Many thanks for the opportunity to participate in the discussion.

I will take a stand on the respective elements of the statement:

"Those who identify as Deaf and are members of the Deaf community use sign language to communicate".

This statement, the first one, is crucial, because it is necessary to recognize the fundamental fact of using sign language as a means of communication for the Deaf

"This cohort is at risk of being marginalized by research activities".

The standard caution used in research must be increased in the case of the Deaf, at least because the Deaf deserve to have their opinions and what they have to communicate taken into account, and the question of communication on a pragmatic and cross-cultural level is actually the essence of the issue

"These activities create cultural, linguistic and ethical challenges".

In fact, this is a case that focuses interdisciplinary topics

Within the Deaf community, being Deaf is a cultural identity rather than a disability, completely contradicting the medical model that sees the Deaf as 'broken' and needs 'to be fixed'.

First, the medical principle of primum non nocere is worth recalling here. Next, with full respect for medicine, the dignity of the human person transcends medical definitions because it is infinite. And finally, to the extent that our knowledge of the world and linguistics allows us to know and understand the richness of modalities in the communication process, we are willing to accept the point of view according to which sign languages are perfectly natural

"Of course, there are three groups of advocates":

As in a good lawsuit, you should have good advocates. The only thing you need to do is ensure the integrity of this dispute

* "one group advocates for the implantation of CIs so that the child learns to 'speak and hear'".

It all depends on the underlying presuppositions. The first question is whether one should assume that someone is supposed to learn to speak and hear

"Unfortunately, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution".

Fortunately. Life is more complex than the models that describe it

* "The second group advocates using a hearing aid and teaching the child to lip-read and speak because 'it is a hearing world and they need to fit in'. Yes, this does not work well across the board".

To those who do not believe in the existence of these difficulties: let them practice lip reading.

* "the third group of advocates are those who provide children with the tools in sign language to develop their literacy. The first two groups align with the medical model, and the last aligns with the social model"

That's roughly how it looks like

"When researching the Deaf community, does ethics create a barrier, and if so, what are those barriers?"

To treat people with kindness and respect, and not succumb to the fever of producing too many scientific articles would be a simple rule of thumb

"If not a barrier or challenge, which way could ethics open the door to researching this minority?"

Excellent choice of word, door

"For example, anonymity within a focus group is impossible as they would see the others. However, within an interview, anonymity might be possible. I say might because within a small cohort, like the Deaf community, some are happy to participate however, they might be recognized by the comments made during their interview. Another issue of anonymity that comes up with this cohort is the use of an interpreter who is provided with the training not to disclose what their clients have said; however, the researcher cannot guarantee non-disclosure. This is why it is impossible to say that anonymity is guaranteed; it cannot be guaranteed".

Everything depends on prior consent, preferably in writing. Such consent should clearly specify the terms and scopes of activities. Who has access to certain personal data and on what terms, should also be defined. A confidentiality clause defining the non-disclosure of certain data is also practical. Who would have access to research results, whether this would differentiate between doctoral students and others, or not, etc., are technical issues to be determined. When in doubt, it is good to be on the side of the law. Therefore, any, after all, sensitive issues of this type can be consulted by data protection specialists, as well as the Deaf. In the case of data protection, each country is trying to address these issues in a similar way. As far as I can guess, in Ireland, for example, the appropriate place for such questions is the https://www.dataprotection.ie/

"I would appreciate your engaging with this topic to ensure my research is ethically sound and to provide a robust discussion. As with all research, we use the research of others before us, and we are stepping stones for those who come behind us".

I hope I helped a little. The pleasure is all mine. Good luck with your research

Thank you for your contribution to this thread Tomasz. It is really interesting.