1

DEAF PEOPLE’S EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION

ABSTRACT

Like many South Africans, deaf people need access to public services. Government

communication regarding public services and assistance available for people with

disabilities, including deaf people, can facilitate access to the necessary services

and interventions for the development and empowerment of deaf people. This study

attempts to determine the views and experiences of deaf people on government

communication. The study was qualitative and used a questionnaire to collect data.

Twelve deaf people who live within the City of Tshwane Metropolitan area

participated in the study. The findings suggest that deaf people’s experiences with

government communication and the public service in general need improvement.

The use of the South African Sign Language (SASL) and interpreters when offering

services to deaf persons is considered as an intervention that can potentially

address the communication needs of many deaf people.

Key words: disability; government communication; deaf people; public service

communication; South African Sign Language

2

1 INTRODUCTION

Many governments across the world face a number of persistent challenges, some

of which are economic and socio-political and contribute to social and economic

inequality. One of the challenges that governments have to deal with involves

ensuring that policies and public services address the needs and aspirations of all

their citizens, including those with disabilities. Access to information and knowledge

allow humans to contribute to social development where they can make better

choices, and share the riches of life with those around them. The conditions, special

capacities and abilities of each individual to learn should never be an obstacle or an

impediment to their individual development (UNESCO, 2013:v). Naturally, people

with disabilities experience greater difficulties than those without them. Therefore,

when a government establishes and offers services to ensure equality, a concerted

effort should be made to ensure that communication facilitates access to those

services. Failure to communicate effectively to people with disabilities regarding

public services will, in all likelihood, contribute towards their continued

disempowerment and inequality. Although the South African Constitution and other

laws give directives on issues relating to addressing the needs of people with

disabilities, particularly by government, there seems to be little progress in the

implementation of communication programmes. The studies by a number of

researchers (Aarons & Akach, 2002; Dagut & Morgan, 2003; Dube, 2005;

Liebenberg & Lotriet; 2010; Murphy, 2006; Museva, 2012; Oyedunni et al. 2013;

Ram & Muthukrishna, 2001) have been focused on engaging directly with people

with disabilities and in some cases their immediate families and communities to

explore challenges and barriers to services such as healthcare, education,

telecommunications and the justice system. While these studies provide a sound and

solid framework to understanding communication barriers affecting people with

disabilities, they do not explore the experiences of people with disabilities,

particularly with regard to government communication programmes and practices.

Most previous research in this area focused more closely on the legislative

framework and the public service, particularly with regard to employment equity and

training. There is general agreement and consensus among researchers that people

with disabilities face enormous communication challenges that have an impact on

3

their ability to access public services (Aarons & Akach, 2002; Dagut & Morgan, 2003;

Murphy, 2006; Museva, 2012). However, as Collier, Blackstone and Taylor

(2012:205) point out, the accessibility requirements of people with communication

needs are not necessarily adequately documented in the existing accessible

literature. Dagut and Morgan (2003:29) assert that communication hindrance or

failure results in violations of the rights of the deaf to equal protection and benefit of

the law, freedom of expression, access to information, and a fair trial in South African

courts.

Most developing countries experience communication problems regarding access to

information and services by citizens, but this is more evident by people with

disabilities. Collier, Blackstone and Taylor (2012:205) note that human rights

legislation and anti-discrimination and accessibility laws exist in many countries and

through international conventions and treaties. To varying degrees, these laws

protect the rights of people with disabilities to full and equal access to goods and

services. However, the accessibility requirements of people with communication

needs are not well documented in the existing academic body of knowledge on

accessibility. Legislation and policies such as the Integrated National Disability

Strategy (INDS) White Paper and the Constitutional directives regarding equality for

all persons, including people with disabilities, necessitates in-depth understanding of

experiences of government communication that do facilitate access to information

and services.

People with disabilities include deaf persons and various studies have confirmed that

they too experience communication barriers that affect access to public services.

Deafness is a condition characterised by a lack or a loss of hearing that makes it

impossible for an individual to understand speech through hearing alone (The

American Heritage® Medical Dictionary, 2007). Although some deaf people do not

regard themselves as disabled but rather, as linguistically oppressed, deafness is

universally regarded as a physical disability, and is most often classified along with

blindness and other physical disabilities (Aarons & Akach, 2002:154). The

international convention in the literature on deafness uses the capital “D”, “Deaf”, to

refer to people who have audiological loss and regard themselves as members of

the signing Deaf community (Akach & Naude’, 2002:4). Akach and Naude (2002:4)

4

define South African sign language (SASL) as a visual-gestural language created

and used by deaf South Africans to communicate with one another. This study

focuses on deaf people’s communication with government and will use “the Deaf”

and “deaf people” interchangeably to refer to the same community. Arulogun et al.

