Developing an Understanding of Parent–Teacher Partnerships in Schools for the Deaf in Ghana

ABSTRACT

This study examined the nature of partnerships that exist between parents and teachers, the attributes that influence these partnerships, and the strategies that can enhance the partnerships between parents and teachers in two schools for the deaf in the Central Region of Ghana. We conducted focus group discussions with 12 teachers and had one-to-one interviews with 13 parents. Participants described the partnerships as implicit and also indicated that the major associated attributes which affect their partnerships were parents’ and teachers’ role construction, neglect, sociocultural influences, and technology. The study suggested home visits, proactive outreaches, parent-teacher conferences, training, use of technology and instituting reward systems for parents and teachers who show dedication as ways of enhancing partnerships in schools for the deaf.

KEYWORDS:

• Deaf students
• partnership
• parents
• teachers

Introduction

Parent-Teacher-Partnerships (PTP) have a substantial and lasting influence on a child’s success in school (Bailey, 2017; Martinez, 2015; Paris, 2016) and the most effective schools are considered as being ones that encourage and support the involvement of the home and school in the education of children (Grant & Ray, 2010; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Salter, Swanwick, & Pearson, 2017). Parents and teachers are major stakeholders because a good partnership between the family and the school promotes the total development of children’s educational and developmental outcomes (Daniel, 2015; Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders, 2012). Therefore, parents’ and teachers’ knowledge of the partnership, barriers to effective partnerships as well as how to promote effective partnership is essential in developing beneficial partnerships between the school and the home. Various policies in the Global North have emphasised the role of PTPs in schools since 1975 (Coots, 2007). For example, the ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy in the USA encourages the establishment of partnerships between parents and schools. In the UK, the ‘Children’s Plan’, also emphasises the key role which parents play in educating children, and the ‘Schooling Strategy’ in New Zealand, highlights improving involvement of parent and family in educating children (Hornby, 2011). Although these policies exist, research data reports that concerning learners with disabilities, PTPs are poor, resulting in the non-involvement of parents in designing interventions such as an individualised education plan (IEP) (Al-Hassan & Gardner, 2002)

Whereas in the Global North these policies serve as a guide in ensuring effective PTPs in schools, it is different for Low- and-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) in the South (Knoors, Brons, & Marschark, 2019). Ghana is an LMIC having 16 administrative regions with over 16 schools for the deaf (Fobi & Oppong, 2019). However, little research is available to make known the nature of the PTPs in supporting students’ learning. As a result, many parents of learners with disabilities who try to involve themselves in their children’s education appear adversarial, demanding, and hostile by the educational system (Fobi & Oppong, 2019; Stoner & Angell, 2006) and therefore may feel unwelcomed in their children’s school (Hsiao, Higgins, Pierce, Whitby, & Tandy, 2017). Therefore, more research concerning the home and the school is needed so that both parties will see the need for working together and the positive outcomes that could emerge from these partnerships (Hodge & Runswick‐Cole, 2008; Kasahara & Turnbull, 2005; Rogers, 2011).

Types of PTPs

PTPs could be home-based partnerships – when parents play roles such as being the co-teachers, carryovers and reinforcers of what schools teach (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Sheridan et al., 2017, 2017). PTP could also be a school-based partnership when parents are monitors of children’s academic progress by creating a good relationship with the school (Gadagbui, 2012). This enables parents to monitor the behaviour of children, academic progress and financial commitment to the school. In Ghana, the commonest form of PTPs in basic and secondary schools is the Parent-Teacher-Associations (PTA). With this model, parents and teachers meet in a designated location (often in a school) to discuss issues concerning wellbeing, student support, infrastructure development, changes in curriculum and issues regarding students’ preparation for exam. It is also common for schools to discuss the results and performances of students in an external exam such as the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) or West Africa Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) during PTA meetings. Currently, there is a gap in the knowledge on nature, types of challenges that affect PTP in schools for the deaf.

Some theoretical models have explained the positive influence of the home and the school on the development of children (Epstein, 1995, 2010; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2005). This study is situated in the Bioecological system theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992) which explains the complex interdependence of inseparable systems or environments, including the school and the family, which have a bi-directional influence on every aspect of the development of a child who is deaf (Gadagbui, 2012). Within the model, the micro-systemic level comprises specific settings in which children live (e.g. home, school). At the mesosystemic level, there are interactions among microsystems and these include the reciprocal relationships that exist between the home and the school. Improving bi-directional interactions between the home and school at the mesosystemic level promotes positive behaviour across settings for children including learners with disabilities (Santiago, Garbacz, Beattie, & Moore, 2016). Interventions that target the mesosystem, such as the home-school partnerships, are thus associated with better student learning and behaviour.

