Adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) in countries such as Australia and the United States now have access to improved assistive hearing technology, widespread implementation of early hearing screening programs, and early intervention.1,2 These advances have led to better speech and language in comparison to earlier generations.3,4 While these improved outcomes are to be celebrated, the gains are not always apparent in other domains such as social communication5 and psychosocial development.6 Prioritizing the development of social capital in this population presents opportunities to improve a wide range of outcomes. This review is an adaptation of a published systematic review7 that explored contemporary social capital literature relating to adults and adolescents who are DHH and adolescents with other types of disability. The studies discussed in this article indicate that high reserves of social capital can lead to improved outcomes in areas such as inclusion, diversity, identity formation, and quality of life for adolescents who are DHH.
Similar to the more tangible concept of economic capital, social capital is an established construct that recognizes the value of social networks in a similar manner.8 According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, some of the benefits of social capital include greater societal diversity and participation as well as knowledge sharing.9 Social capital is often measured using trust, reciprocity,10 and shared norms.11 Bourdieu12 theorized that social capital intersects with cultural and economic capital to protect and perpetuate the resources of the dominant class. Cultural capital includes knowing how to dress and talk appropriately in different contexts, and may be represented by job titles and tertiary qualifications.
The development of social capital has been demonstrated to have positive psychosocial and well-being benefits in populations that are disadvantaged13 and in adults with disabilities.14 Individuals who are DHH have high rates of documented mental illness,15 and developing social capital may offer a way to improve these outcomes. Wong, Ching, Whitfield, and Duncan found a positive low association between social capital and a range of psychosocial outcomes, including social competence and loneliness.16
QUALITY OF LIFE AND SELF-EFFICACY
Social capital, as measured by network size, was shown to have a positive effect on the quality of life among middle-aged to older Austrian Deaf club members.17 The authors demonstrated that network size was positively associated with self-efficacy, and that those club members with a higher sense of self-efficacy also reported a better quality of life. Furthermore, the authors determined that communication skills and social networks acted as functional equivalents. Participants with lower communicative competence were able to benefit more in terms of self-efficacy from larger social networks compared with those with higher language scores and larger networks. This exciting result, if replicated in other populations, indicates that social capital may offer a way to boost personal resources such as self-efficacy and communication when they are otherwise diminished.
A similar quality-of-life benefit was found in a study that measured social acceptance and quality of life before and after a disability-specific camp attended by 46 children and adolescents who are DHH.18 The participants’ quality of life was found to be significantly higher at the end of the camp than before the camp. The authors did not specifically measure social capital; rather, a social capital framework was used to describe the participants’ increased social capital that led to better outcomes, such as an increase in reciprocal relationships, development of trust, and feeling included in conversations in the camp.
Individuals with a disability also benefit from the social capital of their parents, as seen in a study on the outcomes of three individuals with a disability in the Czech Republic, Ireland, and Spain.19 Through biographical interviews, the young participants reported how they were able to achieve positive outcomes through their parents’ advocacy for their rights to educational access and efforts to raise teachers’ and other decision-makers’ expectations about what their children could achieve. The authors of this study noted that social capital and resilience stimulate each other, which can be seen in situations where resilience is required and enabled through social capital resources.
The role of parental social and cultural capital was further confirmed in a study of 27 parents of children with special needs.20 Parents who used educational jargon were able to effectively advocate for their children's special education needs. Some parents even utilized social capital by acquiring information from teachers through informal social connections with the school staff. Families in this study who may have been perceived to be from the dominant class based on their racial and cultural backgrounds were not always successful in advocating for their children's educational needs. This may be seen as a practical outworking of the way that disability reduces cultural and social capital and subsequent opportunities for children with a disability and their families. An example can be seen in the unequal relationships between the educational staff and the parents of children with disabilities and in the way that parents were unable to consistently use their social and cultural capital to overcome barriers to educational opportunities.20
INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY
Inclusion was identified as a positive outcome of social capital in a study of a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning community involving college students with a disability.21 The participants indicated that the learning community generated social support through friendships and academic support networks, and that this subsequently led to a greater sharing of knowledge and collective support within the group. Viewed through a social capital lens, this can be seen as a conversion of social capital into cultural capital that resulted in efficient knowledge sharing. The authors equated the group's collective competence with the individual self-efficacy. This is an example of how social capital can generate outcomes that may be available to all group members.
