Ableism in higher education

The issue of underrepresentation of students with disabilities in higher education (HE) has been a persistent concern in academic literature (Dávila, Reference Dávila2015; Dolmage, Reference Dolmage2017; Miller, Reference Miller2015; Ralph, Capewell & Bonnett, Reference Ralph, Capewell and Bonnett2016; Ressa & Danforth, Reference Ressa and Danforth2023). Despite efforts to address this issue, research indicates that individuals with disabilities are still not adequately represented in HE (Gibson, Reference Gibson2012; International Educational Exchange, 2020; Liasidou, Reference Liasidou2014). However, there has been a gradual increase in the number of students with disabilities entering universities, accompanied by a growing recognition of their diverse needs (Kendall & Tarman, Reference Kendall and Tarman2016). It is important to note that this increase may be attributed to a greater willingness to disclose disabilities rather than a genuine surge in enrollment, as emphasized by Vickerman and Blundell (Reference Vickerman and Blundell2010).

Despite the implementation of widening participation initiatives and relevant legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and non-discriminatory practices in HE (e.g., the Equality Act 2010 in the UK), students with disabilities continue to encounter various barriers to learning (Black, Weinberg & Brodwin, Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015; Couzens et al., Reference Couzens, Poed, Kataoka, Brandon, Hartley and Keen2015; Ghanbar, Asghari & Soleimanbeigi, Reference Ghanbar, Asghari and Soleimanbeigi2024a; Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2011; Macleod & Cebula, Reference Macleod and Cebula2009; Morina Diez, Lopez & Molina, Reference Morina Diez, Lopez and Molina2015; Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024). These barriers often manifest in curricular, structural, and attitudinal forms due to inaction (Beauchamp-Pryor, Reference Beauchamp-Pryor2012; Komesaroff, Reference Komesaroff2005; Price, Reference Price2011; Rajohane Matshedisho, Reference Rajohane Matshedisho2007), perpetuated by the university community’s silence, inattention, and inaction (Connor, Ferri & Annamma, Reference Connor, Ferri and Annamma2016). Historically, disability rights movements and the recognition of the diversity of disability needs lead to suggestions and practices for adjustments and accommodations such as access to assistive technology (Dyal, Carpenter & Wright, Reference Dyal, Carpenter and Wright2009; Fichten, Asuncion & Scapin, Reference Fichten, Asuncion and Scapin2014; Hutcheon & Wolbring, Reference Hutcheon and Wolbring2012; Koch, Reference Koch2017; Redpath et al., Reference Redpath, Kearney, Nicholl, Mulvenna, Wallace and Martin2013; Sachs & Schreuer, Reference Sachs and Schreuer2011; Viner, Singh & Shaughnessy, Reference Viner, Singh, Shaughnessy, Singh, Viner and Yeh2020) or adjustments in relation to learning, teaching, and assessment (Redpath et al., Reference Redpath, Kearney, Nicholl, Mulvenna, Wallace and Martin2013; Riddell & Weedon, Reference Riddell and Weedon2014; Smith, Reference Smith2010) and assessment for students with a disability (Cox, Herner, Demczyk & Neiberding, Reference Cox, Herner, Demczyk and Neiberding2006; Hanafin, Shevlin, Kenny & Neela Reference Hanafin, Shevlin, Kenny and Neela2007; Randez & Cornell, Reference Randez and Cornell2023).

Disability studies, critical disability theory, and ableism

Sensory, physical, and cognitive conditions/characteristics as diverse as deafness, diabetes, autism, schizophrenia, and depression have been classified as disabilities. These disabilities have been the subject of extensive studies across various academic disciplines, each employing unique terminologies, definitions, and discourses. This diversity of perspectives highlights the inherently interdisciplinary (Ferguson & Nusbaum, Reference Ferguson and Nusbaum2012; Goodley, Reference Goodley2017) or multidisciplinary (Barnes, Reference Barnes, Watson, Roulstone and Thomas2020) nature of disability studies. Despite the definitional variations and methodological approaches in the study of disabilities, we have chosen to focus on two prevalent frameworks: the medical model and the social model. While these models represent differing perspectives, this conceptual distillation helps highlight underlying similarities across diverse disciplinary approaches to understanding issues related to disabilities and individuals with disabilities. The underlying tenets and assumptions of these models not only influence how (dis)ability is perceived, diagnosed, and responded to (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017; Rioux & Valentine, Reference Rioux, Valentine, Potheir and Devlin2006) but have also significantly shaped thoughts and practices in education (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017).

The medical model of disability is the dominant perspective in disability studies, which conceptualizes disability as an individual’s experience and identity representing abnormality and body, mind, or affect disorders, thus creating a binary between a normative and a pathological problem or limitation (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017). Consequently, the medical model emphasizes the prevention of disability and the social responsibility associated with its diagnosis (Rioux & Valentine, Reference Rioux, Valentine, Potheir and Devlin2006) and advocates for medical interventions and corrective services to remediate an individual’s problem to normalize the individual (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017; Goodley, Reference Goodley2017; Smith & Osborn, Reference Smith, Osborn and Smith2008). This approach implies that individuals with disabilities need to conform to societal norms to be considered worthy (McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017; Wolbring, Reference Wolbring2008).