(2013:85) note that the delivery of health services to people with hearing impairment

is poorly understood in Nigeria and limited research has been done to enlighten

people on the process involved. Communication barriers are a challenge not only to

people with hearing impairment but also to providers when it comes to

communicating within a care setting.

There is currently a very limited theoretical foundation on integrated models,

practices, and processes on government communication targeting deaf people.

Therefore, this study aims to make a contribution towards an academic and

professional perspective on government communication, including the development

of new communication tools for people with disabilities, be presenting insight on this

topic. This study seeks to contribute to the academic literature on existing and future

strategic government communication management practices aimed at satisfying the

information needs of deaf people, particularly those in South Africa.

Furthermore, the study anticipates assisting the government communication and

information system (GCIS) and communication practitioners to develop and

implement appropriate strategies and tools, when delivering messages to people

with disabilities, particularly the deaf. Some studies (Crous, 2004; Kasiram &

Subrayen, 2013; Morrison, Brand & Cilliers; 2009) have focused mainly on

challenges faced by students with disabilities at higher education institutions (HEIs)

who experience communication challenges relating to services offered by HEIs.

However, these students are also a target group for government communication.

Therefore, organisations such as HEIs and private companies could benefit from this

study with respect to the well-being of their deaf students and employees.

The purpose of this study is to explore how government manages communication

with deaf people, and to determine the experiences and perceptions of deaf people

on government communication.

5

2 BACKGROUND

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines disability as a complex phenomenon

that reflects the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the

society in which they live; overcoming a disability requires interventions to remove

environmental and social barriers. Approximately 9% of South Africa’s population

have a disability (Statistics South Africa, 2011). Although this may be a relatively

small percentage of the South African population, people with disabilities deserve

equal rights and privileges enjoyed by all other groups in society. In terms of section

9(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the state may not unfairly

discriminate, directly or indirectly, against anyone on one or more grounds, including

those of disability and language. The South African government has committed itself

to facilitating and offering communication and information services to all citizens by

establishing agencies such as the Independent Communications Authority of South

Africa (ICASA) and the GCIS. In his 2014 State of the Nation Address in the National

Assembly, President Jacob Zuma reiterated that there is an “expectation that

improved communication and marketing will promote an informed citizenry and also

assist the country to promote investments, economic growth and job creation”. This

statement indicates that the South African government regards communication as a

critical element that can facilitate access to public services by all citizens, including

people with disabilities.

Access to communication, therefore, forms an integral part of the equalisation of

opportunities for people with communication disabilities, such as deaf people. The

Integrated National Disability Strategy White Paper of 1997 makes recommendations

with regard to access to communication, particularly regarding access to information

by people with disabilities. For example, the White Paper recommends that the

following bodies should facilitate a process for the development of comprehensive

access to information policy: Office on the Status of Disabled Persons, Office of the

Deputy President, in consultation with the GCIS the communication divisions within

all line functions, the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DEAFSA), the South African

6

National Council for the Blind (SANCB), Disabled People South Africa (DPSA) and

public and private media. The communication barrier is a major hindrance to people

with disabilities and, as Baker, Hanson and Myhill (2009:47) point out, people with

disabilities already affected by disparities in many areas of society, suffer further

marginalisation in accessing information, therefore, disability creates an additional

barrier to their access to critical information needs and participation in the

community. The development and implementation of policies and programmes

aimed at improving access to information and facilitate communication between

government and people with disabilities is regarded as one of the ways that can

eliminate some of the barriers experienced by people with disabilities.

People with disabilities face multiple challenges in their daily lives. One of the

challenges they face is access to information about the public services available, due

to inadequate communication and other factors. The communication challenge often

results in the disempowerment of people with disabilities and their inability to

participate meaningfully in the various discourses of society. Article 21 of the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities directs states and

other parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that those with disabilities can

exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to

seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and

through all forms of communication of their choice. They should:

i. Provide information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities

in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of

disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;

ii. Accept and facilitate the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and

alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and

formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official

interactions;

iii. Urge private entities that provide services to the general public, including

through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and

usable formats for persons with disabilities;

7

iv. Encourage the mass media, including providers of information through the

Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities; and

v. Recognise and promote the use of sign languages.