Importance and Types of PTP

PTP can be explained as a cooperative relationship which is created and developed between people who have agreed to be jointly responsible and have been associated with improved educational outcomes for children in rural areas and developing countries (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Sheridan et al., 2017, 2017). This partnership is characterised by a two-way collaboration involving rules, mutual respect, and trust between the home and the school. Many educators have recognised the importance of high-quality parent-teacher partnerships and have frequently taken steps to foster strong relationships with the parents of their students (Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007; Warren & Quintanar, 2005). Some authors argue that effective PTP substantially improves students’ success in and out of school, both for developing children (Sheridan et al., 2012; Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2007) and for learners with disabilities (Mautone et al., 2012). Effective PTPs also promote positive outcomes (Epstein & Sanders, 2000) such as children’s regular school attendance, higher academic performance, higher standardised test scores, higher homework completion and improved behaviour (Alameda-Lawson, 2014; Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005), higher aspirations for postsecondary education and career development (Caplan, Hall, Lubin, & Fleming, 1997) improved social competence (Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001) and lower rates of adolescent high-risk behaviour (Resnick et al., 1997). Calderon (2000) assessed 28 deaf students on the impact of school-based, teacher-rated parental involvement and found out that when parents are involved in children’s school-based education program, it is a significant positive predictor to early reading skills and therefore concluded that when parents and teachers work together, students benefit both socially and academically. This study is set apart from Calderon’s study because whereas Calderon conducted his study in the Global North on the impact of PTP on early reading, this study was based on the Global South context to examine the role of PTP in supporting deaf students learning.

Cox-Peterson (2010) suggested that educational partnerships could be grouped as explicit partnerships, implicit partnerships, and null partnerships. Implicit partnerships and explicit partnerships are the most common types of partnerships that exist in regular schools and special schools in Ghana. In an explicit partnership, schools, families, and communities explicitly outline and document written goals, strategies, and outcomes related to enhancing the education of children. Results of the partnerships and other outcomes thus can be appropriately measured since there is accountability between parties. Explicit partnerships can, however, be rigid when there is an absence of role switching between parents and teachers and could lead to fatigue.

In an implicit partnership, schools, families, and communities discuss common goals and ideals, but there is no specific goal, strategy, or outcome in place. There is ambiguity in the definition of roles, and also, there is no documentation of roles, strategies and outcomes, therefore, this could lead to parents or teachers ignoring specific roles. It has the benefit of making alterations to goals, strategies and outcomes. Implicit partnerships could lead to disputes (Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008).

In a null partnership (NP), there is no communication related to specific goals, strategies, or outcomes. Parents and teachers go by their respective desired(subjective) goals for the child without consulting other parties. These goals and strategies, thus, may be subjective as they are not agreed upon and could lead to educational underachievement. NPs could have negative effects on teachers, parents and children. There is also no accountability on the part of the parties and the efficiency of the parent-teacher partnership cannot be measured. NPs are however uncommon in the educational circles in Ghana.

Attributes that Influence Types of PTP in Schools

Several attributes affect the smooth development of the PTP. Christenson (2004) reported that socioeconomic status of parents, family dynamics, level of parental education, cultural difference and communication are common challenges that exist between parents and teachers who wish to promote effective partnerships. Other attributes that could affect PTP include the absence of rules or strategies that spell out how partnerships should be formed and maintained.

PTP requires extensive support, mutual collaboration and participation of parents and teachers that can lead to successful learning of children (Avvisati, Besbas, & Guyon, 2010; Gadagbui, 2012). Teachers and parent cultural differences, cultural values, educational level, socio-economic difference, language, socio-cultural contexts, child and teacher invitation, and parent-teacher role construction has also been found to affect PTP (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012). Parents’ role construction refers to how they view their responsibility towards their child’s education (Walker et al., 2005) and it may be parent-focused – when parents assume the primary responsibility for their children’s educational outcome such as listening to children read and supervision of homework, school-focused (when parents feel the school is primarily responsible for the children’s educational outcome but they get involved) or partnership focused – when parents and teachers work together and share responsibility for the child’s educational outcome (Hornby, 2011; Reed, Jones, Walker, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2000). In parental role construction, parents may be overtasked if they are inclined to assume that their roles are restricted to the provision of shelter, financial and emotional support for deaf students (Keyes, 2000), while teachers are responsible for the provision of educational support for their children.

