Springer Nature has retracted a book chapter which critics say was plagued with “extremely offensive and outdated” statements about the deaf community.
The chapter, “Literature Review on Sign Language Generation,” was published in September 2022 as part of Data Management, Analytics and Innovation: Proceedings of ICDMAI 2022 (International Conference on Data Management, Analytics and Innovation). The authors, five researchers at the Cummins College of Engineering for Women in Pune, India, attempted to review work on sign language translation – specifically with artificial intelligence and machine learning.
From the abstract:
The deaf and dumb community uses sign language to communicate. Sign language is a language of signs including facial expressions and not of spoken words. It is a visual mode of communication. The position of hands, the movement of fingers and the expressions on the face play a vital role in sign language. Sign languages have a very limited set of words. The grammar is difficult to understand. On the contrary, spoken languages across the globe have a rich vocabulary. It is difficult for signers to understand a spoken language. There is a need to develop a system that establishes a link between spoken and sign languages. Translating from spoken languages to sign languages is a challenging task. This paper presents the state-of-the work that has been done in the field of translating English (a spoken language) to Indian Sign Language.
When referring to members of the deaf community, the terms “deaf” and “hard of hearing” are widely accepted, according to the National Association of the Deaf. The “deaf and dumb” phrasing used in the abstract, however, is the “granddaddy of all negative labels pinned on deaf and hard of hearing people,” according to the association.
Soon after publication, the paper’s abstract received sharp criticism on Twitter:
Springer Nature’s official account replied on September 29, two days after the original tweet that drew attention to the article:
The paper was retracted on November 19. The chapter had multiple issues, according to the retraction notice:
The Series Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the use of inappropriate language and incorrect statements regarding the deaf community and sign language users. There was a lack of collaboration between the authors and the community described in the article. The authors apologize for any harm caused by these mistakes. Additionally, Figs. 1 and 6 contain materials that have been previously published in [1] and [2], respectively, but the citations and licence statements are missing in the figure legends. The authors have stated that they did not obtain appropriate permissions to reuse these figures.
All authors agree to this retraction.
The corresponding author, the series editor, and the book editor have not responded to requests for comment.
In an emailed statement to Retraction Watch, a spokesperson for Springer wrote:
Springer has a publishing contract with ICDMAI (International Conference on Data Management, Analytics & Innovation) for their conference proceedings. The conference proceeding in question was part of a series for the Applied Sciences programme, published in September 2022.
On notification of this paper, it was looked into as a matter of priority by the Springer Nature editorial team, and was subsequently retracted in line with COPE guidelines, with the full support of editors and researchers involved.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is one of our highest strategic priorities at Springer Nature and we are committed to ensuring that we play an active role in promoting and celebrating DEI across our company and through our publications and activities. We also have editorial guidelines in place to encourage authors, reviewers and editors to ensure that they respect the dignity and rights of groups of people in their work and publications.
The Springer spokesperson confirmed the external criticism coincided with their own inquiry:
We saw the notification of the paper and it was looked into in line with COPE and our editorial guidelines for authors.
There was also one external contact that enquired which happened at the same time as our internal conversations.
The deaf community has criticized Springer Nature before for publishing offensive language. The publisher retracted another conference paper in 2021 for using similarly insensitive terminology and neglecting to involve experts in sign languages.
Last year, an article published in the Journal of ICT Standardization by River Publishers was withdrawn and republished, and the original title, “Sign Language Recognition for Deaf and Dumb People Using Convolution Neural Network” altered, after an email exchange between three academics and the editors and authors.
Rain Bosworth, one of the academics who pushed for those changes, said the Springer Nature chapter that was just retracted contained unsubstantiated claims that play into misinformation about the deaf community.
“It claims deaf people are helpless, and communicating with us is fraught with difficulties,” Bosworth, a deaf experimental psychologist at the Rochester Institute of Technology, told us.
The abstract’s claim that “the grammar is difficult to understand” in sign languages is only true “if you don’t know it,” Bosworth argued.
“I felt quite upset and shocked that deaf people and sign languages would be described in such a way in this day and age,” said Kate Rowley, a deaf linguistics researcher at University College London. “They used extremely offensive and outdated terms.”
Rowley also condemned the abstract’s claims that sign languages have a “limited set of words” compared to spoken languages which “have a rich vocabulary”.
“These statements are false,” she wrote in an email. “Sign languages have a rich vocabulary and complex grammatical systems – equally as complex as spoken languages.”
Both critics agreed the flawed assertions might have been avoided through collaboration with members of the deaf community – an oversight that was singled out in the paper’s retraction notice.
