50% disagree, 25% are neutral, while 8% agree.
Seventeen percent (17%) strongly disagree that government make interpreters
available to facilitate communication, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral and 25% agree.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er
of
pe
op
le
People who know aboutGovernment Communication andInformation System
People who have participated inGovernment Outreach initiativeeg. Imbizo
People who say they needinformation from government
People satisfied with manner inwhich information is receivedfrom government
16
With regard to a statement that is intended to determine the importance of
government employees’ knowledge or understanding of sign language, 17% strongly
disagree that government employees and service providers understand sign
language, 42% disagree, 25% are neutral, 8% strongly agree and 8% strongly
disagree. Respondents who answered the question regarding government’s equal
treatment of citizens in terms of communication, 33% strongly disagree that
government communicates with all citizens equally, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral
and 8% agree. Thirty-three percent (33%) strongly agree that people with hearing
impairments need to communicate directly with government, 42% agree, 17%
disagree. The majority (58%) of respondents strongly agree that government service
employees who work directly with the public must know sign language, 25% agree,
and 17% strongly disagree.
Some respondents hold very strong views regarding government’s commitment to
sign language. One respondent stated: “First and foremost, government must
implement policies that support communication with deaf people, especially sign
language as a 12th official language and it will ease confusion among other
departments.” One respondent seemed very despondent about the issue of sign
language and pointed out that “Sign language as an official language has been
raised several times”. In response to the question on how government can improve
communication with people with hearing impairments, one respondent maintained
that officials should “learn and understand our sign language and give us a positive
attitude and be respectful”. The statements above support the finding by Liebenberg
and Lotriet (2010) in which respondents complained that human operators are not
trained to speak to hard-of-hearing people; they shout, talk fast and get impatient
when they struggle to understand them or when they ask them to repeat certain
words. The attitude of organisations, including governments, to deaf people is a
challenge that requires attention. The attitudes and impatience of officials when
dealing with deaf people explain why some deaf people would need an interpreter or
mediator to facilitate communication and access to services. Twenty-five percent of
respondents in this study stated that they require interpreters, when asked how
government could improve communication with people with hearing impairments.
17
Twenty-five percent strongly disagree that people with hearing impairments are
satisfied with government communication, 8% disagree, 25% are neutral, 17%
agree, and 25% strongly agree. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicated
that they receive government information via the short message service (SMS), 25%
via e-mail, 8% from print media, 8% via the Internet and another 8% from the
organisation representing deaf people. The use of e-mail and SMS by deaf people to
communicate with government confirms the study by Liebenberg and Lotriet
(2010:15) which concludes that e-mail, which had the highest usage rate of 80%,
was rated least successful by the respondents for business communications. The
reason for the high usage of e-mail communication could be related to the fact that
most businesses only provide e-mail addresses and telephone numbers on their
contact page, and do not make use of the other communication channels.
Generally, respondents do not have a positive outlook on the manner that
government responds or deals with their expectations. A total of 83% of respondents
are dissatisfied with their overall experience of government communication over the
past five years, as one of them stated: “They don’t take us seriously and they don’t
give us enough opportunities such as working in the government industry”. Another
respondent stated: “I have to admit that honestly it is still very poor compared to the
past five years”. “Downward” is all one respondent could say in summarising the
experience. The views of the respondents in this study could be more closely related
to the overall perceptions and attitudes towards government’s initiatives geared
towards addressing the communication needs of deaf people. There is certainly no
shortage of communication equipment and devices that government could introduce
to satisfy the needs of deaf people. This is supported, to a certain extent, by
Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) who found that 65% of respondents agreed that
nowadays it is far easier to communicate while the remaining 35% were of the
opinion that there was no difference as they still had difficulty in communicating.
There is no doubt that it must still be difficult for people without access to the
relevant telecommunication processes to communicate, not only with government,
but also with friends and family.