There appears to be a general problem for people with disabilities to access

programmes and services, including government services such as health services,

education, and justice, with communication as one of the core areas hindering easy

access.

Oyedunni et al. (2013) have conducted a study to describe the experiences of 167

girls with hearing impairment in accessing reproductive health services in the Ibadan

state of Nigeria, using a validated questionnaire. The study found that almost 95% of

respondents had never visited a health facility for reproductive health issues. Of

these 41% percent indicated that communication was one of the key barriers to

access while 37% percent were too embarrassed to ask questions in the presence of

an interpreter. A total of 86% indicated that they would use the facility if hearing-

impairment-friendly services were provided. Communication barriers seem to be a

challenge not only for people with hearing impairment or who are hard-of-hearing but

also to providers of services when it comes to communicating within a healthcare

setting. According to Oyedunni et al. (2013:92), the main barrier experienced by

young women with hearing impairment is communication, a problem not necessarily

specific to the healthcare environment, but also experienced within the broader

society.

Murphy (2006) has explored perceptions of communication between people with

communication disability and general practice (GP) staff in Scotland, United

Kingdom. The study found that GP staff expressed frustration with not being

understood, as well as, not understanding what people with a communication

disability were trying to convey. GP staff recognised the significance of poor

communication in terms of access to health services and agreed that the extent of

the problem was greater than they had previously believed, while people with a

communication disability, on the other hand, described the significant problems they

had experienced during the entire process of consultation. Although some

acknowledged that they needed help from their carer(s), most objected to staff

8

speaking to the carer and not to them directly. People with communication disability

are more likely than the general population to have conditions requiring health

intervention yet they are the group who have the greatest difficulty in accessing

health services (Murphy, 2006:49). Thus, the problems experienced by people with a

communication disability may escalate due to lack of communication or

miscommunication. Murphy (2006:49) argues that communication disability can

cause a serious problem in primary healthcare as inadequate communication could

result in the wrong diagnosis, inappropriate medication and prevent the client’s

access to a proper assessment. People with communication disabilities are unable to

change their ability to express themselves adequately. However, the communication

environment in which they find themselves and the manner in which other people

interact with them can be changed to enable meaningful communication and action.

Murphy (2006) finds that GP employees require information on communication

strategies and specific tools to help improve consultations with people with

communication disabilities. They also require greater knowledge of communication

disabilities in order to change their attitude and thereby reduce the barriers that exist

in their working environment.

Many governments, including those on the African continent, claim to be addressing

the needs and aspirations of all their citizens, including those with disabilities by

developing specific programmes relevant for the community. However, the impact of

such programmes does not seem to have been felt by people with disabilities.

Museva (2012) has investigated the level of participation of women with disabilities in

economic empowerment programmes in Gweru District, Zimbabwe. The study

explores community views on the participation of women with disabilities and

examines the barriers that limit the participation of women with disabilities in

economic programmes. A descriptive survey method was used to collect data from a

sample that comprised thirty women with disabilities, three non-governmental

organisations (NGOs), two government departments, and three community leaders.

The study finds that participation by women with disabilities in economic

empowerment programmes is very low and that very little has been done to enhance

their participation in community programmes. Museva (2012) concludes that cultural,

social, psychological, and physical barriers are the major problems that limit the

participation of women with disabilities in economic empowerment programmes.

9

Communication and access to information can be placed within the social context of

the barriers that women face and that hinder their participation in many socio-political

and economic activities. Museva (2012:962) recommends that:

The role of government officials at all levels who represent persons with

disabilities in planning meetings and in decision-making must be strengthened

to ensure the inclusivity of disabled persons.

There should be a concerted effort to inform women with disabilities about

mainstream government programmes and services, and to encourage the

participation of these women.

There is a need to incorporate information on respecting the rights and dignity

of women with disabilities into the existing training programmes of

government officials, for example, police, justice officials, health workers and

others who interact with women with disabilities.

A clear acknowledgement and understanding of disability by decision-makers,

including government leaders and officials, can play a major role in ensuring the

development of viable programmes and services for everyone, including deaf

people. In other words, it should be acknowledged that deaf people also have

aspirations and needs in all spheres of life, such as education, arts and culture, the

economy, and health services. This recognition would enable the government and

service providers to develop appropriate mechanisms to communicate clearly and to

ensure access to those services.