The medical model of disability shapes everyday understandings of disablement, which are often taken unreflectively, and reinforces ableist assumptions by presenting biomedical explanations as rational and credible, owing to their association with scientific-techno-medical apparatuses and the notion of scientific objectivity (Campbell, Reference Campbell2009). While the medical model has introduced methods that improve the quality of life for many individuals who, without technological advancements in medicine, might not have survived or would have experienced significant hardship (Smith & Osborn, Reference Smith and Osborn2007), it emphasizes the limitations or deficits of individuals with disabilities, focusing on what they cannot do or what is perceived as wrong with them (Mallett & Runswick-Cole, Reference Mallett and Runswick-Cole2014). This approach tends to locate the problem of disability within the individual, neglecting the social or biographical factors that also shape the experience of impairment (Campbell, Reference Campbell2009). Often overlooked is the fact that barriers attributed to the impairment itself may actually arise from how the impairment is interpreted and managed within social structures. Therefore, a key criticism of the medical model is its narrow focus on the individual, which disregards other factors, such as poverty or discrimination, that may contribute to a perceived lower quality of life. For instance, it often blames a child’s educational difficulties solely on their disability rather than considering possible shortcomings within the education system (Triano, Reference Triano2000).

The social model of disability, on the other hand, emerged in response to civil rights movements in the UK and USA, along with increasing criticisms from disability studies scholars and activists against the narrow, individualistic view of disability presented by the medical model. In contrast to the biomedical approach, which portrays disability as a personal deficit, the social model distinguishes between disability and impairment, viewing disability as a social construct rather than a medical condition (Campbell, Reference Campbell2009; Rioux & Valentine, Reference Rioux, Valentine, Potheir and Devlin2006). It aims to shift societal perspectives away from pathologizing impairment and toward recognizing the natural diversity in human bodies and minds (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017). This model redirects the focus from the limitations of impaired bodies to the challenges faced by disabled individuals due to disabling environments, barriers, attitudes, and cultures. Consequently, its primary goal is to identify and eliminate these barriers to facilitate full participation in all aspects of life, including education and workplace settings (Mallett & Runswick-Cole, Reference Mallett and Runswick-Cole2014).

Disability studies: A historical account

Disability studies emerged as an academic discipline in the 1970s, largely in response to the limitations of medical and individual pathology models. This evolution was significantly influenced by the disability rights movement and the growing visibility of disabled individuals in society (Barnes, Reference Barnes, Watson, Roulstone and Thomas2020; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, Reference Meekosha and Shuttleworth2009). Through the collective efforts of scholars, theorists, and activists, the field underwent a pivotal shift. As Goodley (Reference Goodley2017) notes, the most critical advancement was the transition from individual-focused narratives to an understanding of how societal structures shape disability experiences. As the new century unfolded, critical disability studies—also referred to as critical disability theory (Hall, Reference Hall and Zalta2019)— emerged, infusing the existing social model with innovative perspectives that interrogate not only the essence of disability but also key concepts of embodiment, identity, and agency (Shildrick, Reference Shildrick, Watson, Roulstone and Thomas2020, p. 32). This critical approach facilitates the exploration of how language use, social attitudes, and educational contexts create barriers for disabled individuals, including Deaf students, while advocating for systemic change. Both disability studies and critical disability studies share a profound commitment to social justice, emphasizing the importance of research that authentically reflects the diverse experiences of disabled individuals. Furthermore, critical disability theory critiques historical influences such as ableism and challenges prevailing norms, providing a framework to examine how these dynamics foster systemic oppression at multiple societal levels.

This critical lens within disability studies, particularly through critical disability theory, provides a framework for examining political, theoretical, and practical issues related to disability (Goodley, Reference Goodley2013), with the goal of fostering equality and empowerment for individuals with (dis)abilities (Devlin & Pothier, Reference Devlin, Potheir, Potheir and Devlin2006). It is also essential to recognize the critiques within this framework, arguing that even critical lenses can be influenced by historical legacies of imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and ableism, suggesting that even frameworks aimed at social justice can inadvertently replicate these historical structures (see Clare, Reference Clare2009). Ableism, as a deeply ingrained form of oppression, is embedded in the unconscious fabric of society and has been internalized into its very ontology (Goodley, Reference Goodley2014). This oppression manifests itself at individual, cultural, and institutional levels (Storey, Reference Storey2007). Society often suffers from a form of social amnesia regarding (dis)ability, where those unaffected by disability may lack awareness of the challenges faced by disabled individuals (Hughes, Reference Hughes2017). Without a fundamental understanding of how privilege and oppression operate, it becomes challenging to effectively confront ableism on both systemic and personal levels.

Critical disability theory: An emerging perspective

In this study, we adopt critical disability theory as our theoretical framework. This perspective enables us to critically examine linguistic and behavioral forms of ableism that often operate covertly, particularly within educational systems. Henner and Robinson (Reference Henner and Robinson2023) argue that to truly understand the dynamics of languaging in relation to disability, it is essential to adopt a perspective that acknowledges the interconnections between language use, social attitudes, and environmental contexts. This is essential for understanding the dynamics of privilege and oppression as they relate to individuals with disabilities, thereby reinforcing their exclusion (Kattari, Reference Kattari2015).

Critical disability theory allows scholars to explore how ableism assigns meanings to (dis)ability that further marginalize individuals with IDDs. This framework not only aids in understanding how privilege and oppression are constructed and sustained but also serves as a platform for developing praxis through the integration of theory and activism (Goodley, Reference Goodley2013).