Diversity, defined by an acceptance and understanding of individuals and groups different from oneself, is another outcome generated through social capital. Mainstream students were seen to transform from having a deficit model perspective of students with a disability to a more nuanced understanding of these students’ needs through a guided discussion study.22 This study demonstrates the value of increased bridging social capital represented by access to groups that are different from one's own group, such as the dominant group of students without disabilities in a school. This was achieved by the students’ understanding the needs of students with disabilities and formulating positive ways to include them in their classes.
Similarly, understanding students with diverse learning needs was a social capital-related outcome in a series of facilitated discussions between employers, parents, and other stakeholders.23 The group was able to work together to solve obstacles to inclusion, such as difficulty accessing transportation, which can be viewed as an activation of social capital.
Deaf identity is a nuanced concept for adolescents who are DHH, and may be one of a number of factors that contribute to identity formation.24 Adolescents may develop their identity from their shared disability status, and the allocation and use of shared spaces, such as segregated classrooms, may impact this identity perception.25 Identity formation is further complicated by some adolescents avoiding identities that include disability. This can be seen in a case study participant viewing identity involving disability as “complex and pejorative.”26
Role models contribute to identity formation and are seen to have a part to play in navigating challenging issues that students who are DHH may encounter, such as communication difficulties.24 This may be viewed as the role models facilitating social capital opportunities that adolescents who are DHH may not have access to through their own limited social capital.24
A liminality framework was used to describe how students who are DHH face increased risk in relation to negative outcomes such as social isolation and sense of identity.18 Liminality is an anthropological term that describes how certain groups may be close to dominant groups but not fully included or accepted within those groups. This may apply to adolescents who are DHH, and gives weight to the authors’ study that detailed how the participants developed a positive identity within the safe and supportive environment of the disability-specific camp, which is a social capital-related outcome.18
Social capital is a construct that holds much promise in facilitating practical well-being and inclusion outcomes for adolescents who are DHH. The studies discussed in this review describe how social capital can lead to improved outcomes such as inclusion, diversity, and better quality of life. Additionally, social capital offers a pathway to improve traditional outcomes such as language and self-efficacy. More research is required to confirm these preliminary findings in adolescents who are DHH using validated social capital instruments and research that gives a voice to the participants. The role of inclusion and identity merits further investigation in relation to social capital formation.
Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Dr. Jill Duncan and Dr. Kerry Dally for their generous advice relating to an earlier manuscript of this paper.
1. Ching TYC, Dillon H, Marnane V, et al. Outcomes of early- and late-identified children at 3 years of age: Findings from a prospective population-based study. Ear Hear
. 2013;34(5):535-552. doi:10.1097/AUD.0B013E3182857718
2. Fulcher A, Purcell AA, Baker E, Munro N. Listen up: Children with early identified hearing loss achieve age-appropriate speech/language outcomes by 3years-of-age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
. 2012;76(12):1785-1794. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2012.09.001
3. Mayer C, Trezek BJ. Literacy outcomes in deaf students with cochlear implants: Current state of the knowledge. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
. 2018;23(1):1-16. doi:10.1093/DEAFED/ENX043
4. Ruffin CV, Kronenberger WG, Colson BG, Henning SC, Pisoni DB. Long-term speech and language outcomes in prelingually deaf children, adolescents and young adults who received cochlear implants in childhood. Audiol Neurootol
. 2013;18(5):289-296. doi:10.1159/000353405
5. Goberis D, Beams D, Dalpes M, Abrisch A, Baca R, Yoshinaga-Itano C. The missing link in language development of deaf and hard of hearing children: Pragmatic language development. Semin Speech Lang
. 2012;33(04):297-309. doi:10.1055/S-0032-1326916
6. Brice P, Strauss G. Deaf adolescents in a hearing world: A review of factors affecting psychosocial adaptation. Adolesc Health Med Ther
. 2016;(7):67-76. doi:10.2147/AHMT.S60261
7. Byatt TJ, Dally K, Duncan J. Systematic review of literature: Social capital and adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
. 2019. doi:10.1093/deafed/enz020
8. Portes A. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol
. 1998;24(1):1-24. doi:10.1146/ANNUREV.SOC.24.1.1
9. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information Paper: Measuring Social Capital?: An Australian Framework and Indicators, 2004. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2004.