People with disability experience problems not only in healthcare services, but in

other areas, including the justice system. Dagut and Morgan (2003) observed eight

cases involving deaf people in magistrates’ courts in and around Gauteng, to assess

the experiences of deaf people in the South African justice system. They found that

the first problem arose when an accused deaf person or complainant was required to

make a statement in the absence of a skilled interpreter. It was found that the deaf

person was unable to make the statement or to convey facts accurately without an

interpreter with the result that statements that did not reflect or mirror the facts as

understood by the deaf person were produced and used in courts for the trial of the

deaf accused or complainant. Secondly, the study revealed problems and barriers in

10

courtrooms, in the form of miscommunication and a communication failure between

interpreters and the deaf, resulting in disadvantage to the deaf. Dagut and Morgan

(2003:) argue that deaf persons who are required to make police statements are

frequently victims of miscommunication, arising from, and leading to, violations of

their rights including the right to skilled interpreters and to a fair trial as accused

persons.

Aarons and Akach (2002:153) claim that the barrier to inclusion of the deaf in

mainstream education facilities is a matter of language, and not of physical disability.

The study by Ram and Muthukrishna (2001) aimed to gain insight into the South

African deaf culture and explored the implications of deaf culture for the education of

Deaf learners in South Africa. They administered a questionnaire to 18 deaf adults

from four provinces in South Africa. The findings of their study suggest that there

needs to be a re-assessment on the nature of the educational curriculum for the

deaf, particularly with regard to the philosophy and discourses that underpin it, the

status of sign language, the quality of educators, the socialisation of deaf students,

and the issue of mainstreaming so that deaf learners may be educated in the most

enabling environment. Ram and Muthukrishna (2001:51) found that participants in

the study were vehement that the voice of the Deaf should be heard in all decision-

making processes for the Deaf, particularly with respect to the provision of

education. This confirms Museva’s view (2012) that people with disabilities need to

be represented at decision-making structures not only to ensure inclusivity, but to

address the real issues experienced by people with disability. There has been active

engagement from the Deaf community at various levels in the transformation

process in South Africa and it is clear that a definite paradigm shift has occurred

from the perception that deaf people are merely pathologically deficient in hearing to

an emphasis that deaf people form a culture of their own with their own distinctive

language. Aarons and Akach (2002:153) support this view and argue that SASL as a

medium of instruction in centres of education is the most effective way of removing

barriers of learning for the Deaf and empowering them to function meaningfully

through using a medium to which they have full access.

Across the world, people with disabilities have poorer health outcomes, lower

educational achievements, less economic participation and higher rates of poverty

11

than people without disabilities. This is partly because people with disabilities

experience barriers in accessing services that many of us have long taken for

granted, including health, education, employment, and transport, as well as

information. These difficulties are exacerbated in less advantaged communities

(World Report, 2011:xi). To address some of these barriers, many interventions,

including telecommunications aimed at assisting people with disabilities have been

developed and implemented. Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) have investigated

telecommunication practices and challenges among the Deaf in South Africa,

focusing on products such as cell phones, e-mail, fax messaging, and instant

messaging (IM). Their research shows that the Deaf consider IM as the most

successful technology for both business and social communication. E-mail is rated

most often used for business communication, whereas e-mail and SMS are rated

most used for social communication. Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) also note that the

main drawbacks experienced by deaf users of telecommunications technologies

involve connecting with, and understanding people. Their research findings indicate

that the Deaf would like to see heightened public awareness of deafness and its

challenges in telecommunication. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicate

that they have a fair chance to access South African services. However, 75% of

respondents indicate that South African services are not accessible enough for the

Deaf and that they would not be able to rectify a problem without asking someone

else for assistance or without making the effort of visiting the business for a face-to-

face encounter. The respondents stated that they do not have the easy access to

services that hearing individuals would have. For example, the hard-of-hearing

individuals argued that when making a call to a call centre, officials or operators are

not trained to speak to hard-of-hearing people; they shout, speak fast and become

impatient when they struggle to understand the caller or request that a word be

repeated.