Furthermore, disability studies, particularly when viewed through the lens of critical disability theory and studies of ableism, are fundamentally interconnected in their shared mission to challenge and expand traditional perspectives on disability. Campbell (Reference Campbell2009) emphasizes that the focus on ableism should not create a separation from disability studies; rather, it is intended to reconfigure and extend the scope of disability studies to better address the complexities of disablement. This extension is crucial for deepening our understanding of how societal structures and norms contribute to the marginalization of disabled individuals. One approach to this extension, as advocated by Minich (Reference Minich2016; see also Schalk, Reference Schalk2017), is to employ critical disability theory as a methodology, an approach, and a theoretical framework. This perspective shifts the focus away from merely examining “bodily or mental impairments” to “the social norms that define particular attributes as impairments, as well as the social conditions that concentrate stigmatized attributes in particular populations” (Minich, Reference Minich2016, p. 3).

Employing critical disability theory in this way enriches disability studies by addressing the root causes of marginalization and stigmatization. It opens new avenues for exploring how power dynamics, cultural values, and institutional practices contribute to the construction of disability. This expanded focus not only strengthens the theoretical foundation of disability studies but also reinforces its commitment to social justice by advocating for the dismantling of ableist structures and promoting a more inclusive society. Through this synthesis of perspectives, disability studies can more effectively challenge and transform the social realities that shape the experiences of disabled individuals.

Disability studies is a relatively young academic discipline that emerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century (Cherney, Reference Cherney2019), with critical disability studies embedded within this area being even more recent in its development. Despite sharing common goals and agendas with ableism studies, the literature on ableism—particularly that which delves into the lives, concerns, and voices of disabled individuals—remains limited, especially when it comes to empirical studies on the lived experiences of disabled people. Although ableism is pervasive across all aspects of society, including HE (Brown & Leigh, Reference Brown and Leigh2018, Reference Brown and Leigh2020), there is a noticeable gap in research that seeks to understand how disabled individuals experience and navigate ableism throughout their educational journeys, from primary education through to HE, as this study aims to undertake.

Much of the disability studies literature tends to rely heavily on the perspectives of theorists and or “experts by experience” (Rapley, Reference Rapley2004, p. 3) rather than on the direct voices and experiences of different cohorts of disabled individuals themselves, especially Deaf individuals. This reliance raises concerns about the representativeness and inclusivity of the research. Furthermore, Goodley (Reference Goodley2014) echoes the critique made by Grech (Reference Grech, Goodley, Hughes and Davis2012) that disability studies have largely been dominated by white, Western, middle-class academics whose debates are often steeped in the ideological, theoretical, cultural, and historical assumptions of Western, urban, post-industrialized societies. This dominance has led to criticism of the field for its tendency to export ideas from North to South, operating under the assumption that “disability theories and writings from the West are transferable across the globe with few or no modifications” (Grech, Reference Grech, Goodley, Hughes and Davis2012, p. 59). This critique underscores the need for disability studies to evolve into a more inclusive and globally aware discipline that genuinely reflects the diverse experiences and contexts of disabled individuals from around the world.

By expanding the scope of research to include more empirical studies, like our study on Deaf undergraduate students with experience navigating different levels of education, disability studies can better address the complexities of disablement in various contexts and among different cohorts of individuals. Hence, it can contribute more effectively to the advancement of social justice for all disabled people. Our examination of the lived experiences of Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students learning English as a third language (L3) may reveal critical insights into the challenges posed by ableism in language education, emphasizing the need for advocacy and more inclusive practices. By recognizing how these students navigate ableist structures throughout their educational journeys, we intend to highlight the necessity for language education policies that genuinely support and empower disabled learners.

The context of the study and participants

Purposeful sampling is a widely employed technique in qualitative research, where researchers deliberately select individuals and research sites that can provide valuable insights into the research problem and the central phenomenon under investigation (Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2018). In the context of phenomenological studies, the range of sampling strategies is often narrower (Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2018). The fundamental requirement in such studies is that all participants have direct experience of the phenomenon being examined. This led the researchers to employ criterion sampling, a specific form of purposeful sampling (for more information, see Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2018), to select DHH individuals who met the criteria of being proficient in multiple languages, namely Iranian Sign Language (ISL) (it is also called Esharani in Iran; see Guity, Reference Guity2021) and the spoken majority language of Iran, Persian (see Ghanbar et al., Reference Ghanbar, Asghari and Soleimanbeigi2024a), and be learning the focal language of the study, EFL or L3. It is important to note that, based on the participants’ interview responses, some indicated Persian as their first language (L1) and Esharani as their L2, while others identified Esharani as their L1 and Persian as their second language (L2). Specifically, participants were asked directly which language—Esharani or Persian—they considered to be their L1 and which their L2. Concerning the use of assistive hearing devices, four participants reported having cochlear implants, while another 10 used hearing aids.

The researchers also included only undergraduate university students, as they had the lived experience of learning these three languages. These participants had acquired English through their secondary school education, private language institutes, and university-level instruction. Moreover, since IPA is an idiographic approach concerned with understanding particular phenomena in particular contexts, IPA studies are conducted on small sample sizes, and the sample should be fairly homogeneous for whom the research question will be meaningful (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Flowers and Larkin2012). In this study, the researchers selected an intensity sample (Patton, Reference Patton2015) of 14 Iranian DHH undergraduate students of English translation (for more demographic information, see Table 1) from Islamic Azad University, Fereshtegaan International Branch, as the only one of its kind in Iran and in the Middle East (cf. Gallaudet University in USA) offering degree programs specifically for DHH students. Since 2018, this university has offered a range of degree programs across various disciplines, including the humanities, sciences, and engineering, at the associate, bachelor, and master levels, catering to both DHH and hearing students. The student body is predominantly composed of DHH individuals, who constitute 75% of the overall enrollment. According to institutional policy, each program is required to maintain a minimum of 75% DHH students, with the remaining 25% reserved for hearing students. Notably, the actual proportion of DHH students in individual classes often exceeds the mandated minimum. In the main, by purposefully selecting these participants, the researchers aimed to gain a rich and in-depth understanding of the experiences and perspectives of these unique and underrepresented individuals in Iran, who navigated the ableist perspective in learning three distinct languages within the Iranian linguistic and educational context.

