© 2018 NASEN
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.12201
CHOOS ING TH E FUTURE FOR A CH ILD WITH A SEVERE
H EA RING- IMPA IRMENT
Choosing the Future for a Child with
a Severe Hearing-Impairment
MARJATTA TAKALA, ELINA VILJAMAA
and PÄIVI FREDÄNG
This study explores the choices made by parents of children who are
severely hearing-impaired or deaf. It also gives ideas how to support
these children at school. In a six-year longitudinal study, eleven
families completed the study questionnaire four times. Questions were
related to choice of hearing aid, methods of communication and
educational settings, as well as the everyday experiences of life with
a hearing-impaired child. Analysis of the results was informed by the
work of Bourdieu. The findings indicate that while other ways of
communicating were also used, parents preferred to communicate
with their child within their own hearing field – that is, by means of
speech – and choosing a cochlear implant made this possible. While
the preferred educational setting was a regular school, special settings
were also chosen, especially for children with multiple disabilities.
Parents’ choices commonly entailed hesitation, disagreement and a
tendency to move towards hearing culture; in some cases, these
choices changed during the study period. The article discusses
parents’ choices and their descriptions of daily life with their child who
is severely hearing-impaired or deaf, ranging from wholly ordinary to
something quite distinct or different.
Key words: deaf, future, parents’ choices, severe hearing impairment.
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018205
Introduction
As most children who are deaf and severely hearing-impaired are born to hearing
parents, their new situation can be confusing (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004b).
While each family reacts differently, strong emotions are commonplace, creating
a need for support, as well as information (Moeller, et al., 2013; Nikula, 2015;
Sume, 2008). Societal support is important, but these families also need peer
support from other families in the same situation (Russ et al., 2004).
A significant body of research has addressed the literacy skills of children
with a hearing-impairment (see Hermans et al., 2008; Lutz, 2017, Mitchell
& Karchmer, 2004a; Park et al., 2013; Qi & Mitchell, 2011). Many studies
about school success of pupils with a hearing-impairment in general and,
in particular, the superior reading skills of children with cochlear implants
(Easterbrooks and Beal-Alvarez, 2012; Mayer et al., 2016; Schorr et al., 2008).
The consequences of using or not using Sign language (Hyde & Punch, 2011;
Spencer & Marschark, 2010) have also been discussed. However, there is
less research about the experiences of the family; in particular, there are few
longitudinal observational studies of the choices families make, or of their
daily life with a child who has a severe hearing-impairment. The present
study seeks to bridge this gap in the literature by exploring the experiences
of families who have a child with a severe hearing impairment, based on a
longitudinal questionnaire data. By illuminating families’ choices and experiences
in this way, we hope to give these parents a voice. Our results can
offer new perspectives for families in this situation, as well as for experts,
like teachers working with these families.
In Finland, hearing impairment is usually detected early, at the hospital
where the child is born. The university hospital or the central hospital has
the responsibility to share information to the families and to tell them about
various rehabilitation services. The family can later on choose the day care
setting and the school for their child. (Järvikoski et al., 2013; Takala &
Sume, 2017)
Field of Hearing and Field of Deafness
As a theoretical frame, we draw on concepts from Bourdieu’s distinction
theory (1987a) and from his work on social and cultural capital (Bourdieu,
206	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
1986; see also Tzanakis, 2013); the reflections and interpretations are our
own. Bourdieu (1987a) asserted that cultural taste is defined by and has
its origins in social networks and relations. Cultural choices tell us about
an individual’s cultural capital, and an individual’s status is based on the
amount and quality of their social, cultural and economic capital. There
is an ongoing effort to maintain one’s social status, with all the power and
privileges that status entails (Bourdieu, 1998).
Bourdieu described society as comprising separate fields, arguing that there
is a continuous struggle for power and governance of these fields. Social interactions
occur in distinct fields, which vary in their logics. A field can be
understood as an arena in which people fight for the resources they want
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1995). In this study, the relevant fields are characterized
as the fields of hearing and of deafness.
The special capital acquired in a certain field is valuable in relation to that
particular field – for example, Sign language in the field of deafness – but
can be difficult to convert into a different form of capital. Newcomers to a
given field need to know the rules and even the history of play (Bourdieu,
1987b). As hearing parents are completely unfamiliar with play and the
rules in the deaf field, the hearing field can seem an easier choice. The cultural
and social capital that hearing parents have acquired and respect is
usually based on oral language and on hearing. The suddenness of having a
child who cannot hear may be experienced as a loss, both for the family and
for the child: the lost possibility of singing together, of enjoying the sounds
of nature, and certainly the loss of easy everyday communication. In these
circumstances, it may be difficult to see the alternative possibilities to be
gained by stepping into a new field (see also Nikula, 2015).
Communication and additional disability
Decisions about what language to use must be made early in life with a child
having severe hearing-impairment. The language variants recommended
and used in these families range from oral-only to manual-only, with other
options between. The debate about language variants can be seen as political
– a power struggle concerning who has the right to decide what is preferable
and therefore normal and desirable (Archbold & Wheeler, 2010; Hyde
& Punch, 2011; Salmi & Laakso, 2005; Söderfeldt, 2014). Both language
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018207
possibilities and options for the education of deaf children changed significantly
following the introduction of cochlear implants. With these implants,
children can often learn to speak and hear well enough to be able to use oral
language in many situations (Lonka, 2014), which also affects their education.