According to Dube (2005:6), it was during the period 1994–2004 that legislation,

policies, interventions, and programmes were formulated with the aim of influencing

the environment in order that equity goals over the medium- to long-term, and also

immediate goals were addressed to ensure that an increased number of people with

disabilities could access government services and programmes. Dube (2005) has

investigated the extent to which those policies and legislation programmes post-1994

12

have provided greater access for ordinary disabled people. The research focused on

the identification and analysis of key features of the South African government’s

efforts to provide better access to government services for people with disabilities

through the implementation of policies and inclusive legislation, with particular

emphasis on the work of national and provincial government departments for the

period 1994–2004. One finding was that “generally, the development of disability

policies within government departments at both national and provincial levels is in its

infancy, with the majority of departments having only draft policies. Such policies are

generally not backed up by funded strategies; hence no meaningful implementation

of these policies has occurred” (Dube, 2005:10). The White Paper on an INDS was

adopted in 1997. The objective of the INDS was to provide government and the

broader society with a framework or guidelines to promote non-discriminatory

development planning, programme implementation, and service delivery.

Implementation of the INDS at many levels of the public sector and society as a

whole remains a challenge which unfortunately has negative implications for people

with disabilities in South Africa.

The successful implementation and monitoring of communication with citizens,

particularly people with disabilities, necessitates an integrated and coordinated

management system for planning, implementation and monitoring of communication

interventions at all levels and within all spheres of government, as well as a capacity-

building plan for officials.

3 METHODOLOGY

Du Plooy (2009) argues that quantitative and qualitative research designs or

approaches should not be seen as mutually exclusive because in most cases, when

either one of them is applied, it tends to include characteristics of both approaches.

This study requires participants to give opinions and views on their experiences of

government communication in South Africa. Du Plooy (2009) points out that

qualitative data can provide information about the “human” side of an issue. In other

words, it has the capability to assist in ascertaining the behaviours, beliefs, opinions,

emotions and relationships of individuals on specific issues or problems. This study

13

acknowledges the differences between qualitative and quantitative designs; these

differences include their analytical objectives; the types of questions they pose; the

types of data collection instruments they use; the forms of data they produce; and

their degree of flexibility. The researcher is aware that by using quantitative data-

collection methods, such as questionnaires, all respondents are asked identical

questions, in the same order, and that the response categories are closed-ended or

fixed. The positive aspect about the lack of flexibility in quantitative design is that it

simplifies the comparison of responses offered by the participants.

Qualitative methods, on the other hand, are typically more flexible and allow the

researcher to adapt his interactions with the participants, in order to probe and obtain

clarity on responses. Qualitative methods ask open-ended questions that are not

necessarily worded in the same way for each participant. According to Reagan

(2006:110), open-ended questions are useful when the researcher does not know

what the responses are likely to be, such as when asking about opinions, attitudes or

perceptions that have not been examined by other studies. Open-ended questions

allow respondents to customise their responses, making them more personal and

reflective. This study aims to determine the experiences and attitudes of participants

to government communication, which means that the researcher must allow

respondents to explain and elaborate their responses. A critical advantage of

qualitative methods in exploratory research like this, as Du Plooy (2009) points out,

is the use of open-ended questions and probing, which gives participants the

opportunity to respond in their own words, rather than forcing them to choose from

fixed responses. The fact that open-ended questions have the ability to evoke

responses that are meaningful and explanatory, and unanticipated by the

researcher, is considered to be a positive aspect of obtaining customised data

inputs. Triangulation is used, so as to deploy all the positive aspects of quantitative

and qualitative methods, to obtain adequate information and data.

This study is cross-sectional and exploratory, and seeks to determine the

experiences and opinions of deaf people on government communication. The study

focused on deaf people residing within the Tshwane Metropolitan municipality. A

total of 15 questionnaires were distributed from which 12 replies were received.

Although the research sample is small, it is acceptable for the purpose of this limited

14

exploratory study. The sample comprised male and female respondents, aged from

20 to 50 years. Fifty percent (50%) of respondents were male and 50% female.

There was no scientific method or approach deployed in the selection of the sample,

but consideration was given to the accessibility and the limited time that was

available to complete the study. A self-administered questionnaire was used to

collect information on respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, awareness

and experiences in accessing government information. The questionnaire included

closed and open-ended questions.

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The questionnaire included questions regarding the frequency at which respondents

interact with government departments, their awareness or knowledge of GCIS, their

participation in government’s outreach programmes, such as Izimbizo, and how they

do communicate, or would prefer government to communicate with them. Table 1

and 2 below summarise the frequency of interaction as well as the awareness,

participation and level of satisfaction with government communication.