10. Putnam R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000.
11. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol
. 1988;94:S95-S120. doi:10.1086/228943
12. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press; 1986:241-258.
13. Magson NR, Craven R G,, Bodkin-Andrews GH. Measuring social capital: The development of the Social Capital and Cohesion Scale and the associations between social capital and mental health. Austral J of Educ Dev Psych
14. Mithen J, Aitken Z, Ziersch A, Kavanagh AM. Inequalities in social capital and health between people with and without disabilities. Soc Sci Med
. 2015;126:26-35. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2014.12.009
15. Fellinger J, Holzinger D, Pollard R. Mental health of deaf people. Lancet
. 2012;379(9820):1037-1044. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61143-4.
16. Wong CL, Ching TYC, Whitfield J, Duncan J. Exploring the social capital of adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing and their parents: A preliminary investigation. Am Ann Deaf
. 2018;162(5):463-478. doi:10.1353/AAD.2018.0004
17. Gerich J, Fellinger J. Effects of social networks on the quality of life in an elder and middle-aged deaf community sample. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ
. 2012;17(1):102-115. doi:10.1093/DEAFED/ENR022
18. Devine MA, Piatt J, Dawson SL. The role of a disability-specific camp in promoting social acceptance and quality of life for youth with hearing impairments. Ther Recreation J
. 2015;49(4):293-309. doi:10.18666/TRJ-2015-V49-I4-6240
19. Buchner T, Smyth F, Biewer G, et al. Paving the way through mainstream education: The interplay of families, schools and disabled students. Res Pap Educ
. 2015;30(4):411-426. doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.989175
20. Trainor AA. Reexamining the promise of parent participation in special education: An analysis of cultural and social capital. Anthropol Educ Q
. 2010;41(3):245-263. doi:10.1111/J.1548-1492.2010.01086.X
21. Whitney J, Langley-Turnbaugh S, Lovewell L, Moeller B. Building relationships, sharing resources, and opening opportunities: A STEM learning community builds social capital for students with disabilities. J Postsecond Educ Disabil
22. Allan J, Smyth G, I'Anson J, Mott J. Understanding disability with children's social capital. J Res Spec Educ Needs
. 2009;9(2):115-121. doi:10.1111/J.1471-3802.2009.01124.X
23. Trainor AA, Carter EW, Swedeen B, Pickett K. Community conversations: An approach for expanding and connecting opportunities for employment for adolescents with disabilities. Career Dev Transit Except Individ
. 2012;35(1):50-60. doi:10.1177/0885728811419166
24. Cawthon SW, Johnson PM, Garberolgio CL, Schoffstall SJ. Role models as facilitators of social capital for deaf individuals: A research synthesis. Am Ann Deaf
. 2016;161(2):115-127. doi:10.1353/AAD.2016.0021
25. Holt L. Young people's embodied social capital and performing disability. Child Geogr
. 2010;8(1):9-21. doi:10.1080/14733280903500158
26. Banks J. Barriers and supports to postsecondary transition: Case studies of African American students with disabilities. Remedial Spec Educ
. 2014;35(1):28-39. doi:10.1177/0741932513512209