In Finland, the first such implant for a child was performed in 1997
(Kokkonen, Mäkiorkko, Roinen & Ikonen, 2009).
In twenty-first century Finland, children with severe hearing-impairment
are included in local schools. While a majority of these children now have
implants, creating a Sign language environment within these institutions
can be challenging (Punch & Hyde, 2010; Selin-Grönlund et al., 2014;
Vermeulen, De Raeve, Langereis & Snik, 2012). The positive learning outcomes
(Marschark et al., 2012) and the possibility of using oral language
with one’s own son or daughter has encouraged many parents to opt for
implantation, despite concerns about the risks of surgery (De Souza Vieira
et al., 2014). It seems that cochlear implantation makes it possible to share
the family’s heritage and social and cultural capital (see also Bourdieu,
1986, Bourdieu 1987a) in a way that differs from the use of Sign language
and learning to live with deaf culture.
For all such decisions, one complicating factor is the prospect of an additional
disability. While prevalence seems difficult to define (and statistics
vary), about a third of children with a hearing impairment seem to have an
additional disability such as visual impairment, specific language impairment
or a syndrome of some kind. In such cases, Sign language or some
form of signing is often preferred, in contrast to cases where a hearing
impairment is the only disability (Edwards & Crocker, 2008; Guardino &
Cannon, 2015; Punch & Hyde, 2011; Spencer & Marschark, 2010).
Inclusive Education in Finland
Children usually attend preschool in Finland, and there are no longer preschool
groups exclusively for children with a hearing-impairment. When the
hearing-impaired child reaches school age (in the year they turn seven), the
family can choose either a regular school or a special setting. A child who
needs individual support can now receive it in regular education, as every
school has one or more special teachers to support these pupils (Halinen &
Järvinen, 2008; Takala & Sume, 2017). Parents can apply for special support
208	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
for their hearing-impaired child (Finnish National Board of Education,
2016), offering access to prolonged compulsory education, with smaller class
sizes of no more than 20 pupils (Basic Education Act, 2010/893 2010). Smaller
class sizes ensure better hearing conditions, as fewer pupils mean less noise
and more teacher time for each pupil. This is one reason to apply for special
support, even though a child may not have a learning difficulty or developmental
challenge (see Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, 2014).
Although inclusive education now seems the preferred choice (Eriks-Brophy
& Whittingham, 2013), some parents choose segregated settings where they
see their child’s needs being met (Flaherty, 2015; Hender & O’Neill, 2016). In
2010, 0.8 per cent of pupils in regular education were hearing-impaired, presenting
new challenges for preschool and school staff (Finnish Ministry of
Education and Culture, 2014; Statistics Finland, 2010). While staff members
initiate the inclusion process with pupils having hearing-impairment from
the outset, parents often play the role of informants because of the family’s
greater experience of the child (see also Moeller et al., 2013).
Method
The study addresses two research questions: a) What do parents say
about making decisions for their child with a severe hearing-impairment
and do the decisions change during six years? and b) What do parents
say about their experiences of everyday life with a child having a severe
hearing-impairment?
We investigated the choices parents make about devices, communication
and education. We also asked how they experience everyday life with their
child who is deaf or severely hearing-impaired. Our data comprised longitudinal
questionnaire data from 11 families, collected in 2008, 2009, 2011
and 2013. All of the participating families had one or two children who were
deaf or severely hearing-impaired.
Participants
In the six-year follow-up study, parents of children who were deaf or had a
severe hearing-impairment were asked to complete the same questionnaire
(Appendix) on four occasions (in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013). The participating
families were originally contacted mainly through two associations:
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018209
the Service Foundation for the Deaf and the Finnish Association of Parents
of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children. The parents received the questionnaire
directly from these organizations, as the lack of a register of children
having a hearing-impairment meant that the researchers had no access to
the families’ addresses. The aim was to reach families with a young child
who was deaf or severely hearing-impaired and not yet attending school.
However, two families were accepted who had children already of school
age at the beginning of the study period.
Only 11 families (with 13 deaf or severely hearing-impaired children) responded
on three or four occasions. We focus here on those 11 families;
results for the whole sample (N = 29) have been presented and published
elsewhere in Finnish (Takala & Rainó, 2016). The children are listed according
to age in Table 1. With one exception, all guardians were hearing,
and all were white Finns. Four of the 11 children had a severe additional
impairment such as a syndrome. Minor issues such as mild dyslexia were
not classified as additional impairments. All but one of the children
had at least one sibling. The ethical board was not contacted while the
Table 1.  The Children And Their Background
Child Age in 2008 Hearing status Device 2008 Device 2013 age, 1st
CI Add. dis.
AXEL 2yrs 5 mh Deaf no - - yes
BEA 2yrs 6mh Deaf 2 Has 2 CIs 2yrs 5mt yes
CISSY 2yrs 7 mh Deaf 2 CIs 2 CIs 1yr 2mt DAVID
2yrs 8 mh Deaf 2CI 2 CIs 1yr 5mt EVA
2yrs 8mh Sev. HI* CI + HA CI+HA 2yrs 2mt FRANK
3yrs 6 mh Deaf CI + HA 2 CIs 1yr 7mt GWEN
3yrs 7 mh Deaf CI + HA 2 CIs 2yrs 4mt yes
HARRY 4yrs 11mh Sev. HI 2 Has 2 HAs IAN
5yrs 2mh Deaf CI 2 CIs 1yr 6mh JANE
6yrs 1 mh Deaf CI + HA 2 CIs 1yr 5mh KEN
6yrs 10 mh Sev. HI 2 HAs CI+HA 8yrs 8mt LARRY
7yrs Deaf CI CI 2yrs 2mh MARY
8yrs 8 mh Deaf 2 HAs 2 HAs - yes
Note. yrs = years; mh = months; Add. dis. = additional disability; CI = Cochlear implant; HA = regular
hearing aid, Sev. HI = severely hearing impaired. All names are pseudonyms.
