FROM UNIVERSITY TO EMPLOYMENT: WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION BARRIERS FACED BY DEAF GRADUATES IN PAKISTAN

Abstract

Background: Despite possessing university qualifications, Deaf graduates in Pakistan continue to encounter communication-related barriers during recruitment, workplace participation, and career advancement. Limited access to Pakistan Sign Language (PSL) interpreters, spoken-language-based organizational practices, and inadequate workplace accommodations may restrict their ability to demonstrate professional competence and participate equally.

Objective: This study explored communication barriers experienced by Deaf university graduates during recruitment and employment, examined workplace communication challenges, and assessed the availability and effectiveness of PSL interpreters and other communication accommodations in Pakistan.

Methods: A qualitative exploratory, multi-perspective research design was employed. The sample comprised 28 participants, including 18 Deaf university graduates and 10 employers, human resource officers, or supervisors with direct experience of recruiting or working with Deaf graduates. Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling. Separate semi-structured interviews were conducted with both groups. Interviews with Deaf graduates were conducted in PSL with support from a qualified interpreter, while employer interviews were conducted in Urdu and English. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The two datasets were initially analysed separately and subsequently compared through a thematic matrix.

Results: The analysis of Deaf graduates’ interviews generated four major themes: communication barriers during recruitment, exclusion from workplace communication, limited and inconsistent communication accommodations, and restricted career progression accompanied by repeated self-advocacy. Employers’ interviews produced five themes related to inaccessible recruitment practices, reliance on informal written communication, inconsistent provision of accommodations, limited organizational policies and awareness, and concerns regarding leadership and client-facing roles. Both groups identified telephone-based screening, absence of qualified PSL interpreters, inaccessible meetings and training sessions, and dependence on coworkers as major barriers. Although employers generally recognized the professional competence of Deaf graduates, accommodations were often informal, irregular, and insufficient for complex or confidential communication.

Conclusion: Workplace disadvantages experienced by Deaf graduates arise primarily from inaccessible organizational systems rather than from a lack of professional ability. Inclusive employment requires accessible recruitment procedures, qualified and confidential PSL interpretation, appropriate assistive technologies, Deaf-awareness training, dedicated accessibility budgets, formal organizational policies, and equal access to training, leadership, and promotion opportunities.