Table 1. Demographic information of participants

¹ In Iran, DHH individuals who have registered for social and medical services from Iranian Department of Health and Welfare have been classified by this organization, on the basis of the degree of their hearing loss, into four groups: (a) mild (26–45 dB), (b) moderate (46–70 dB), (c) severe (70–90 dB), and (d) very severe (higher than 90 dB) (see Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024).

Recruitment, access, and ethical considerations

Prior to initiating the recruitment process, the research team engaged in written correspondence with the university, which served as the primary site for data collection, to obtain the necessary permissions and facilitate access to the student population. Upon receiving approval from the university, the second researcher, who was a faculty member and a Deaf specialist and Deaf studies researcher at the same institution, in person, reached out to potential participants to verify that they met the inclusion criteria and to secure their verbal consent to participate in the study. During the consent process, the participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the minimal risks of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, the confidentiality of their data, and the assurance of observing their privacy and anonymity. Additionally, the participants were made aware that their data and interviews would be recorded solely for the purpose of analysis and research. Immediately prior to the interview, the researchers once more secured written consent from the participants in Persian, explicitly addressing these aspects.

Interview procedure

Interviews are a commonly used method for data collection in qualitative research (Gibson & Riley, Reference Gibson, Riley, Sullivan and Forrester2019). In this study, the researchers conducted retrospective interviews with participants, encouraging them to share their experiences of learning English (Hiratsuka, Reference Hiratsuka and Barkhuizen2022). The aim was to uncover their life stories (Prior, Reference Prior, Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky and Starfield2018; Smith & Fieldsend, Reference Smith, Fieldsend and Camic2021) and to understand their reflections on the prejudices and challenges they faced due to their hearing loss throughout their English education. During the interviews, the researchers focused on eliciting information about personal stories, significant events, and their interpretations of these experiences (van Manen, Reference van Manen2014; Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024). The interview format was semi-structured, allowing participants to openly share their unique perspectives and personal experiences. Participants were encouraged to ask for clarification if they did not understand the interview questions, and the interviewers refrained from interrupting the participants’ recounts unless further explanation was necessary. Regarding the communication preferences of participants during interviews, it is important to note that DHH individuals in Iran are generally considered bilingual (Persian and ISL are considered two languages they are using; see Ghanbar et al., Reference Ghanbar, Asghari and Soleimanbeigi2024a); hence, depending on the severity of hearing loss and the communication context, they usually switch between Persian and ISL. For this reason, we did not explicitly ask about their communication preferences, as this aspect is inherently dynamic. To accommodate these preferences and given the complexity and heterogeneity in the linguistic background of participants, both Persian and ISL were employed during the interviews, with ISL being the primary medium of communication due to the presence of the ISL interpreter. More specifically, during interviews, participants were given the option to respond in either Persian or ISL, as per their comfort. The interviewer (the third researcher) was a hearing person and a non-signer, accompanied by ISL interpreters (in total, nine sign language interpreters collaborated), so questions were posed orally by the interviewer and simultaneously translated into ISL by an interpreter. Participants, depending on their competence in Persian or ISL and their hearing status, utilized one of these input modalities (or sometimes both when using one language could not be useful in clarifying issues) and responded in their preferred language. The interview sessions were audio- and video-recorded using two cell phone cameras to ensure that responses in any modality were captured and later accurately transcribed. Furthermore, there were no time restrictions imposed during the interviews, and participants were provided with opportunities for repetition or clarification whenever needed. Pertaining to the qualifications of the sign language interpreters, it should be noted that their credentials were evaluated and confirmed by the university’s Office of Sign Language Interpreters. Of note, due to the variation in ISL proficiency among DHH students in Iran and the existence of several geographical and social varieties of ISL, the transcription of interpretations was reviewed by two ISL interpretation experts to ensure accuracy. Additionally, all transcriptions were shared with the participants for member checking to verify their accuracy. For participants with limited proficiency in Persian, this member-checking process was conducted with the support of ISL interpreters to facilitate clear communication and ensure the validity of the transcriptions.

In order to “go back to the things themselves” (Husserl, Reference Husserl and Findlay1970, p. 252) in phenomenological inquiries, we need “to somehow return to the world as we originally experience it—to what is given in lived pre-reflective experience” (van Manen, Reference van Manen2014, p. 93). This emphasizes “exploring the meaning of people’s experiences in the context of their lives” (Seidman, Reference Seidman2019). Seidman (Reference Seidman2019) further argues that a single interview with a participant who is previously unknown to the researcher may lack the necessary contextual depth and understanding. Thus, in this study, we chose to utilize an in-depth phenomenological interviewing model developed by Schuman (Reference Schuman1982) and further elaborated by Seidman (Reference Seidman2019). Following Seidman’s (Reference Seidman2019) structured framework, this method involved a series of three interviews designed to help both the interviewer and participant explore the participant’s experience, contextualize it, and reflect on its significance. The first interview focused on establishing the social context in which the participants’ lived experiences were situated. This interview also aimed to establish a connection between the researcher and the participants, enabling the researcher to focus on the contextual aspects of the lived experience. The second interview provided the participants with the opportunity to reconstruct the specific details of their experience (Seidman, Reference Seidman2019). The third interview, in line with IPA as a sensemaking methodology (Larkin, Eatough & Osborn, Reference Larkin, Eatough and Osborn2011), encouraged participants to reflect on and articulate the personal relevance and significance their experience held for them as individuals (Seidman, Reference Seidman2019). Each interview with the participants lasted between 40 and 65 min, with an interval of 3 to 8 days between sessions, as suggested by Seidman (Reference Seidman2019), depending on the participants’ availability. The interviews with the participants lasted between 40 and 65 min in each stage, with an interval of 3 to 7 days between each interview, as suggested by Seidman (Reference Seidman2019), depending on the participants’ time convenience.