210	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
participants were parents who told about their own child. However, they
were promised full anonymity. As Finland is so small, all used names are
pseudonyms, and several details have been hidden or changed to prevent
identification. (see also National Advisory Board on Research Ethics,
2009)
Data Analysis
Content analysis was used to examine the qualitative data (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2000; Morse & Field, 1995) and frequencies were
used when helpful. Following Hsieh and Shannon (2005, p. 1278), content
analysis is defined here as ‘a research method for subjective interpretation
of the content of text data through systematic classification process of coding
and identifying themes or patterns’. Written responses to questions were
read several times by the researchers, and the material was then divided
into subcategories. The main categories under which the key results are
reported, were derived from these subcategories (see also Morse & Field,
1995).
Results
Choice of device, communication and educational setting are discussed
below, along with the changes observed in the data during the six-year
follow-up.
Decisions of choices
None of the decisions about device, communication or education seemed
easy or free of emotion, at least at some point (see also Roberson & Shaw,
2015). In addition, some decisions revealed discrepancies. Older children
with a hearing-impairment were involved in the decision-making, such
as whether or not to have a second implant; otherwise, parents made the
decisions.
Choice of Device and Communication
Table 2 lists all hearing aids reported. Age at cochlear implantation is also
set out in Table 1, revealing a trend towards implantations.
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018211
Mothers’ and fathers’ first and second communication methods in 2008 and
in 2013 are shown in Table 3. The list shows the different expressions guardians
used about the language variants.
During the six-year study period, parents changed their mode of communicating
(Table 3). In the first year (2008), mothers used Sign language as the
preferred option with two children and with three children during the last
year (2013). Fathers used Sign language in 2008 with Axel, Frank, Harry
and Mary, and in 2013 with Bea, Frank, Harry and Mary.
Unless the child had an additional impairment, siblings used speech and
then signing as their primary communication system. Among the four with
an additional impairment, three children’s siblings used signing as their primary
language, and one child’s siblings used Sign language. Relatives and
neighbours used speech, and some had some knowledge of signs. The first
method of communication changed over the six years in two families. In
Bea’s family, signs changed to Sign language, making the language variant
clearer. In Axel’s case, his father first used Sign language in 2008, but in
2013, he used signed Finnish, which was closer to his own language. While
other families did not change their primary communication method, the
second language variant changed in six cases (see Table 4). In summary,
speech was the primary method of communication with these 13 children;
for eight of them, some form of signing was used as the second method.
Sign language was used as the primary method of communication with
children who had an additional impairment, or when the parent was deaf.
In that family, the other parent used speech. In one family where the child
had an additional impairment, the primary method was speech. While the
Table 2.  Devices Used By Children
Hearing device 2008 2009 2011 2013
Regular hearing aid + cochlear implant 4 5 3 2
1 cochlear implant 2 2 2 1
2 cochlear implants 2 2 2 7
2 regular hearing aids 4 3 1 2
None 1 1 1 1
N 13 13 9* 13
Note. * 2011, three families (one with two hearing-impaired children) did not respond to the question
212	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
Table3. Guardians'1st
and2nd
CommunicationMethodWith11ChildrenIn2008AndIn2013
Child
M1st
comm2008
(2nd
comm2008)
M1st
comm2013
(2nd
comm2013)
F1st
comm2008
(2nd
comm2008)
F1st
comm2013
(2nd
comm2013)
AXEL,add.dis.Signlanguage(lips)Signlanguage(-)Signlanguage
(gestures)
signedFinnish(-)
BEA,add.dis.signs(speech)Signlanguage
(speech)
signs(speech)Signlanguage(speech)
CISSYspeech(signs)speech(signs)speech(signs)speech(signs)
DAVIDspeech(speech + signsas
support)
speech(signing)speech(SSS*)speech(signing)
EVAspeech(speech + signsas
support)
speech(signing)speech(SSS)speech(signing)
FRANKspeech(speech + signsas
support)
speech(signed
Finnish)
Signlanguage(-)Signlanguage(-)
GWENadd.dis.speech(SSS)speech(Sign
language)
speech(SSS)speech(Signlanguage)
HARRYspeech(speech + signsas
support)
speech(signed
Finnish)
Signlanguage(-)Signlanguage(-)
IANspeech(Signlanguage)speech(Sign
language)
speech(Sign
language)
speech(Signlanguage)
JANEspeech(SSS)speech(SSS)speech(SSS)speech(SSS)
KENspeech(SSS)speech(signedspeech)speech(SSSalittle)speech(somesigns)
LARRYspeech(signs)speech(signed
Finnish)
speech(signs)speech(signed
Finnish)
MARYadd.dis.Signlanguage(lips)Signlanguage(lips)Signlanguage
(speech)
Signlanguage(writing
/pictures)
(M = mother,F=father,comm = communicationsystem,SSS = signssupportingspeech;add.dis. = additionaldisability)
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018213
deaf parent used only Sign language, other options were used with all the
children; despite the relatively small sample size, communication methods
varied. To summarize, it can be said that there were several ways of communicating
when the parent was hearing and the child had severe hearing loss.