18
Of the respondents who answered the question regarding government’s equal
treatment of citizens in terms of communication, 33% strongly disagree that
government communicates with all citizens equally, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral
and 8% agree. This does not reflect positively on a government that is required by
the Constitution to treat all citizens equally and not discriminate on the basis of
language or any other characteristic. Dagut and Morgan (2003:39) argue that the
right to freedom of expression, particularly the right to receive or impart information,
and the right of access to information, are violated when a deaf person is not told of
his or her rights when making a statement to the police and is not able to make his or
her own statement accurately due to the absence of an interpreter. Dagut and
Morgan (2003:39) maintain that human rights are also violated where the deaf
person is unable to understand or to give information in court because of the
absence of a suitable interpreter. The right to use the language of choice is violated
when a person is compelled to communicate in a language in which he or she does
not feel at ease, for example, where the only means of communication for a deaf
person in a court is through an interpreter who is unable to speak his or her dialect of
SASL. The South African government does not seem to have done enough to
address the issue of sign language since the adoption of the Integrated National
Disability Strategy White Paper in 1997, and in terms of the government statement in
2013:
The Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities is working with relevant government departments, public entities and national representative organisations of Deaf persons to accelerate the agenda for full recognition of the South African Sign Language as a twelfth language, a national accreditation system for South African Sign Language interpreters, and the development of South African Sign Language.
The fact that it has taken 16 years since the recommendations were made in the
form of the national disability strategy and that there appear to be no concrete plans
to indicate how the process of recognising Sign Language as the twelfth language
will unfold, is not encouraging. Those respondents who have made it clear that Sign
Language must be introduced and that public servants must know the language will
be disappointed by this apparent failure.
19
5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Du Plooy (2009:53) is of the view that there are no hard and fast rules determining
the extent to which a research problem or research issue is ethically acceptable or
unacceptable. This study followed the ethical principles guiding the use of human
respondents in social research. Approval for the study was obtained from the
University of Pretoria’s Communication Division. The conditions or circumstances
which many deaf people experience in society have been acknowledged and the
potential benefit to government have been emphasised. A request for advice and
permission to conduct the study was sent to DEAFSA and SANDA. A meeting was
held with SANDA’s project manager where the nature and purpose of the study was
explained in detail and advice sought on the best data collection method(s). Consent
to participate and offer assistance was obtained in writing from SANDA.
6 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The limitations of this study include the following:
The study focused on the City of Tshwane Metropolitan area which is
primarily an urban setting and deaf people in rural areas may not share the
same experiences.
Although a survey was recommended and endorsed by an organisation
representing deaf people, the data indicates that additional useful data could
have been obtained through follow-up and interactions in which face-to-face
and observation tools are employed.
Some responses suggest that the respondents’ level of education played a
key role in understanding the questions and providing informed answers. The
responses indicate clearly that some respondents would have benefited from
an interpretation or clarification of the questions.
20
7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In-depth research in areas that affect South African society, particularly
disadvantaged communities, can assist in finding solutions that will advance the
spirit and practice of our Constitution and empower all sectors of our society,
including members of the deaf community. Further research is suggested in the
following areas:
(i) Further surveys that would be more representative of the South African
deaf population, including those in rural areas, and their experiences with
government communication;
(ii) Qualitative research to determine and examine government’s
communication strategies and practices targeting deaf people;
(iii) Comparative research into South African government communication
practices with those of other developing countries;
(iv) Extensive research into training and the use of SASL in the public service;
and,
(v) Examination of the government’s deployment of telecommunication tools
for use by deaf people in accessing public services.
8 CONCLUSION
Deaf people are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else in South Africa. Their
rights to access information and to express themselves in their preferred language
are crucial for their development and empowerment as individual members of society
and as a community. This study has revealed that although the government has
established organisations and initiated programmes to communicate with citizens,
deaf people still feel that there are gaps and constraints affecting their
communication and access to public services. The development and adoption of
SASL and use of interpreters are priorities for deaf people in South Africa. A
significant number of deaf people do not know about GCIS and the government’s
outreach programmes, such as Izimbizo, while those who are aware of them have
never participated in the programmes due to communication barriers. The overall
perception of deaf people is that government does not take them seriously, hence
their communication needs are not addressed in a satisfactory manner.