“Deaf people who are experts in linguistics should have been a part of this,” Bosworth said. “The best thing that scientists who study deaf people can do is INCLUDE deaf consultants and even deaf team members who are involved in the research progress.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Most of these criticisms are either wrong or just based on opinion.
““It claims deaf people are helpless,” I doubt that.
“and communicating with us is fraught with difficulties,” Communicating with anybody who uses a different language is fraught with difficulties.
“the abstract’s claims that sign languages have a “limited set of words” compared to spoken languages” Demonstrably true, just like many spoken languages have more words than others.
“which “have a rich vocabulary”. Matter of opinion.
You mean the criticisms posted by the authors of the original statement, right?
It sounds as though you are saying the people reading this drivel are wrong in their warranted criticisms, especially since what the original authors said were, in fact, opinion colored with ignorance.
The word police are storming science journals again, at the behest of the feelings czars. Free speech is more than simply the speech your feeling agree with.
Excellent insight. Growth is painful but the truth must be faced in order for the DEAF community to evolve.
Except in this case.
Scholars should know by now 2023, using the word dumb is extremely offensive. Using the word mute is also offensive but not in the same way. Deaf people are not dumb or mute. Most can speak or can make sounds with their vocal cords. Many choose not to because of the stigma attached to the noises they make or how their speech is affected by their lack of hearing.
Additionally, it’s insulting to imply the written word is superior and rich and sign language is not. If anything sign language is superior in efficiency because of the lack of fill words that make written language much longer and more complicated. As someone who grew up with Deaf parents, my opinion is that ASL is much richer and beautiful because of the use of the entire body. It’s like watching a ballerina dance to music. Poetry in motion. I do know to the hearing with no ASL experience that literal interpretation does sound stunted and short. It’s perception and understanding that makes the opinion over which language is richer.
Speaking of perception and understanding – this is not about free speech at all. Free speech is allowing the media to tell the truth about news worthy events and people, including the government.
Free speech is about publicly disagreeing with the government without fear of consequences.
Free speech is not an open and unlimited pass to overtly and rudely insult an entire group/culture of citizens and to publish wrong information and then refuse to retract it when they have had their publications vetted and found wrong/untrue. That’s called slander by the law – why do you think there are so many successful slander lawsuits in the first place? It’s not about hurting feelings, those are the loser lawsuits against slander. Feelings have little to do with the truth. The truth (not feelings) is covered by free speech not bigoted untrue statements – designed or said to hurt feelings.
Please reevaluate your
“Retracted because it was false and offensive”. Question: is it even important that it was false?
It is important to retract solely because they plagiarized images. Feelings are not a measure of falseness, therefore every criticism other than the plagarization is woke-censorship – a Marxist tool that should be soundly rejected in the STEM fields… lest we mimic the Workers’ Party of Korea.
You seem to think it’s fine that the retracted article was false, which is an interesting take when discussing an academic publication.
Yes. Because Free Speech covers truth. Not slander.
I think you’ve missed a subtly in their (incorrect and offensive) phrasing. “Deaf and dumb” might be a mistranslation of the concept of deafness and muteness. It includes people who have difficulty hearing and people who have difficulty with verbal communication. I think the modern term is “deaf and mute”, but “sign language users” would be the best choice for an academic paper. I’ve had a signed conversation with someone on the other side of a window before.
” “sign language users” would be the best choice for an academic paper.”
No, that’s very inaccurate. Anybody can use sign language, and not everybody who is deaf uses sign language.
Except mute is also a general untruth applied to all Deaf people. It implies they cannot speak. A true mute does not have the use of their vocal cords. A Deaf person might be mute because they are aware hearing people make fun of their speech (often distorted compared to hearing speech). A deaf person might be mute because they never learned speech. It was not taught to them. Not that they are too dumb to learn speech. Most modern Deaf can speak using their vocal cords with speech therapy. Previous history – the Deaf were simply not taught. Speech is learned by imitating. If you can’t hear speech you can’t mimic it.
Forgot to say, a true mute can usually hear. Hearing and talking are two separate functions
I thought this was an update on that “deaf and dumb” “sign language translation” conference proceedings paper by Pune researchers that was retracted by Springer Nature; nope, turns out there is *another* signal analysis/data processing conference with attendees from a *different* Pune university producing poorly-written papers on sign language translation using offensive and outdated terminology!
India has its own dialect of English. Is it possible that some words referring to deaf people just aren’t as considered as stigmatized there? I just find it hard to imagine that what words are considered stigmatized is universal, when it’s such a fluid and culturally-sensitive concept.
Read my comments.
“The deaf community has criticized Springer Nature”
But who speaks for the “community”? Are there such a thing as a unanimous “community”? And who elects the “spoke persons’ of a “community?