Nobody reported just speaking.
Families hesitated about whether to use Sign language or just to speak. The
outcome was that they used both, or speech and cued speech with some
signs, as two parents did. Cued speech is a system that makes all speech
phonemes visible, using eight hand-shapes in four positions (for more information,
see LaSasso et al., 2010). Content analysis of the open responses
revealed two main categories in parent’s texts concerning communication:
Situated communication and Mainly speech.
Situated Communication
In this category, the situation determined which language or language variant
was used. Methods other than oral communication became necessary
when the child was not wearing a device—for example, in the early morning
or late evening, in the sauna or when swimming, or when in noisy places.
Table 4.  The Educational Choices Parents Made
Child + add.dis. Preschool /school in 2008 Preschool/school in 2013
AXEL, add.dis. regular preschool special class in autumn
BEA, add.dis. regular preschool special school
CISSY regular preschool special class in autumn
DAVID special preschool regular school
EVA special preschool regular school
FRANK regular preschool regular school
GWEN, add.dis. special preschool special school
HARRY regular preschool regular school
IAN special preschool regular school
JANE regular preschool regular school
KEN ½ and ½ * regular school
LARRY regular school regular school
MARY, add.dis. regular school special school
Note. Add. dis. = additional disability; *½ day in special preschool, ½ day in regular preschool
214	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
‘When he has the devices on, we just speak. When the other one is missing,
speech is not enough; then we sign. If he has no device, we sign. We choose
the communication according to the situation.’ (Ken’s mother, 2013)
In Finland, small children also have access to interpretation services (Kela,
2016a), and some families described using these services as fine but not always
functional. For example, it is important for a child to have the same interpreter
so that they can get to know each other. As one parent explained,
this could be difficult to organize.
‘She had an interpreter from the time she was 3 years old, in a congregation
club. I ordered the interpreter to the meetings, they were very early,
and I asked if it was possible to have the same interpreter… For a shy
child, 20 club meetings and 17 different interpreters!’ (Gaby’s parent)
Signing seemed to give more degrees of freedom as Bea’s mother tells:
‘In the mornings, we start using Sign language and when dressing we help
with the hearing-aids and then we start to speak.’ (Bea’s mother, 2013)
Mainly speech
A child having cochlear implant or implants had usually learned to speak,
so the family spoke. However, if the parents or one parent was deaf, Sign
language was used.
‘Communication goes like with a speaking child. Only moments when
there is not a cochlear implant in head are different, then we sign. …….. We
signed a lot and immediately after the operation development of speech
has been really fast. When he started to hear our speech, we spoke and
signed at the same time, and he understood everything.’ (Ian’s father, 2011)
Although speech was dominant, signing was a very practical help in many
cases as Eva’s mother tells. ‘Sometimes he mishears and then we also sign.’
(Eva’s mother, 2013).
Choice of Education
Responses related to institutional education revealed a desire for inclusion
and normalization. This included speech and all the possibilities it offers.
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018215
However, parents reported reluctance and even fear among preschool and
school staff, claiming that some heads said they lacked the necessary resources
to accommodate a child having a severe hearing-impairment with
an additional impairment. Parents’ choices regarding preschool and primary
school are summarized in Table 4.
Although small, the group was diverse in terms of educational choices.
In 2008, six children were in regular preschool, four were in special preschool,
two were at a regular school and four attended a special school
(Table 4). One child (Ken) spent half the day in special preschool and the
other half in regular preschool. By the end of the study in 2013, one child
was in regular preschool, four were at a special school, and eight were at a
regular school.
During the first study year (2008), two children were at school; by
2013, all were at school. Three children (Ian, David and Eva) changed
from a special educational setting to a regular setting, and three children
with an additional impairment (Axel, Bea and Mary) changed
from a regular to a special setting. School attendance often demands
extra services – an individual educational plan, an FM device (frequency
modulation), an assistant or a smaller class size – and parents
reported having to be very involved in school issues to defend their
child’s rights. Parents in Szarkowski and Brice’s (2016) study also referred
to this advocacy role.
Again, choices were diverse: sometimes regular settings, sometimes special
settings, with some switching between the two. Content analysis of the responses
regarding education revealed two categories: Inclusive education
and Impact of an additional disability.
Inclusive education
Many parents wanted their child to go to regular school. However, the various
devices, like the FM-device, were considered very important. Sometimes
the child dropped from social situations when he/she did not hear.
She uses an FM device during lessons. Communication goes well, and
she likes to be at school. She is included when playing games (during the
breaks) but does not hear so well. (Jane’s mother, 2011)
216	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
Impact of Additional Disability
Two children with an additional disability attended a special school. Mary’s
family chose a special setting while they saw many benefits in it.
She is now in special education, with individualized curriculum here
in city x, in the future perhaps in the state school for hearing-impaired.
Language is Sign language. (Mary’s mother, additional impairment, 2009)
Effects on Daily Life
Content analysis revealed extremes in the effects of hearing impairment on
the participating families’ daily lives, ranging from almost no effect to affecting
everything. Parents talked mainly about two things: Technical issues
and A New World.