Other factors that can affect PTP are parents’ cultural perspectives of the cause of disability (Lamorey, 2002) and lack of familiarity with the educational system (Al-Hassan & Gardner, 2002). Technological dynamics such as the increasing reliance on technology, the changing nature of work, a more diverse population, and a more service-oriented society has a consequent toll on the development of effective partnerships between parents and teachers of deaf students.

Strategies to Enhance Parent–Teacher Partnerships

Christenson (2004) stated that teachers should disseminate information to parents and work collaboratively with parents when making decisions concerning the educational practices of children. Due to the diversity of parents and busy work schedules of parents, there is a need to have other strategies like the use of technology as possible ways to meet a variety of needs (Olmstead, 2013). Proactive outreach could also develop effective interactions between parents and teacher and also strengthen their partnerships (Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004). Other strategies such as conferences, home visits, parents supporting in the classroom as volunteers, monitoring home learning activities and family-school networking can strengthen partnerships (Epstein, 1995; Kocayörük, 2016).

Since there is a dearth of research into PTP, parents and teachers may have difficulties in establishing well-defined strategies for promoting and sustaining effective PTP. This study sought to develop an understanding by providing empirical data on the nature of PTP for deaf students in the schools for the deaf in Ghana. These research questions were addressed in the study.

What is the nature of the partnerships that exist between parents and teachers of deaf students at schools for the deaf?

What attributes influence partnerships between parents and teachers at schools for the deaf?

What can be done to enhance the partnerships between parents and teachers of deaf students?

Methodology

23 parents and 16 teachers were contacted to be participants of the study. Out of the potential participants, 13 parents agreed to be interviewed one-to-one, and 12 teachers agreed to participate in two focus group discussions. The 12 teachers were selected based on these criteria; (a) must be a teacher in a basic school for the deaf (primary or Junior High School,) (b) must have visited a deaf student and his family at home (c) must be a regular attendant at the PTA meeting which is organised at least once in an academic year. We identified and contacted individually parents of deaf students who attended PTA meetings regularly in the schools. All parents who participated in the study had a minimum qualification of middle school certificate (MSC) ‘O’ level or its equivalent and could communicate in the English language. Therefore, conducting the interviews in English did not cause any communication problems.

Each focus group consisted of six teachers. Focus group one consisted of three teachers in lower primary and three in upper primary or Junior High School from school A, while teachers in focus group two consisted of three teachers in lower primary and three from upper primary or Junior High School from school B. The interview protocol which was set out and used for the study required that a) all conversations were tape-recorded for later transcription, b) one question would be asked at a time and probed if the response to the question did not provide enough details c) asking the respondents to explain their replies d) taking notes and e) making observations and recording them during the interview. All the interviews were conducted in Ghanaian English and later transcribed and validated by sending transcripts of interviews to participants electronically via email or WhatsApp for them to confirm whether the transcripts reflected their views.

Study Location

Participants were from two schools for the deaf located in the Central Region of Ghana. School A is a residential school for the deaf while School B is a non-residential school for deaf students. School A is located in Cape Coast, which is the Central Regional capital with a population of 169,894 which forms 7.7% of the Central Region’s total population (Ghana Statistical Service, 2012). School B is located at Agona Swedru in the Central Region, which is the capital town of the Agona Municipality, with a population of 40,000 (http://agonawest.ghanadistricts.gov.gh/).

Data Analysis

Data analysis was done in three phases: preparation, organising and reporting (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In the preparation phase, we tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data after transcription of interviews: listening over to the audiotapes alongside the active reading of the transcripts, making notes and highlighting issues of interest, labelling and defining labels based on their similarities (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Graneheim & Lundman, 2003; Mayring, 2004). Identification of these issues enabled initial thematic frameworks to be created. These initial themes had emerged from and were guided by the research questions (Harding & Whitehead, 2013; Schreier, 2014) and it formed a foundational thematic framework for the development of new themes which emerged from data analysis. The final phase involved grouping data into sub-themes and regrouping similar sub-themes to form major themes to address the research questions raised in the study. Data were indexed and charted within thematic frameworks from the preparation phase. Finally, the data and themes were reviewed and refined, until associations and explanations could be drawn from the definitive concepts or themes. These were referred to as major themes of the study and were used as findings for the study.