Theme one: Lack of awareness of (dis)ability and ableism throughout their English education

This theme emerged from the diverse narratives shared by the participants, who frequently found themselves compared to their hearing peers or misjudged in terms of their capabilities due to widespread misconceptions about disability and dominant ableist attitudes prevalent in educational settings. Although there has been some progress in raising public awareness about learning disabilities over the past decade (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017), our findings suggest that many Deaf learners still contend with beliefs perpetuated by the dominant medical perspective, which characterizes their conditions as problematic and primarily rooted in their impairments (McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017). These experiences have contributed to the development of stereotypes and stigmatization regarding the capabilities of Deaf English learners (Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024). Moreover, such experiences reflect a broader societal tendency to view disability through a deficit lens, which fails to recognize the value of diverse forms of languaging (Henner & Robinson, Reference Henner and Robinson2023). This lack of awareness, whether manifesting overtly or subtly, not only impacts the self-perception of Deaf individuals but also significantly affects how they are perceived and treated by their peers and educators.

As Participant 5 shared, it is often the case that those around Deaf students express doubt about their capabilities solely based on their condition, believing that additional medical support is necessary for them to succeed in learning English. This sentiment reflects the pervasive doubts surrounding the capabilities of Deaf students, which are often predicated on misconceptions about their impairments. This participant stated

Additional narratives further illuminate these issues. Participant 1 also described their experience: “In one of my classes, after I asked several questions, the teacher said I shouldn’t worry about understanding everything in the texts. What I took from it was that I could just be a part of the class without fully engaging. This made me feel like I cannot keep up with the class.” Such comments not only reflect a lack of understanding of the capabilities of Deaf students but also reinforce diminished expectations for their engagement in academic settings. Similarly, Participant 3 articulated the pressures they face when their status as Deaf is revealed.

These reflections highlight the dominant influence of the medical model perspective in perceiving Deaf students. This viewpoint reinforces the belief that medical intervention is necessary for Deaf individuals to be on par with their hearing peers and achieves success in learning English. Such assumptions not only undermine the capabilities of Deaf learners but also perpetuate the notion that their condition is inherently problematic. Henner and Robinson (Reference Henner and Robinson2023) also discuss how this deficit perspective towards disability often leads to the erasure of diverse forms of languaging, particularly signed languages, which are frequently viewed as inferior compared to spoken languages. This ableist perspective tends to overlook the unique strengths and diverse learning styles of Deaf individuals, who often leverage multiple senses—a capability that becomes particularly advantageous in their bilingualism with both a national spoken language and sign language (Alencar, Butler & Lomber, Reference Alencar, Butler and Lomber2019).

Participants’ narratives also included a variety of interactions characterized by remarks, most often from teachers, that carried implicitly ableist connotations. Utterances such as, “You can also learn English,” “You should try harder if you want to be successful like hearing students,” “Your writing is very good for a Deaf student,” and “You can compensate for your impairment if you try hard,” reinforce the unsettling stereotype that Deaf students must exert extra effort to attain an equivalence that is taken for granted by their hearing counterparts. These comments not only reflect an implicit bias that assumes Deaf students require additional effort to succeed but also fail to recognize the intrinsic value of their existing communication skills, which may include signed languages and other non-verbal modes (Henner & Robinson, Reference Henner and Robinson2023). These remarks lead Deaf EFL learners to “wonder constantly whether I am able to learn English” (Participant 6). These encounters not only subtly and implicitly communicate the ableist perception that Deaf students are incapable or lazy but also foster stereotypes and stigmatization regarding their abilities (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017; Rocco & Collins, Reference Rocco, Collins, Kerschbaum, Eisenman and Jones2017).

Despite the pervasive nature of ableism, it often goes unnoticed by those who hold the privilege of hearing (Procknow, Rocco & Munn, Reference Procknow, Rocco and Munn2017). Additionally, the phenomenon of social amnesia regarding (dis)ability often characterizes those who are not directly affected (Hughes, Reference Hughes2017). These assumptions, typically unconscious and covert, frequently elude the awareness of those who enact them. However, this study clearly illustrates that individuals who experience acts of ableism maintain a heightened awareness of such dynamics, particularly when reflecting on their past encounters. Participant 2 provided a particularly insightful reflection on this awareness:

Such poignant accounts and reflections show that Deaf EFL learners often navigate their educational experiences with an acute awareness of how they are perceived. Deaf learners are particularly adept at interpreting and recognizing facial expressions as well as detecting motions and emotional cues within their visual context. This capability may primarily be attributed to their use of sign language as a non-verbal mode of communication. The inquisitive stares, described as “invasive visual curiosity” (Calder-Dawe, Witten & Carroll, Reference Calder-Dawe, Witten and Carroll2019, p. 10), suggest that Deaf individuals, referred to as “stares” (Garland-Thompson, Reference Garland-Thomson2009), are perceived as deviating from the normative standards established by the ableist perspectives of hearing individuals (Campbell, Reference Campbell2009; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017). This instance of visual intrusion, along with the unwarranted verbal interactions illustrated in the preceding excerpts, exemplifies microaggressions—defined as “subtle, innocuous, preconscious, or unconscious degradations and putdowns” (Pierce, Reference Pierce, Willie, Rieker, Kramer and Brown1995, p. 281)—which are typically expressed unintentionally (McTernan, Reference McTernan2018). Such microaggressions “stem from the mental attitude of presumed superiority” (Pierce, Reference Pierce1974) and, as demonstrated, reflect ableist prejudices when directed toward disabled and Deaf students.