Table 1: Frequency of respondents’ interaction with government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

nu

mb

er

of

pe

op

le

Frequency of interaction with government

Interaction with government

Every day

Every week

Every month

Sometimes

Never

Other (please specify)

15

Table 2: Knowledge of GCIS, participation and level of satisfaction with government

communication

A likert scale was included in the questionnaire where respondents were asked to

state whether they “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neutral”; “Agree”; and “Strongly

agree”. Twenty-five percent (25%) strongly disagree that government communication

caters for the needs of people with hearing impairments, 33% disagree, 17% are

neutral and 25% agree that government communication caters for people with

hearing impairments. Seventeen percent (17%) strongly disagree that people with

hearing impairments can access government services easily, 17% disagree, while

25% are neutral, 8% agree and another 8% strongly disagree. The role of

government employees, particularly those at the front-end of customer service, is

crucial in facilitating access to services. Seventeen percent (17%) of respondents

strongly disagree that government officials are always willing to assist people with

hearing impairments, 50% disagree, 25% are neutral, while 8% agree.

Seventeen percent (17%) strongly disagree that government make interpreters

available to facilitate communication, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral and 25% agree.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nu

mb

er

of

pe

op

le

People who know aboutGovernment Communication andInformation System

People who have participated inGovernment Outreach initiativeeg. Imbizo

People who say they needinformation from government

People satisfied with manner inwhich information is receivedfrom government

16

With regard to a statement that is intended to determine the importance of

government employees’ knowledge or understanding of sign language, 17% strongly

disagree that government employees and service providers understand sign

language, 42% disagree, 25% are neutral, 8% strongly agree and 8% strongly

disagree. Respondents who answered the question regarding government’s equal

treatment of citizens in terms of communication, 33% strongly disagree that

government communicates with all citizens equally, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral

and 8% agree. Thirty-three percent (33%) strongly agree that people with hearing

impairments need to communicate directly with government, 42% agree, 17%

disagree. The majority (58%) of respondents strongly agree that government service

employees who work directly with the public must know sign language, 25% agree,

and 17% strongly disagree.

Some respondents hold very strong views regarding government’s commitment to

sign language. One respondent stated: “First and foremost, government must

implement policies that support communication with deaf people, especially sign

language as a 12th official language and it will ease confusion among other

departments.” One respondent seemed very despondent about the issue of sign

language and pointed out that “Sign language as an official language has been

raised several times”. In response to the question on how government can improve

communication with people with hearing impairments, one respondent maintained

that officials should “learn and understand our sign language and give us a positive

attitude and be respectful”. The statements above support the finding by Liebenberg

and Lotriet (2010) in which respondents complained that human operators are not

trained to speak to hard-of-hearing people; they shout, talk fast and get impatient

when they struggle to understand them or when they ask them to repeat certain

words. The attitude of organisations, including governments, to deaf people is a

challenge that requires attention. The attitudes and impatience of officials when

dealing with deaf people explain why some deaf people would need an interpreter or

mediator to facilitate communication and access to services. Twenty-five percent of

respondents in this study stated that they require interpreters, when asked how

government could improve communication with people with hearing impairments.

17

Twenty-five percent strongly disagree that people with hearing impairments are

satisfied with government communication, 8% disagree, 25% are neutral, 17%

agree, and 25% strongly agree. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicated

that they receive government information via the short message service (SMS), 25%

via e-mail, 8% from print media, 8% via the Internet and another 8% from the

organisation representing deaf people. The use of e-mail and SMS by deaf people to

communicate with government confirms the study by Liebenberg and Lotriet

(2010:15) which concludes that e-mail, which had the highest usage rate of 80%,

was rated least successful by the respondents for business communications. The

reason for the high usage of e-mail communication could be related to the fact that

most businesses only provide e-mail addresses and telephone numbers on their

contact page, and do not make use of the other communication channels.

