So many researchers who aren’t trained in qual methods think they’re easy, that you can just send grad students out to ask questions and you’ll magically have good data. 🤦🏻‍♀️ But that’s just not how it works! Good qual research has to be super well designed and thought through, theoretically grounded, logistically doable, ethically rigorous, and analytically sound. This is a tall order!

I feel sick. Just saw a boy, maybe 4, on an elevator in a hosp bldg. Bilateral implants. He was yelling a bit, clearly having feelings. I tried to sign a little w/ him (hello, dodo?). Mom angrily says “we are trying to get him to speak, he just falls bk on sign too easily.” It all happened so fast. (mom also said his sign is minimal so he will speak) They’re suddenly off the elevator. I know what I saw is just a moment. But imagine yr kid, unable to tell you what they need, want, feel bc you only want them to tell you those things in a certain way.

Next week I start teaching a new grad seminar on feminist approaches to disability, illness &care. I’ve created a “Course Ethos of Care” document. It says we are all under duress, & therefore will always choose the most humane option. We’ll check in w each other every wk 1/ We’ll estab frm the outset that no needs are “special” or unreasonable, they just are. As such we will strive to meet them. It encourages all of us to ask for what we need & not apologize for it. Extensions are always avail, ask for them & feel good about taking care yourself 2/

As the person who literally wrote the book on this topic (deaf children & cochlear implants), I am deeply disappointed in this misleading article that appeared in the @nytimes @nytimeshealth @LCarterLong @DisVisibility nyti.ms/2IKs5Ya It is an over the top love letter to a technology without any sense of critique or nuance. It presents the CI as always successful (it is not) and doesn't talk about the years of work it takes for children to learn to use it.