Theme two: The prevalence of overt and covert ableism viewing deafness as a marker of “otherness”

The participants frequently recounted interactions from their English learning journey, comparing their progress with that of their peers, which led to feelings of pressure to conform to certain norms. This pressure can stem from interactions with various individuals, such as teachers, who may inadvertently reinforce the idea that they need to emulate their hearing classmates in order to succeed. For example, Participant 10 shared her experience with a teacher who pointed out her successful hearing classmates as examples to follow, saying things like

Such interactions place pressure on Deaf learners to conform to the abilities and behaviors of their hearing peers (Monteleone & Forrester-Jones, Reference Monteleone and Forrester-Jones2017) in order to meet the expectations of able-bodied people (Kattari, Olzman & Hanna, Reference Kattari, Olzman and Hanna2018; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017). The frequent comparisons with able-bodied examples, stemming from ableist attitudes, resulted in “the emulation by disabled people of ableist norms” (Campbell, Reference Campbell2008, p. 155) and the desire “to aspire towards the norm, to reach a state of near-able-bodiedness” (Campbell, Reference Campbell2009, p. 25). People around Deaf learners, and sometimes the learners themselves, may forget that they are, in fact, far from incapable of learning languages; they are often at least bilingual and already serve as excellent examples for anyone aspiring to learn multiple languages (see Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024).

Encounters arising from ableist perspectives can also be more overt and explicit, leaving a memorable mark on the experiences of Deaf students. The participants in the study frequently recounted various encounters within their educational settings that starkly illustrated the divide between hearing and Deaf individuals. These narratives revealed a keen awareness of the language that framed their interactions, emphasizing the delineation of “you” and “us” or “we” and “you” in the context of their English learning journeys. This “othering” of Deaf learners was particularly pronounced during classroom introductions. Participants recalled instances where teachers would pose questions that subtly reinforced this division. For example, one participant, Participant 8, shared an experience where the teacher queried, “Are your brothers and sisters like us [hearing]?” Additionally, another common question was, “How many of your sisters are like you [with a look at their ears]?” These inquiries carried an implicit weight that perpetuated the notion of Deafness as something distinctly different from the norm. Even if they were made innocently or benevolently, they seem to be perceived as invasive, divisive, or at least unsettling, as we noted in their reflections and even facial expressions when made. These exchanges reinforced their sense of separation and marginalized their identities. Similar interactions frequently occurred when new individuals, particularly classmates, were introduced, leading to various inquiries about each other’s backgrounds. Participant 7 also recounted her experiences:

This illustrates a recurring theme among Deaf students: the constant questioning of their identity in relation to the hearing world. Such inquiries not only reflect curiosity but also highlight a societal tendency to categorize individuals based on their hearing status, often framing deafness as something unusual or abnormal. Another respondent (Participant 9) shared how he felt a sense of resentment due to the treatment he received in class. He recalled instances where his English teachers would exempt him from being one of the first volunteers to come to the board to write a sentence, instead asking him to wait for his classmates to go first. This seemingly minor act of discrimination stayed in his memory, and he continued to feel unhappy about being sidelined, which damaged his sense of belonging in the classroom. We can further illustrate this point by revisiting the excerpt from Participant 4, who said: “They think that if I can find a solution, I’ll be able to hear like them and do well in learning English.” This statement highlights the justifications given by teachers, classmates, and others to encourage Deaf learners of English to seek out and utilize various aids or devices in order to become more like ‘them,’ that is, their hearing peers. The excerpt reflects a societal pressure to conform to a dominant framework of communication and ability.

The excerpts above indicate that (dis)ability and deafness are associated with stigma (McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017). This stigma is socially constructed, rendering Deaf individuals as “other” learners who are often perceived as “different” from societal norms (Kattari, Reference Kattari2015) and consequently viewed as less capable of acquiring foreign language skills. Such stigmatic perceptions reflect a broader societal tendency to categorize individuals based on ableist frameworks, shaping perceptions and expectations regarding their capabilities (McLean, Reference McLean2011). As our analysis and reflections indicated, this categorization reinforces a binary framework that classifies learners as either able-bodied or disabled or, in our case, deaf, thereby marginalizing Deaf learners and fostering negative attitudes towards them. As a result, individuals labeled as deaf or who self-identify as Deaf are placed on the unfavorable side of this dichotomy (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017). This dominant perspective not only undermines the distinctive strengths and contributions of Deaf students but also cultivates negative attitudes and oppression within educational settings.

Moreover, the experiences of Deaf students, whether directly or indirectly, contribute to a perceived distance or exclusion from dominant and idealized identity categories, such as “able-bodied.” This exclusion intensifies their marginalization and increases the likelihood of experiencing various forms of prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion (Calder-Dawe et al., Reference Calder-Dawe, Witten and Carroll2019, p. 1). When educational institutions and society at large fail to recognize and challenge these stigmatizing narratives, they perpetuate a cycle of disadvantage that impacts the self-esteem and academic success of Deaf EFL learners (Kattari et al., Reference Kattari, Olzman and Hanna2018; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2017).

