<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;"><b class="">CALL FOR ABSTRACTS FOR AN EDITED VOLUME<o:p class=""></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;"><b class="">Deadline: 6 March 2017</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;"><b class="">RECOGNIZING SIGN LANGUAGES: </b><b class="">AN INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS FOR SIGN LANGUAGE LEGISLATION AND THEIR OUTCOMES</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><span lang="EN-GB" class="">Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray and Rachel McKee, editors</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="" style="text-align: justify;">Over the past two decades, deaf communities around the world have mobilized for the legal recognition of their sign languages in national laws. Today, over 30 countries have some form of legal recognition of their sign languages and deaf communities in other countries continue to campaign for such recognition. Forms of recognition vary from explicit recognition via constitutional amendment or independent language laws to implicit recognition embedded in other legislation, such as disability access legislation. The content of these laws vary as well, with some giving the language official status whereas others are twinned with access measures. In some countries, deaf community members and policy makers have begun evaluating the outcomes of this legislation, measured against deaf community goals and the experience of other language groups. There is a need for a comprehensive overview of the type and impact of different national laws on sign language, as well as the campaigns leading up to these laws.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="" style="text-align: justify;">This edited collection surveys national advocacy campaigns for the legal recognition of sign languages around the world and the legislation which sometimes resulted from these campaigns. Each chapter will focus on a country’s campaign, its outcomes in terms of the type of sign language legislation achieved versus desired outcomes and deaf community expectations for this legislation. Chapters will cover strategies used in achieving passage of this legislation, including alliance building and negotiations with governments and other stakeholders, as well an account of barriers confronted in the legislative process and how these were or were not overcome. The legislation will be summarized and chapters will look at the work undertaken in the implementation of the law, including language promotion bodies and the policy-making processes post-passage. This includes evaluation of the success of the legislation vis-à-vis deaf community goals. Chapters will set sign language laws within their national settings, with reference to the language policies and the status of other minority languages of that country.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Since this volume looks at deaf community mobilizations towards legislative goals, we encourage contributions from those who worked on sign language recognition campaigns and those with critical insight on post-legislative implementation and evaluation. We invite submissions both from cases where legislation was passed and from cases where legislation is stalled or pending. In this last case, we invite further discussion of the reasons for this situation and possible strategies going forward. The editors look positively on submissions inclusive of deaf researchers and/or deaf people who were involved in the campaigns.</p><div class="" style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 1pt 4pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" class="">Potential contributors should send a one paragraph abstract (max. 200 words) and a three-sentence biography (including previous publications relevant to the book) to <a href="mailto:maartje.demeulder@unamur.be" class="">maartje.demeulder@unamur.be</a> by <u class="">March 6, 2017.</u><b class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" class="">Contributors will be notified of acceptance of their proposals by March 31, 201. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" class="">First draft of chapters will be due for editorial review on September 30, 2017. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" class=""> </span><u class="">Each chapter</u> should follow a similar template and include information about:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""></o:p></p><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><ul class="MailOutline"><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Explicit and implicit language policies of the country.</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Legal status of other languages used in the country.</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Factors influencing the decision to advocate for a sign language law. Why did the deaf community coalesce around this goal?</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">What national and/or extra-national factors influenced the decision to make this a priority?</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Campaigners: who were the core campaigners</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Timeline of the campaign (to date).</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span class="" style="font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Desired outcomes of the campaign.</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">What did campaigners want to see from the legislation: official recognition, increased access, right to sign language acquisition in education, or other</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">What sort of legislation did the campaigners seek to accomplish their goals? (constitutional, independent legislation, legislation as part of language act, or disability legislation (cf. De Meulder 2015)?</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">How was this determined</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span class="" style="font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Arguments used for sign language legislation: why was recognition needed, how was this justified to policymakers and how was “success” measured by the campaigners?</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Strategies used to achieve these outcomes: top-down or bottom-up or both, who was involved, negotiations with government, involvement of deaf community outside the national association, other stakeholders (other language groups).</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Did campaigners draw on a disability model, a language rights model, a deaf cultural minority model or other frames in their arguments to policymakers?</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Discussion of the various barriers confronted during the campaign (and what worked well).</span></li></ul><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p><u class="">For chapters with passed legislation:</u></p><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><ul class="MailOutline"><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Factors which enabled passage. Was coalition building important and if so, with whom? Was the country itself open to minority languages or was it a disability paradigm which enabled passage?</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Brief explanation of the law itself in lay language.</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">(If links are available to the actual legislation please send these to the editors for possible inclusion in online materials).</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Did the final legislation meet the expectations of campaigners and the deaf community?</span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">If not, what was missing and why (if not answered above).</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Implementation: how was this done or how is this planned to take place (with specific attention to the working of sign language boards and councils)? What are the challenges/problems?</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">If applicable: is there any plan to amend/improve the legislation?</span> </li></ul><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u class="">For chapters with legislation stalled or pending:</u></p><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><ul class="MailOutline"><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Further discussion of reasons for lack of implementation.</span></li><li class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Core campaigners strategy going forward</span></li></ul>
<br class=""></body></html>