Results

What Is the Nature of the Partnership that Exists between Parents and Teachers in Schools for the Deaf?

Participants were interviewed to determine the nature of the partnerships that exist between parents and teachers in schools for the deaf. Six teachers indicated that there were no explicitly written goals, strategies and outcomes for parents and teachers when it comes to partnerships. For instance, it emerged that specific learning outcomes of individual deaf student were hardly discussed during PTA meetings with parents. It was also revealed that partnerships were better during PTA meetings than during normal school visits. This can be explained by the occurrence in which during PTA meetings, teachers and parents were more open and willing to discuss ways of enhancing PTP than on regular school visit days when parents are more focused on spending time with their wards.

We have no explicit written goals, strategies and outcomes for us the teachers and parents. Aside from the target that is set in the curriculum, I do not have any other discussion with parents regarding individual targets for their learning. (Teacher B, School A)

The parents are always in a hurry to leave school, even if they come for the PTA meeting. As a teacher, I do not even have the chance to talk to them. Besides, some of them send the older siblings of the students so they would sign an attendance book and avoid being fined for absenteeism. (Teacher I, School B)

The interviews also revealed that issues such as students’ welfare, and students’ upbringing, financial problems of parents, family issues and how they affect the education of deaf students were discussed during PTA meetings but not during regular visits of parents to the school.

I usually gather my student’s parents after PTA and talk to them about their children’s welfare in school, that is basic things such as school uniform, shoes, provisions, that their children need in order to enjoy their educational life. But I do not get the majority of the parents to talk to, just a few of them. (Teacher A, School A)

I mostly talk to parents about the strengths and weaknesses of their children. I advise parents of some students who are identified not to be good in the classroom but good in handy works to be taken to the vocational department. I didn’t know I had to write every discussion down so we discuss as and when it comes up (Teacher G, School B)

Interestingly, one parent suggested that because they did not discuss any goals or outcomes with teachers, sometimes it resulted in disagreements.

I sometimes disagree with the teachers in the school about some decisions they take concerning my child. It is like they do not consult me for anything. I think they do that because they think we are not attending meetings so they can take decisions without consulting us (Parent A)

To summarise, all participants agreed that a level of partnership existed between parents and teachers, however, the interviews revealed that teachers sometimes talked about common goals and ideas with parents, whenever they came into contact, but these goals, strategies and outcomes were not clearly stated and documented. The next section of the analysis focuses on the attributes that influence parents and teachers.

What Attributes Influence Partnerships between Parents and Teachers in Schools for the Deaf?

We interviewed teachers and parents to find out how their work life affect PTPs in schools for the deaf.

Most parents do not understand the responsibilities and roles of the parents in educating deaf children, as a result, they do not even know that they have to come for discussions with teachers (Teacher J, School B)

Most often, parents do not show up if you request to see them for a discussion. They wait till the PTA meeting before they come to you. It seems they have left the upbringing of the deaf students to the teachers (Teacher A, School A)

Parent C and Teachers (C and H) also attributed the lack of collaborations to limited knowledge in the handling of technology gadgets, and also cultural beliefs.

They have created a WhatsApp group and they have a discussion there, but I cannot operate WhatsApp. How do I contribute to anything? So, I have to wait till the PTA meeting before I understand what is going on. (Parent C)

Some parents have a belief that their children are a curse or punishments from the gods because of their disability, such parent is very difficult to talk to. They, however, see you the teacher as a supernatural being that can cater to the child. (Teacher C, School B)

Other societal influences such as stress from work and personal life issues affect the PTP.

Due to my personal life issues which I cannot say here; I nearly disrespected one of my student’s father during a PTA meeting when I wanted to discuss his child’s attitude at home (Teacher H, School B).

Parents (G and E) affirmed that societal forces such as stress from work, marital issues, personal life issues, and pressure from family affect the partnership between parent and teachers.

I usually get annoyed because it seems the teacher wants us to do everything. They will keep calling you at the least instance of opportunity. They want to shift all their burden to the parent (Parent G)

The pressure and demands from the family sometimes make me forget I have a child in the boarding school, not to talk about calling the teacher. (Parent E).

To summarise, the responses from the participants show that societal influences such as their personal life experience and the stress from their works affect PTP.

What Can Be Done to Enhance the Partnerships between Parents and Teachers in Schools for the Deaf?

Views of parents and teachers were sought on how to improve partnerships in schools for the deaf. Teachers noted that for PTP to improve, parents, teachers, and the school need to work as a team.