Theme three: The need for advocacy and more inclusive practices and environments for DHH learners acquiring L3

The third main theme emerging from our analysis of the interviews underscores the need for advocacy and the implementation of more inclusive practices and environments for DHH learners as they acquire English as an L3. Participants consistently expressed their experiences of marginalization and the impact of ableism within English language education. These experiences underscored the importance of fostering educational practices that recognize and value the unique identities and capabilities of DHH students. By exploring the lived experiences of DHH students, this theme emphasizes the necessity of addressing systemic barriers and advocating for more equitable learning environments that support the linguistic and social needs of all learners, ultimately promoting a more inclusive and accessible educational landscape.

The participants in this study emphasized the need for greater awareness of the unique challenges faced by Deaf students in their learning environments. Specifically, many of them articulated their strong reliance on visual cues, which significantly shape their educational experiences. Unlike their hearing peers, who can quickly take in information largely through auditory means, Deaf EFL students often require more repeated exposure to new concepts to fully grasp the material. For instance, Participant 11 shared, “I often feel lost when materials and lessons are introduced too quickly. I need to see everything visually, for example, grammar points, and work on them multiple times before I move on to the next points or use them.” Participant 13 also expressed a similar concern, stating, “What I see, for example, on the board or through lipreading, should be repeated to compensate for the auditory and visual input that other students receive simultaneously.” This emphasizes the importance of repetition and clarity in instruction, as Deaf EFL students must often bridge the gap between visual and auditory learning experiences.

Interestingly, one of the respondents (Participant 12) reflected on the positive aspects of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. He cherished the days when some teachers at his language institute shared instructional materials ahead of online classes, allowing him to review them before the lessons began. He said: “There was no rush during the class because of the situation,” he also noted appreciating the extra time he had to prepare. This experience highlights how modifications in teaching practices can significantly benefit Deaf students, allowing them to engage more effectively with the material. In the main, since the other participants echoed similar accounts, their reflections reveal a simple yet profound truth: The challenges faced by Deaf students, particularly in learning English, are often overlooked.

As they recounted and reflected on their challenges in learning English, the participants typically expressed their expectations for how to address these difficulties. Many noted that Deaf individuals around them often hesitate to start or shy away from learning English due to the educational context, particularly the methodologies employed in classrooms. For example, Participant 1 said: “You know, it’s tough for us because the same methods are used for everyone. This just doesn’t work.” This sentiment points to a significant barrier faced by Deaf learners, especially in the context of the dominant oralist methodology in English teaching in Iran. The participants articulated a strong desire for English language teaching practices to be adapted to better meet their unique needs and characteristics.

More specifically, the participants emphasized the importance of utilizing simpler methods involving, for example, visuals, clear written instructions, and even sign language integration. One respondent (Participant 2) remarked, “I really think using pictures and signs would help everybody, particularly Deaf learners. Sometimes, when the teacher just talks fast, I feel lost. If they could just talk more slowly and show us things visually, it would make a big difference.” This underscores the necessity for teachers to articulate their words clearly and maintain a moderate pace, given many Deaf students rely heavily on lip reading to understand spoken language. Participant 8 also expressed a common concern regarding the physical dynamics of the classroom and said: “If I were teaching, I would always make sure to face my students. It’s so frustrating when teachers turn their backs. I can’t read their lips, and then I miss out on important information.” This underlines how the positioning of teachers can significantly impact Deaf students’ ability to engage with the material being taught. As indicated earlier above, Deaf students are very skilled at perceiving visual cues, and if language instruction involves more visual input, this advantage can be leveraged in a strengths-based education approach (see Lopez & Louis, Reference Lopez and Louis2009).

Additionally, participants pointed out the benefits of providing more written instructions and tasks. Participant 3, for instance, stated, “Sometimes, I just need the teacher to write down what they mean or teach on the board or in my notebook or share with me a pamphlet.” These excerpts and the insights gathered from these reflections reveal a clear need for adaptive methodologies that support Deaf students in following lessons. Simple adaptations, such as providing more written materials and ensuring that teachers face Deaf students while speaking, can significantly enhance their learning experiences. By addressing these concerns, educators can create a more inclusive and effective learning environment for Deaf learners.

While reflecting on their challenges and the advocacy practices they considered essential, most participants stressed their fundamental rights to access special education, adaptive practices, and advocacy measures. They emphasized that they also deserve tailored language education that meets their unique needs. In tandem, Participant 11 noted, “We have the same right to have tailored language education, and in the absence of appropriate measures, we should either opt away from learning a foreign language or struggle a lot.” This statement encapsulates the frustrations of Deaf learners who are often left without the necessary support to engage effectively in foreign language instruction. The participants collectively expressed their belief that equitable access to education is not merely a privilege but a right that should be upheld for all students, regardless of their hearing status. Their reflections bring to light a clear demand for adaptive teaching strategies that would allow them to engage with language learning on an equal footing with their hearing peers. Recent discussions on critical disability also emphasize the rights of Deaf students to receive deaf-centered education as a matter of social justice and equity (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017; Ghanbar & Rezvani, Reference Ghanbar and Rezvani2024; Robinson & Henner, Reference Robinson and Henner2017).