Technical Issues
In some responses, hearing impairment was described as a technical problem
that could be overcome using appropriate devices. These need maintenance,
and older children gained a positive sense of independence from
being able to take care of their hearing aid. In another case, the child’s hearing
loss was an issue when designing and building the family home, making
it more than a minor technical issue. This example lies in the middle of the
continuum from no changes to several changes.
A New World
Parents whose first child is not hearing-impaired can compare life with a child
having a hearing-impairment. Bea’s father said they had experienced big life
changes, comparing these to a religious awakening because so many things
changed. He also noted that the family could tire of all the therapies, Sign
language lessons and meetings with various experts. For example, having a
child who uses Sign language changes many leisure activities. Nevertheless,
they also experienced it as normal, regular life with small children.
Discussion
A questionnaire was sent four times in a six-year period to eleven families
with a child having a severe hearing-impairment. The study focused on the
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018217
choices families made and how they experienced daily life with their child.
Decision processes in relation to communication methods were described
in terms of hesitation, uncertainty and frustration with conflicting information,
and ultimately relief following functional, good or perhaps even
right decisions (see also Nelson, Caress & Grenny, 2012).
A cochlear implant (or two implants) was chosen if considered beneficial.
Unlike in an American study with parents of hearing-impaired children
(Szarkowski & Brice, 2016), no financial concerns were mentioned here.
This is probably because the government pays for most medical and technical
care in Finland. Choosing implantation can be interpreted as choosing
hearing culture, implying a desire to transfer one’s own cultural and social
capital – often based on oral language and sound-based cultural forms such
as music – to one’s own son or daughter.
These decisions changed somewhat during the six-year study period. For
example, a hearing aid was changed to a cochlear implant, or one implant
was not considered good enough, and the child received a second one.
While regular education was a common choice, some parents opted for special
education or were advised to do so. Often but not always, a child with
an additional impairment attended a special setting. Even when a regular
setting was chosen, special support was applied for in order to access all the
necessary support services.
Regardless of the child’s age, all families used more than one communication
system. They spoke but also decided to use other methods – mainly signs as
support or signed Finnish. The use of Sign language and signing diminished
over the study period, and speech became more dominant. Several families
reported being told by the hospital not to use Sign language at all, but they
had not complied (see also Decker et al., 2012; Hyde & Punch, 2011; Watson
et al., 2008). Along with changes in the child’s situation, society also changed.
Technology continued to develop, and the school system became more inclusive
(see for example Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham, 2013; Hausstätter,
2014; Rytivaara, 2012). Although a hearing impairment is invisible and may
go unnoticed, its effects on everyday life range from small technical issues to
transformation in several fields, involving new friends, language and culture.
The story revealed from the longitudinal data is not homogeneous or indicative
of clear choices. It is a story of hesitation, diversity and tailor-made
218	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
solutions, entailing variety and flexibility. One key finding is that hearing
parents want their child to have access to hearing culture and the hearing
world. If we consider the hearing and deaf world as fields (Bourdieu
& Wacquant, 1995), we can say that parents want their children to inhabit
a familiar field. They may also occasionally visit the field of deafness; for
instance, one family with deaf and hearing guardians moved flexibly from
field to field. However, these concepts borrowed from Bourdieu (1986) show
that the situation is not binary, as a third field – diverse communication –
also seems useful. Families visit this field in situations where oral language
cannot be used and their own skills in Sign language are modest. This is an
in-between field, where hearing and deaf fields overlap.
Given the limited number of participants, all of whom were active members
of associations for the hearing-impaired, there is a risk of bias. However,
our findings align with other research (Lyngbäck, 2016; Selin-Grönlund
et al., 2014; Spencer & Marschark, 201; Takala & Rainó, 2016; Watson et al.,
2008), which strengthens their credibility and transferability (see Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
As in our study, Watson, Hardie, Archbold & Wheeler (2008) found that
guardians of children who were deaf or severely hearing-impaired were
pragmatic; they saw the benefits of using two languages or language variants,
and they were not dogmatic about communication methods.
As these children grow up, they will think increasingly about issues of identity.
They will make their own choices, perhaps based on multiple factors
other than hearing or communication, leading perhaps to a fluid identity
(see Kemmery & Compton, 2014) that changes according to the context
(Rich, Levinger, Werner & Adelman, 2013; Schorr, 2006). These children
may want to integrate in hearing culture as well as in deaf culture. Hollins
(2000) discussed the possible marginalization or social exclusion of individuals
with cochlear implants as neither wholly in the deaf or the hearing
community. Nevertheless, the future of the children in this study seems
bright. They have opportunities to become multicultural in a new way, moving
between different cultural fields as they prefer. They have more than one
means of communicating. In the diversity of languages and all that it gives
them, they have huge capital. The next step in this research is to interview
the children to ask them about their choices.
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018219
Acknowledgment
We want to thank The Service Foundation for the Deaf for all practical help
during the study.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
ARCHBOLD, S. and WHEELER, A. (2010). Cochlear implants: family and young people’s
perspectives. In M. Marschark and P. Spencer, eds. Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language
and education (vol. 2). pp. 226–240. New York: Oxford University Press.
BASIC EDUCATION ACT. (2010) 2010/893. Forming teaching groups, § 2, clause 3. Available
from: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980852
BOURDIEU, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, ed. Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
BOURDIEU, P. (1987a) Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, trans.).
Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)
BOURDIEU, P. (1987b) Sosiologian kysymyksiä [Questions of sociology] (J.-P. Roos, trans.).
Jyväskylä, Finland: Vastapaino.
