Deaf Academic Leader's Perspective: A Proposed Framework for Decision-Making Process in Higher Education for Deaf Students

Main Article Content

Dean J Laury


This article examines the question, “How do the intersectional relationships between the dual process, heuristic/bias, and decision-making models manifest in an educational leader’s decision-making framework when the leader possesses a deaf lens?” Perceptions that could have an emotional impact on the decision-making process are shared. Research in the field is discussed and supplemented by the author’s perspectives, experiences, and document analysis to articulate a proposed framework. The goal of implementing the proposed framework is to increase the probability of obtaining better decisions, given that educational leaders with deaf lenses tend to be visually receptive learners who depend on personal and professional philosophy and experience. The selected perceptions and phrases from the intersectional relationship categories forming the proposed framework were based on: A) information (sought and processing), B) time (as phase), and C) emotional responses. In this article, explored is the perspective of an educational leader with a deaf lens that led to potential influences upon the decision-making processes and validation of a new framework. However, the implication of this was that no single decision model is necessary the correct model or is responsible for any outcome. More significantly, the work demonstrated the proposed framework is to help other educational leaders with a deaf lens improve their knowledge, understanding, and perspective of their decisions since those decisions impact stakeholders. This framework and expertise can be beneficial to prospective educational leaders.

Article Details

Reflective Analysis Papers


Acevedo, M., & Krueger, JI. (2004). Two egocentric sources of the decision to vote: The voter’s illusion and the belief in personal relevance. Political Psychology, 25(1), 115-134. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00359.x.
Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1988). Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brent, B. (2012). EDU 515 Decision-making for educational leaders [PowerPoints]. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Business Dictionary. (2018). Decision-making: Definition. Retrieved from
Charan, R. (2006). Conquering a culture of indecision. Harvard Business Review, 8(4), pp. 33-41.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 1-25.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
De Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938-956. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938. (2019). Heuristic. Retrieved from
Dietrich, C. (2010). Decision-making: Factors that influence decision-making, heuristic used, and decision outcomes. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 2(02). Retrieved from http://www.inquireies
Eply, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Psychological Science,17(4), pp. 311-318.
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision making. Public Administration Review, pp. 385-392.
Evans, J. St.B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454-459. DOI:
Fox, C. (2006). The availability heuristic in the classroom: how soliciting more criticism can boot your course ratings. Judgment and Decision-Making, 1(1), pp. 86-90.
Gmelch, W., Burns, J. B., Carroll, J. B., Harris, S., & Wentz, D. (1992). Center for the Study of the Department Chair: 1992 survey. Pullman, WA: Washington State University - Pullman.
Hall, R.H. (1987). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better life decisions. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Decision-making in schools. In Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 316-355). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Hoy, W., & Tarter, C. (2008). Administrators solving the problems of practice (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Jullisson, E.A, Karlsson, N., & Garling, T. (2005). Weighing the past and future in decision-making. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 561-575. DOI: 10.1080/09541440440000159.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Klein, G. (1998). The recognition-primed decision model. In Sources of power: How people make decisions (pp. 15-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Laury, D. (2016). Which associate degree programs should NTID’s Department of Engineering Studies offer? A decision analysis dissertation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-99.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Noppe, R., Yager, S., Webb, C., & Sheng, B. (2013). Decision-making and problem-solving practices of Superintendents confronted by district dilemmas. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 1-18. ISSN: 2155-9635.
Ridley, D. (2nd Ed.) (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russo, E, & Schoemaker, P. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), pp. 7-17.
Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. doi:10.2307/1884852
Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672-695. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and organization, 1, 39-60.
Trueblood, J. (2013). A Dynamic Dual-Process Model of Decision-making Under Uncertainty. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35. Retrieved from
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London, England: Sage.