Generally, respondents do not have a positive outlook on the manner that

government responds or deals with their expectations. A total of 83% of respondents

are dissatisfied with their overall experience of government communication over the

past five years, as one of them stated: “They don’t take us seriously and they don’t

give us enough opportunities such as working in the government industry”. Another

respondent stated: “I have to admit that honestly it is still very poor compared to the

past five years”. “Downward” is all one respondent could say in summarising the

experience. The views of the respondents in this study could be more closely related

to the overall perceptions and attitudes towards government’s initiatives geared

towards addressing the communication needs of deaf people. There is certainly no

shortage of communication equipment and devices that government could introduce

to satisfy the needs of deaf people. This is supported, to a certain extent, by

Liebenberg and Lotriet (2010) who found that 65% of respondents agreed that

nowadays it is far easier to communicate while the remaining 35% were of the

opinion that there was no difference as they still had difficulty in communicating.

There is no doubt that it must still be difficult for people without access to the

relevant telecommunication processes to communicate, not only with government,

but also with friends and family.

18

Of the respondents who answered the question regarding government’s equal

treatment of citizens in terms of communication, 33% strongly disagree that

government communicates with all citizens equally, 50% disagree, 8% are neutral

and 8% agree. This does not reflect positively on a government that is required by

the Constitution to treat all citizens equally and not discriminate on the basis of

language or any other characteristic. Dagut and Morgan (2003:39) argue that the

right to freedom of expression, particularly the right to receive or impart information,

and the right of access to information, are violated when a deaf person is not told of

his or her rights when making a statement to the police and is not able to make his or

her own statement accurately due to the absence of an interpreter. Dagut and

Morgan (2003:39) maintain that human rights are also violated where the deaf

person is unable to understand or to give information in court because of the

absence of a suitable interpreter. The right to use the language of choice is violated

when a person is compelled to communicate in a language in which he or she does

not feel at ease, for example, where the only means of communication for a deaf

person in a court is through an interpreter who is unable to speak his or her dialect of

SASL. The South African government does not seem to have done enough to

address the issue of sign language since the adoption of the Integrated National

Disability Strategy White Paper in 1997, and in terms of the government statement in

2013:

The Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities is working with relevant government departments, public entities and national representative organisations of Deaf persons to accelerate the agenda for full recognition of the South African Sign Language as a twelfth language, a national accreditation system for South African Sign Language interpreters, and the development of South African Sign Language.

The fact that it has taken 16 years since the recommendations were made in the

form of the national disability strategy and that there appear to be no concrete plans

to indicate how the process of recognising Sign Language as the twelfth language

will unfold, is not encouraging. Those respondents who have made it clear that Sign

Language must be introduced and that public servants must know the language will

be disappointed by this apparent failure.

19

5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Du Plooy (2009:53) is of the view that there are no hard and fast rules determining

the extent to which a research problem or research issue is ethically acceptable or

unacceptable. This study followed the ethical principles guiding the use of human

respondents in social research. Approval for the study was obtained from the

University of Pretoria’s Communication Division. The conditions or circumstances

which many deaf people experience in society have been acknowledged and the

potential benefit to government have been emphasised. A request for advice and

permission to conduct the study was sent to DEAFSA and SANDA. A meeting was

held with SANDA’s project manager where the nature and purpose of the study was

explained in detail and advice sought on the best data collection method(s). Consent

to participate and offer assistance was obtained in writing from SANDA.

6 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The limitations of this study include the following:

The study focused on the City of Tshwane Metropolitan area which is

primarily an urban setting and deaf people in rural areas may not share the

same experiences.

Although a survey was recommended and endorsed by an organisation

representing deaf people, the data indicates that additional useful data could

have been obtained through follow-up and interactions in which face-to-face

and observation tools are employed.

Some responses suggest that the respondents’ level of education played a

key role in understanding the questions and providing informed answers. The

responses indicate clearly that some respondents would have benefited from

an interpretation or clarification of the questions.

20

7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In-depth research in areas that affect South African society, particularly

disadvantaged communities, can assist in finding solutions that will advance the

spirit and practice of our Constitution and empower all sectors of our society,

including members of the deaf community. Further research is suggested in the

following areas:

(i) Further surveys that would be more representative of the South African

deaf population, including those in rural areas, and their experiences with

government communication;

(ii) Qualitative research to determine and examine government’s

communication strategies and practices targeting deaf people;

(iii) Comparative research into South African government communication

practices with those of other developing countries;

(iv) Extensive research into training and the use of SASL in the public service;

and,

(v) Examination of the government’s deployment of telecommunication tools

for use by deaf people in accessing public services.