21
For deaf people to have a positive experience with government communication, a
number of issues, including the use of sign language and the attitudes of
government employees should be addressed as a matter of priority.
22
REFERENCES
Aarons, D., Akach, P. 2002. Inclusion and the deaf child in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education. 20(1):153-170
Arulogun, O.S., Titiloye, M.A., Afolabi, N.B., Oyewole, O.E., & Nwaorgu, O.G.B.
2013. Experiences of girls with hearing impairment in accessing reproductive health
care services in Ibadan, Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 17(1):85-
93.
Baker, P.M.A., Hanson, J., & Myhill, W.N. 2009. The promise of municipal WiFi and
failed policies of inclusion: the disability divide. Information Polity. 14(2009):47-59.
Chabane, C. 2013. Speech by Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring
and Evaluation, Collins Chabane on the occasion of the GCIS Budget Vote [O].
Available: http://www.presidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=15354. [Accessed 2013-
05-19].
Collier, B., Blackstone, S.W., & Taylor, A. 2012. Communication access to business
and organizations for people with complex communication needs. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication. 28(4):205-218.
Crous, S.F.M. 2004. The academic support needs of students with impairments at
three higher education institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education.
18(1):228-251.
Dagut, H & Morgan, R. 2003. Barriers to justice: violations of the rights of the Deaf
and hard-of-hearing people in the South African justice system. SAJHR, 19(1):27-56.
23
Dube, A.K. 2005. The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South Africa.
Johannesburg: Samaita
Du Plooy, G.M. 2009. Communication research: techniques, methods and
applications. Cape Town: Juta.
Kasiram, M. & Subrayen, R. 2013. Social exclusion of students with visual
impairments at a tertiary institution in KwaZulu-Natal. South African Family Practice.
55(1):66-72
Leonard, A. & Grobler, A.F. 2006. Exploring challenges to transformational
leadership communication about employment equity: managing organizational
change in South Africa. Journal of Communication Management. 10(4):390-406.
[Online] Available from Emerald: http://www.emeraldinsight.com. [Accessed: 2013-
05-18].
Liebenberg, M. & Lotriet, H. 2010. An exploration of Deaf telecommunication
processes and associated social issues in South Africa. SACJ, 45(July):11-17.
Morrison, J., Brand, H., & Cilliers, C. 2009. Students with disabilities in higher
education. Acta Academia. 41(3):201-223.
Museva, L. 2012. The level of participation of women with disabilities in economic
empowerment programmes in Gweru District. Journal of Emerging Trends in
Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(6):955-963.
Office of Deputy President. 1997. Integrated national disability strategy White Paper.
Pretoria: Government Printer
Ram, A. & Muthukrishna, N. 2001. Voices of Deaf adults in South Africa.
Perspectives in Education. 19(1):39-52.
Reagan, J. 2006. Applied research methods for mass communicators. Washington:
Marguette.
24
Republic of South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108
of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Sing, D. & Govender. 2007. Establishing enabling structures and measures for
people with disabilities in the South African Public Service. Journal of Public
Administration. 42(8):786-797.
Singletary, M. 1994. Mass communication research: contemporary methods and
applications. New York: Longman.
South Africa. 2007. Notice 765. Regulations for electronic communications,
broadcasting, and postal sectors to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
Government Gazette, (29986):3-15.
The American Heritage Medical Dictionary. 2007. Houghton Mifflin.
http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/. [Accessed 2014-07-20].
United Nations. 2011. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available
from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml. [Accessed 2013-
06-01].
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2013.
Opening new avenues for empowerment: ICTs to access information and knowledge
for persons with disabilities. Paris: UNESCO.
World Health Organization. 2013. Health topics: disabilities. [O]. Available from:
http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en. [Accessed 2013-05-19].