BOURDIEU, P. and WACQUANT, L.J.D. (1995) Refleksiiviseen sosiologiaan: Tutkimus,
käytäntö ja yhteiskunta [Invitation to reflexive sociology]. Joensuu, Finland: Joensuu
University Press.
DECKER, K.B., VALLOTTON, C.D., and JOHNSON, H.A. (2012). Parents’ communication
decision for children with hearing loss: sources of information and influence. American
annals of the deaf, 157(4), 326–339. Available from: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/113529/
DE SOUZA VIEIRA, S., BEVILACQUA, M. C., FERREIRA, N. M. and DUPAS, G. (2014)
Cochlear implant: the complexity involved in the decision-making process by the family.
Revista Latino Americana de Enfermagem, 22(3), 415–424. doi: 10.1590/0104-1169.3044.2432.
EASTERBROOKS, S.R. & BEAL-ALVAREZ, J-S. (2012) States’ reading outcomes of students
who are d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing. American annals of the deaf, 157(1), 27–40.
Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.pc124152.oulu.fi:8080/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=
e235a704-5664-4d28-92bd-f404b23e331d%40sessionmgr101
EDWARDS, L. & CROCKER, S. (2008) Psychological processes in deaf children with complex
needs: an evidence-based practical guide. London: Kingsley.
ERIKS-BROPHY, A. and WHITTINGHAM, J. (2013) Teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion
of children with hearing loss in general education settings. American annals of the deaf,
158(1), 63–97. doi: 10.1353/aad.2013.0009
FINNISH ASSOCIATION OF PARENTS OF DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
CHILDREN (2017) Information. Available from: http://www.klvl.org/muut-kielet/
finnish-association-of-parents-of-the-deaf-and-hard-of-hearing-children-the-klvl/
220	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
FINNISH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE. (2014) Oppimisen ja hyvinvoinnin
tuki. Selvitys kolmiportaisen tuen toimeenpanosta [Support for learning and well-being.
Clarification of the implementation of three step support]. Publications of Ministry of
Education and Culture 2014:2. Available from: http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/
OPM/Julkaisut/2014/liitteet/okm02.pdf?lang=fi
FINNISH NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (2016) Miten erityisen tuen päätös tehdään?
[How to make a decision for special support?]. Available from: http://www.oph.
fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/ohjeita_koulutuksen_jarjestamiseen/perusopetuksen_jarjestami-
nen/tietoa_tuen_jarjestamisesta/erityinen_tuki/erityisen_tuen_paatoksen_tekeminen
2016
FLAHERTY, M. (2015) What we can learn from hearing parents of deaf children. Australasian
journal of special education, 39(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2014.19
GUARDINO, C. and CANNON, J.E. (2015) Theory, research, and practice for students
who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities: addressing the challenges from birth
to postsecondary education. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 347–355. doi: 10.1353/
aad.2015.0033
HALINEN, I. and JÄRVINEN, R. (2008) Towards inclusive education. The case of Finland.
Prospects, 38(1), 77–97. doi: 10.1007/s11125-008-9061-2
HAUSSTÄTTER, R.S. (2014). In support of unfinished inclusion. Scandinavian journal of
educational research, 57(4), 424–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.773553
HENDER, O. and O’NEILL, R. (2016). Monitoring the achievement of deaf pupils in Sweden
and Scotland: approaches and outcomes. Deafness & education international, 18(1), 47–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2016.1142045
HERMANS, D., KNOORS, H., ORMEL, E. and VERHOEVEN, L. (2008). The relationship
between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs.
Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 13(4), 518–30. doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent024
HOLLINS, K. (2000). Between two worlds: the social implications of cochlear implantation
for children born deaf. In J. Hubert, ed. Madness, disability and social exclusion: The archaeology
and anthropology of ‘difference’. (pp. 180–195). London: Routledge.
HSIEH, H.-F. and SHANNON, S.E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
HYDE, M. and PUNCH, R. (2011) The modes of communication used by children with cochlear
implants and the role of sign in their lives. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(5),
535–549. doi: 10.1353/aad.2011.0006
JÄRVIKOSKI, A., MARTIN, M., AUTTI-RÄMÖ, I., and HÄRKÄPÄÄ, K. (2013) Shared
agency and collaboration between the family and professionals in medical rehabilitation
of children with severe disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 36(1),
30-37.
KELA [The Social Insurance Institution of Finland]. (2016a). Rehabilitation services.
Available from: http://www.kela.fi/web/en/rehabilitation
KELA [The Social Insurance Institution of Finland]. (2016b). Interpreter services for disabled.
Available from: http://www.kela.fi/vammaisten-tulkkauspalvelut
KEMMERY, M.A. and COMPTON, M.V. (2014) Are you deaf or hard of hearing? Which do
you go by: perceptions of identity in families of students with hearing loss. Volta review,
114(2), 157–192. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1553208993
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018221
KOKKONEN, J., MÄKITORKKO, E., ROINE, R. & IKONEN, T. (2009) Vaikea-asteisen
kuulovian kuntoutus molemminpuolisen sisäkorvaistutteen avulla [Rehabilitiation of a
severe hearing impairment with a cochlear implant]. Suomen Lääkärilehti [Finnish medical
journal], 64(17), 1567–1577.
LASASSO, C., CRAIN, K.L., and LEYBAERT, J. (2010). Cued speech and cued language
development for deaf and hard of hearing children. San Diego, CA: Plural.