8 CONCLUSION

Deaf people are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else in South Africa. Their

rights to access information and to express themselves in their preferred language

are crucial for their development and empowerment as individual members of society

and as a community. This study has revealed that although the government has

established organisations and initiated programmes to communicate with citizens,

deaf people still feel that there are gaps and constraints affecting their

communication and access to public services. The development and adoption of

SASL and use of interpreters are priorities for deaf people in South Africa. A

significant number of deaf people do not know about GCIS and the government’s

outreach programmes, such as Izimbizo, while those who are aware of them have

never participated in the programmes due to communication barriers. The overall

perception of deaf people is that government does not take them seriously, hence

their communication needs are not addressed in a satisfactory manner.

21

For deaf people to have a positive experience with government communication, a

number of issues, including the use of sign language and the attitudes of

government employees should be addressed as a matter of priority.

22

REFERENCES

Aarons, D., Akach, P. 2002. Inclusion and the deaf child in South Africa.

Perspectives in Education. 20(1):153-170

Arulogun, O.S., Titiloye, M.A., Afolabi, N.B., Oyewole, O.E., & Nwaorgu, O.G.B.

2013. Experiences of girls with hearing impairment in accessing reproductive health

care services in Ibadan, Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 17(1):85-

93.

Baker, P.M.A., Hanson, J., & Myhill, W.N. 2009. The promise of municipal WiFi and

failed policies of inclusion: the disability divide. Information Polity. 14(2009):47-59.

Chabane, C. 2013. Speech by Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring

and Evaluation, Collins Chabane on the occasion of the GCIS Budget Vote [O].

Available: http://www.presidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=15354. [Accessed 2013-

05-19].

Collier, B., Blackstone, S.W., & Taylor, A. 2012. Communication access to business

and organizations for people with complex communication needs. Augmentative and

Alternative Communication. 28(4):205-218.

Crous, S.F.M. 2004. The academic support needs of students with impairments at

three higher education institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education.

18(1):228-251.

Dagut, H & Morgan, R. 2003. Barriers to justice: violations of the rights of the Deaf

and hard-of-hearing people in the South African justice system. SAJHR, 19(1):27-56.

23

Dube, A.K. 2005. The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South Africa.

Johannesburg: Samaita

Du Plooy, G.M. 2009. Communication research: techniques, methods and

applications. Cape Town: Juta.

Kasiram, M. & Subrayen, R. 2013. Social exclusion of students with visual

impairments at a tertiary institution in KwaZulu-Natal. South African Family Practice.

55(1):66-72

Leonard, A. & Grobler, A.F. 2006. Exploring challenges to transformational

leadership communication about employment equity: managing organizational

change in South Africa. Journal of Communication Management. 10(4):390-406.

[Online] Available from Emerald: http://www.emeraldinsight.com. [Accessed: 2013-

05-18].

Liebenberg, M. & Lotriet, H. 2010. An exploration of Deaf telecommunication

processes and associated social issues in South Africa. SACJ, 45(July):11-17.

Morrison, J., Brand, H., & Cilliers, C. 2009. Students with disabilities in higher

education. Acta Academia. 41(3):201-223.

Museva, L. 2012. The level of participation of women with disabilities in economic

empowerment programmes in Gweru District. Journal of Emerging Trends in

Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(6):955-963.

Office of Deputy President. 1997. Integrated national disability strategy White Paper.

Pretoria: Government Printer

Ram, A. & Muthukrishna, N. 2001. Voices of Deaf adults in South Africa.

Perspectives in Education. 19(1):39-52.

Reagan, J. 2006. Applied research methods for mass communicators. Washington:

Marguette.

24

Republic of South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108

of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Sing, D. & Govender. 2007. Establishing enabling structures and measures for

people with disabilities in the South African Public Service. Journal of Public

Administration. 42(8):786-797.

Singletary, M. 1994. Mass communication research: contemporary methods and

applications. New York: Longman.

South Africa. 2007. Notice 765. Regulations for electronic communications,

broadcasting, and postal sectors to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

Government Gazette, (29986):3-15.

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary. 2007. Houghton Mifflin.

http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/. [Accessed 2014-07-20].

United Nations. 2011. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Available

from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml. [Accessed 2013-

06-01].

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2013.

Opening new avenues for empowerment: ICTs to access information and knowledge

for persons with disabilities. Paris: UNESCO.

World Health Organization. 2013. Health topics: disabilities. [O]. Available from:

http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en. [Accessed 2013-05-19].