A significant observation from our analysis and reflections, particularly regarding the advocacy needs of Deaf students, is that very few participants articulated their views or provided reflections without implicitly or explicitly referencing the role of their teachers. This includes discussions surrounding the necessity for teachers to comprehend the unique challenges faced by Deaf learners and to offer adequate support. Remarkably, the participants also underscored the impact of ableist attitudes and practices present within educational contexts, and they expected their teachers, first and foremost, to be aware of these issues and to assist them in their efforts to pursue their English education. As we noted in previous discussions, the behavior and language of teachers play a sensitive role in the education of students with disability (Randez & Cornell, Reference Randez and Cornell2023), either promoting or resisting ableist attitudes and conceptions of Deaf learners. According to Baglieri and Shapiro (Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017, p. 11), creating inclusive education rests on “understanding ableism and taking action to resist and interrupt ways of thinking and doing that are steeped in the ways schools operate.” For the participants in this study, the effectiveness of this approach largely depends on teachers’ understanding of disability and their capacity for advocacy. This underlines the necessity for active advocacy from educators, alongside the development of self-advocacy skills among students themselves.

One respondent (Participant 1) shared her experience from a language institute, mentioning, “When I first started learning English in an institute, although I was already familiar with the language from high school, I felt overwhelmed and extremely anxious as I attempted to take it more seriously. I needed my teacher’s assistance, but he could not understand me, and I struggled to communicate my needs. I believe teachers should understand our limitations and provide us with support.” She further expressed that now, as a university student, she feels more independent, having successfully navigated a lengthy journey both with and without the support of others. Additionally, she commented, “I assist DHH learners around me, and I always wish I had received this understanding and support in previous educational stages.” This reflective student’s narrative resonates with many participants who frequently grapple with the dual challenge of mastering a new language while coping with communication gaps with their instructors. Several participants also emphasized that, as university students majoring in language studies, they have made significant progress in overcoming various obstacles. As a result, they have developed greater self-confidence and enhanced self-advocacy skills. For example, Participant 9 astutely remarked that while they currently required relatively the least amount of support, they also benefited from access to more familiar, knowledgeable, and understanding professors who were cooperative and responsive to their needs.

Concerning advocacy from teachers and the importance of student self-advocacy, a respondent (Participant 7) provided insightful reflections on her struggles in learning English. She stated, “I know we need to rely on ourselves and find ways to overcome our problems, as I always did, but this depends on knowing how.” She emphasized that, particularly in the earlier stages of her English learning, she consistently required guidance from someone more knowledgeable who understood her situation, specifically in learning English as a new and foreign language (e.g., in reading textbooks and mastering the challenging grammar of English). Although she often sought support from her teachers, this sometimes resulted in disappointment; nevertheless, she persevered despite these challenges. This student’s insight underlines that, as a university student, she now recognizes her responsibility for self-advocacy. However, she also acknowledges that the development of this ability often necessitates advocacy and encouragement from teachers who “should learn about how we communicate and what we require to be successful in class. Their support for us begins with understanding who we are” as another respondent (Participant 10) commented.

As these narratives intersect, a persuasive case arises for the interconnectedness between teacher advocacy and the cultivation of self-advocacy skills among Deaf EFL students. Self-advocacy is characterized as “the ability to assertively articulate one’s wants, needs, and rights, to determine and pursue necessary supports, and to manage personal affairs” (Izzo & Lamb, Reference Izzo and Lamb2002, p. 6) and offers several advantages for individuals with disabilities (see Test et al., Reference Test, Mazzotti, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering and Kohler2009). Specifically, for DHH individuals, Reed, Antia & Kreimeyer (Reference Reed, Antia and Kreimeyer2008) have identified self-advocacy skills as a fundamental contributor to academic achievement. The literature further suggests that as DHH individuals develop effective self-advocacy practices, they gain enhanced agency and an improved sense of well-being in a predominantly hearing-oriented and oral-communication-driven environment (Baglieri & Shapiro, Reference Baglieri and Shapiro2017). This development of self-advocacy skills empowers them to successfully navigate diverse contexts, thereby translating these competencies into critical settings, including academic environments (Chambers et al., Reference Chambers, Wehmeyer, Saito, Lida, Lee and Singh2007), which are often predominantly influenced by ableism, as this study depicted. As such, self-advocacy can enable DHH students to confront and cope with the dominant ableist perspectives that frequently pervade educational institutions. When determined, as the participants in the current study were, despite the various ableist experiences they faced, they could pursue their EFL education up to the university level. However, the analysis and insights showed that their journey was challenging and could have been much easier with the support of a more inclusive educational system, especially from their teachers. In other words, the development of self-advocacy skills for Deaf students is a complex and dynamic process that “is not learned incidentally” (Schoffstall, Cawthon, Tarantolo-Leppo & Wendel, Reference Schoffstall, Cawthon, Tarantolo-Leppo and Wendel2015, p. 535); it relies on direct instruction (Izzo & Lamb, Reference Izzo and Lamb2002).

Based on our reflections and insights gathered from the participants, we have underscored the crucial role of inclusive education, particularly the responsibilities of teachers working with Deaf students in advocating for their needs. Nonetheless, we recognize that advocating for these students within an environment still influenced by ableism presents significant challenges. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the Deaf community is relatively low in incidence (Leigh, Reference Leigh, Bagga-Gupta, Hansen and Feilberg2017; Rezvani et al., Reference Rezvani, Ghanbar and PourhematKhanshir2024; Schoffstall et al., Reference Schoffstall, Cawthon, Tarantolo-Leppo and Wendel2015), making it unrealistic to expect all EFL teachers to be well-acquainted with Deaf students or fully aware of the ableist perspectives that impact their education. Therefore, it is essential that teachers who frequently interact with Deaf students are adequately prepared to advocate for them. In this regard, we concur with Luckner and Cannon (Reference Luckner, Cannon, Cannon, Guardino and Paul2022), who assert that teachers working with these learners must receive advocacy training to fulfill this important responsibility effectively.