LINCOLN, Y.S. and GUBA, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
LONKA, E. (2014). From silence to sounds. Outcomes of cochlear implantation in Finnish
adults and children. Unpublished thesis. University of Helsinki.
LUTZ, L. (2017). The Early Years: Parents and Young Deaf Children Reading Together.
Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 18, 4-10. http://www3.gallaudet.edu/
Documents/Clerc/Odyssey/2017_issue/ODYSSEY_2017-3_Lutz.pdf
LYNGBÄCK, L.A. (2016). Experiences, networks and uncertainty: parenting a child who uses
a cochlear implant. Thesis. Institute of Pedagogy and Didactics, Stockholm University.
MARSCHARK, M., LANG, H.G., and ALBERTINI, J.A. (2012) Educating deaf students.
From research to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MAYER, C., WATSON, L.., ARCHBOLD, S., NG, Z.Y., and MULLA, I. (2016) Reading and
Writing Skills of Deaf Pupils with Cochlear Implants. Deafness & Education International,
18(2), 71–86.
MAYRING, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: qualitative social research, 1(2),
article 20. Available from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/
view/1089/2385
MITCHELl, R.E. and KARCHMER, M.A. (2004a). When parents are deaf versus hard of
hearing: patterns of sign use and school placement of deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 9(2), 133–152. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enh017
MITCHELL, R. & KARCHMER, M. (2004b) Chasing the mythical ten percent. Parental
hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign language
studies, 4(2), 138–163.
MOELLER, M.P., CARR, G, SEAVER, L., STREDLER-BROWN, A. & HOLZINGER, D.
(2013) Best practices in family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or
hard of hearing: an international consensus statement. Journal of deaf studies & deaf education,
18(4), 429–445. doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent034
MORSE, J.M. and FIELD, P.A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals.
2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD ON RESEARCH ETHICS. 2009. Ethical principles of
research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical
review. Available from: http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COCHLEAR IMPLANTED CHILDREN. (2017).
Information. Available from: http://www.lapci.fi/in-english/
NELSON, P.A., CARESS, A.L. and GRENNY, A.M. (2012) ‘Doing the “right” thing’: How
parents experience and manage decision-making for children’s ‘normalising’ surgeries.
Social science & medicine, 74(5), 796–804. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.024
NIKULA, K. (2015) Lapsen hyvää edistämässä. Sisäkorvaistutehoitokäytännön sosiaalieettistä
tarkastelua [Promoting the well-being of a child. Socioethical inspection of cochlear
implant practices] Thesis (PhD). University of Helsinki.
PARK, J., LOMBARDINO, L.J., & RITTER, M.J. (2013) Phonology matters: a comprehensive
investigation of reading and spelling skills of school-age children with mild to
222	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
moderate sensorineural hearing loss. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1), 20−40. http://
web.a.ebscohost.com.pc124152.oulu.fi:8080/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=f2d0b
14b-e1ae-43c3-95bd-18ae13ad9994%40sessionmgr4007
PUNCH, R. & HYDE, M. (2010). Children with cochlear implants in Australia: educational
settings, supports and outcomes. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 15(4), 405–421.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq019
PUNCH, R. and HYDE, M. (2011) Communication, psychosocial, and educational outcomes
of children with cochlear implants and challenges remaining for professionals and parents.
International journal of otolaryngology, 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2011/573280
QI, S. and MITCHELL, R. (2011) Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and
hard-of-hearing students: past, present and future. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education,
17(1), 1−17. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr028
RICH, S., LEVINGER, M., WERNER, S. & ADELMAN, C. (2013). Being an adolescent
with a cochlear implant in the world of hearing people: coping in school, in society and
with self-identity. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 77(8), 1337–1344.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.05.029
ROBERSON, L. and SHAW, S. (2015) Reflections on deaf education: perspectives of deaf
senior citizens. Educational gerontology, 41(3), 226–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0360127
7.2014.951194
RUSS, S.A., KUO, A. A., POULAKIS, Z., BARKER, M., RICKARDS, F., SAUNDERS,
K., JARMAN, F. C., WAKE, M. & OBERKLEID, F. (2004). Qualitative analysis of parents’
experience with early detection of hearing loss. Archives of disease in childhood, 89(4),
353–358. doi: 10.1136/adc.2002.024125
RYTIVAARA, A. (2012). Towards inclusion—teacher learning in co-teaching. Thesis.
University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä studies on education, psychology and social research,
453.
SALMI, E. & LAAKSO, M. (2005). Maahan lämpimään—Suomen viittomakielisten historia
[To a warm country—The history of Finnish Sign language users]. Helsinki: Finnish Deaf
Association.
SCHORR, E. (2006). Early cochlear implant experience and emotional functioning during
childhood: Loneliness in middle and late childhood. The Volta review, 106, 365–379.
