In addition to containing factual errors, this article is an opinion piece which is based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, even if it is presented as a research-based article that belongs in an academic journal. Thread (1/13) https://twitter.com/drjosephjmurray/status/1332244187127934978

Even though a number of concerns raised in this article may be valid, we need balanced and in-depth research-based accounts of the practices and politics surrounding International Sign (IS) (language use, language policies, interpreting, …). (2/12)

There aren’t many academic publications on IS. The overall picture is as follows: the most well known and most-often cited works on IS are written by hearing people; a number of them are interpreters; not all these publications are based on academic research; (3/12)

and only very few of the people who published on IS can have conversations in IS themselves. Yet these works are repeatedly cited. Most of these works are about IS as used on the stage by presenters and interpreters; and/or in dyadic video-recorded elicited interactions. (4/12)

This work thus covers only a few themes in relation to IS (and does so repeatedly). This is the current state of IS research. These are the works we are expected to use as references, to build on, and need to engage within our publications. (5/12)

The number of researchers studying IS has rapidly increased in the past few years (and again, most researchers are hearing, and most of these studies have a similar narrow focus and use similar methodologies) (6/12)

Hearing researchers typically do not have access to the spaces where IS has emerged and thrives the most: all-deaf spaces. They do not necessarily have full access to how deaf people experience IS and the politics surrounding IS + IS interpreting. (7/12)

When deaf people use IS in contexts of learning, with people they have just met for the first time, with friends, when engaging in sports, when laughing together, etc, they use a wide variety of strategies (wider than displayed on the stage or in elicited interactions). (8/12)

When deaf people talk about IS they talk about the politics of using it (or not), about contexts optimal for IS use, about what signs are more or less appropriate in it, about ASL and English use in IS, about when IS should be used and when it shouldn’t be used, and so on. (9/12)

We need more IS research that is deaf led and starts from deaf experiences and practices. While research on IS interpreting + elicited IS use is important, the current body of research should not be seen as normative. (10/12)

International Sign is an incredibly complex and varied phenomenon, with conventionalised and non conventionalised varieties; used in contexts with or without interpreters in the mix. (11/12)

IS politics happens on different levels and scales, in relation to language policies, interpreting, and is tied up with different forms of privilege. We need carefully-researched and well-balanced studies to set a firm foundation on which other research can be built. (12/12)