In Praise of Doubt and Systematic Inquiry: Conclusion

This is the second segment of a two-part special issue of the Annals on English reading development for individuals who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh). Again, I want to thank all the contributors, particularly the coeditors, Ye Wang and Jean Andrews, for their thought-provoking contributions. This two-part volume should provide a substantial amount of fodder for theory, research, and practice for years to come. If all of this attention and activity leads to marked improvement in English reading development, then all the better. However, first we need a better understanding of the acquisition of English reading and writing skills not only for d/Dhh students, but for all students.My burning question is this: What can I offer here that will extend or enhance my major points presented in the editorial for the first part of this special issue (Paul, 2014b)? The present issue ranges from an interpretation of dissertations on reading by d/Deaf investigators over a 40-year period (Andrews, Byrne, & Clark) to tentative remarks based on preliminary findings and the tenets of a conceptual literacy model from a federally funded project, the Center on Literacy and Deafness (Easterbrooks et al.). Then there is a piece that focuses on the pervasive role of socioeconomic status in language and reading (Twitchell, Morford, & Hauser), and another that provides a rendition of the long-standing nature-versus-nurture intertwinement (LaSasso & Crain). Finally, there is an insightful synthesis of all the articles in this two-part volume (Andrews & Wang)-which may put this editorial to shame. So again, what can I offer? Or, better yet, let's quote Kant (1787/1901): "What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? " (p. 583)My approach in this editorial is the same as it was in the first one (Paul, 2014b). I focus on a few assertions in this volume and relate them, as appropriate, to the contents of the first part of this special issue. Cognitive contamination notwithstanding, I hope to minimize overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and even repetitions (albeit repeated remarks can be a good thing). This is a formidable challenge, given the complexity of the topic and the wealth of information offered by the contributors. All contributors mention the variability of broad conditions and factors- language, cognitive, and sociocultural-that can affect the development of reading in d/Dhh children and adolescents. If progress is to be made, though, there is a need to explicate these variables and to ascertain the differentiated contributions, especially within a model of English literacy development. Nevertheless, this is an editorial, not a book- but perhaps the editors of this special issue have something else up their sleeves. (In fact, they do; see Andrews & Wang). What Can (or Do I Think) I Know? What Ought I (or Other Researchers) to Do? All contributors to the present issue have attempted to address-directly or indirectly-the messy, slippery constructs of qualitative similarity and qualitative difference. At first blush, it seems that the picture has become cloudier with the inclusion of additional complex constructs such as the nature of English reading, functional hearing, instructional strategies, fingerspelling, and insider/outsider views- to mention a few on which I plan to focus. There is some clarity, but this is contingent on agreement with the gist of my interpretations.Functional Hearing: The Major Sociodemographic Variable? Much as Allen, Letteri, Choi, and Dang (2014) and McQuarrie and Parrila (2014) have done, some contributors to the present issue seem to suggest that the merits of the qualitative similarity hypothesis (QSH; Paul, Wang, ? Williams, 2013)- at least the phonological merits-are related to the nature of functional hearing of d/Dhh children and adolescents (e.g., Andrews et al.; Easterbrooks et al; Twitchell et al.). Functional hearing has been described as the ability to perceive running speech effectively or adequately with or without amplification. …