Available from: https://www.agbell.org/uploadedFiles/Connect/Publications/The_Volta_
Review/TVR_106-3.pdf
SCHORR, E., ROTH, F., & FOX, N. (2008). A comparison of the speech and language skills
of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. Communication disorders
quarterly, 29(4), 195–201. doi: 10.1177/1525740108321217
SELIN-GRÖNLUND, P., RAINÒ, P., and MARTIKAINEN, L. (2014) Kuurojen ja viittomakielisten
oppilaiden lukumäärä ja opetusjärjestelyt. Selvitys lukuvuoden 2013–2014 tilanteesta
[The amount and teaching arrangements of deaf and Sign language users]. Reports and
clarifications, 11. National Board on Education, the Finnish Deaf Association. Available
from: http://www.oph.fi/download/158006_kuurojen_ja_viittomakielisten_oppilaiden_
lukumaara_ja_opetusjarjestelyt.pdf
SERVICE FOUNDATION FOR THE DEAF (2017) Information. Available from: https://
www.kuurojenpalvelusaatio.fi/en/
SÖDERFELDT, Y. (2014). An evening of equality? Nationalism and the centennial celebration
of the Berlin Royal Deaf-Mute Asylum, December 2–4, 1888. Sign language studies,
14(2), 250–265.
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018223
SPENCER, P.E. & MARSCHARK, M. (2010) Evidence-based practice in education deaf and
hard-of-hearing students. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
STATISTICS FINLAND (2010) Comprehensive school pupils transferred to special education
by ground for decision of acceptance or transfer in 2010. Available from http://www.
stat.fi/til/erop/2010/erop_2010_2011-06-09_tau_004_en.htm
SUME, H. (2008) Perheen pyörteinen arki. Sisäkorvaistutetta käyttävän lapsen matka kouluun
[Turbulent life of the family….way to school of a child with cochlear implant]. Unpublished
thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Available from: https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bit-
stream/handle/123456789/18548/9789513932008.pdf?sequence=1
SZARKOWSKI, A. and BRICE, P.J. (2016) Hearing parents’ appraisals of parenting a deaf
or hard-of-hearing child: application of a positive psychology framework. Journal of deaf
studies and deaf education, 21(3), 249–258. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enw007
TAKALA, M. and RAINÒ, P. (2016) Kieli, kojeet ja koulutus? Kuulovammaisten lasten
perheet valintojen edessä. [The families of hearing-impaired children facing choices].
Niilo Mäki Bulletin, 2, 27–42. Abstract available from: https://bulletin.nmi.fi/article/
kieli-kojeet-ja-koulutus-kuulovammaisten-lasten-perheet-valintojen-edessa/
TAKALA, M. and SUME, H. (2017) Hearing-Impaired Pupils in Mainstream Education in
Finland – Teachers’ Experiences of Inclusion and Support. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 33(1), 134–147. dx.doi. org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1306965.
TZANAKIS, M. (2013) Social capital in Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and Putnam’s theory: empirical
evidence and emergent measurement issues. Educate, 13(2), 2–23. Available from: http://
www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/article/view/366/293
VERMEULEN, A., DE RAEVE, L., LANGEREIS, M. and SNIK, A. (2012) Changing realities
in the classroom for hearing-impaired children with cochlear implant. Deafness and
education international, 14(1), 36–47. http://dx.doi.org.pc124152.oulu.fi:8080/10.1179/155706
9X12Y.0000000004
WATSON, L.M., HARDIE, T., ARCHBOALD, S.M. & WHEELER, A. (2008) Parents’ views
on changing communication after cochlear implantation. Journal of deaf studies and deaf
education, 13(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm036
Appendix
2008-2009-2011-2013
QUESTIONNAIRE (All questions were not used for this article, so they
are omitted. the space for responses is shortened here.)
Dear guardian!
Information about the researchers and the study.
1. Name and date of birth of the hearing-impaired child ______________
___________________________________________________
2. Other children and their dates of birth in the family ________________
_________________________________________________
224	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  • 2018 	 © 2018 NASEN
3. Mother's name and date of birth_______________________________
Is the mother ________ hearing; ________ hard-of-hearing; __________
deaf.
4. Father's name and date of birth ________________________________
Is the father _______ hearing; ___________ hard-of-hearing; __________
deaf.
5. Mother's profession _________________________________________
6. Father's profession _________________________________________
FROM HERE ON, PLEASE FILL IN A SEPARATE QUESTIONNAIRE
OF ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE HEARING-IMPAIRED IN YOUR
FAMILY.
7. _________________________________(name of the child).
7. My child is
___ deaf; ____ hard-of-hearing; ____ other kind of definition, what?
__________________
8. Please, specify the hearing loss, ______dB in right ear and _____ dB in
left ear.
9. What kind of communication ways the mother uses with this child? (list
three most used ones in preference order)
1: ____________________, 2: __________________________, 3:
_____________________
10. What kind of communication ways the father uses with this child? (list
three most used ones in preference order)
1: ____________________, 2: __________________________, 3:
_____________________
11. What kind of communication ways the siblings use with this child? (list
three most used ones in preference order)
1: ____________________, 2: __________________________, 3:
_____________________
© 2018 NASEN	 Support for Learning  •  Volume 33  •  Number 2  •  2018225
12. How do near relatives communicate with this child?
__________________________________________________________
13. How do friends and neighbors communicate with this child?
__________________________________________________________
14. What kind of hearing aids your child uses now? If a Cochlear implant,
tell when it was operated.
__________________________________________________________
15. Does your hearing-impaired child have additional disabilities? If yes,
what kind of?
__________________________________________________________
18. Tell with your own words about communication with this child. How
does it go? Are there some challenges? What about communication and the
near people?
__________________________________________________________
19. What do you think about life and the future of this child? Where is he/
she studying? How does he/she communicate as adult?
__________________________________________________________
20. What else do you want to tell?
__________________________________________________________
The person responding was _______ mother, _______ father, ______
mother and father together, _______ someone else, who? ____________
Thank you for your responses!