The parental visit must be regular; parent must visit their wards at least twice or once a month so teachers can interact with them frequently. Such parents can be rewarded by the school during meetings (Teacher B, School A).

The school should organise training programmes for us during PTA meetings, at least two or three times every term. (Teacher I, School B).

Participants opined that training of parents and teachers and a home visit is a major factor that can improve PTP, but the major challenge behind this exercise is that the majority of parents do not stay near the school premises, so visiting them will be expensive. Teachers affirm that only students who lived close to the school can benefit from home visits.

The school used to embark on outreach programmes some time ago; we visited some places within the Region where the students lived. This was done whenever the school was about to resume. I suggest such a programme be brought back to aid the home visit since teachers can’t visit each student. (Teacher A, School A).

Parents confirmed that a home visit will be a very interesting thing for teachers to do. It will make their children thrilled and encourage them to learn, it will also allow parents to share more ideas with teachers since they will have enough time to talk. Unlike talking to the teaching at the school, especially during PTA meetings, when the teacher may not have enough time to talk since he has to attend to other parents.

I will be very happy if the teacher visits me at home, I think I will feel more comfortable discussing issues with him than in school. (Parent F).

I think my child will be happy to see his teacher visit us at home and will also get the opportunity to interact with him. (Parent D).

However, some teachers further commented that technological tools such as mobile phones could be used to improve partnerships between parents, where parents and teachers could share ideas by talking on the phone. Other technological tools like radios can be used to spread information.

I suggest all parents should be added to the WhatsApp platform of the school. We can hold discussions there so that we do not travel always. Parents and teachers can share information and as well socialise, but the majority of the parents are not using smartphones. (Teacher H, School B).

I suggest information centres in certain communities within the region can be used to reach parents, an announcement can be made to give parents prior information on any activities that the school wishes to invite parents, for example, PTA meetings (Teacher D, School A).

Some of the parents stated that the PTP could be strengthened if the school can organise programs to support the PTA meetings.

I think our partnership with teachers needs to be improved. Parents must sometimes call teachers to check up on them, but not only do so when there is a problem or something to talk about. I think when we do this, the teachers will keep an extra eye on our children. (Parent B).

I suggest the PTA meetings should be made three times in a term, one at the beginning of the term, middle of the term and at the end of the term. And also, teachers and parent should sit together during PTA meetings, almost all the teachers sit at the back during PTA meeting which is not good. Parents and teachers must sit together so they can interact. (Parent C).

From the responses, it could be learned that PTPs are not as strong as one will like and therefore steps need to be taken to strengthen the partnership. Parents, teachers and the school must come together and work. Programs like speech and prize-giving day, day opening and the parent-teacher conference should be organised by the school to bridge the gap. Parents coming from far places can communicate with teachers on the phone whiles those around can be visited once in a while by the teacher.

Discussion

This study examined the nature, attributes that affect PTP and what is required to enhance PTP in schools for the deaf in Ghana. To arrive at a common understanding of which roles parents and teachers must play respectively in the development of a child, there is the need for child-specific goals and objectives to be set, clearly stated and documented by both parents and teachers which can be done through effective PTP (Cox-Peterson, 2010). The importance of establishing an effective home-school partnership is supported by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory which provides a conceptual framework for parental involvement and training (Kocayörük, 2016). Interactions within the microsystem would thus typically consist of personal relationships with family members, classmates, teachers and how these groups or individuals interact with the children to affect their development. The system ecological theory therefore can predict that when parent-teacher partnerships are high and effective, there is will be positive outcomes for students.

Implicit partnerships and a lack of written goals and outcomes could lead to disputes (Mueller et al., 2008). Therefore, teachers and parents need to develop and document measurable goals and outcomes, so that they can monitor the strength of partnerships evaluate students’ academic achievements (Bateman & Herr, 2011). When there are clearly defined and explicitly stated goals between parents and teachers, it leads to more positive outcomes for deaf children (Cox-Kocayörük, 2016; Peterson, 2010).

In this study, teachers mentioned role construction, neglect and lack of collaboration, societal influences, culture and illiteracy as the attributes that influence PTP (Avvisati et al., 2010; Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Christenson, 2004). Parents of deaf students reported that they sometimes missed meetings because of work schedule so we can explain that teachers of deaf students feel unappreciated by parents when parents show a lack of interest (Gross et al., 2003; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001) and they do not show up to meetings, don’t read the materials sent by teachers, and when parents do not volunteer for school activities (Keyes, 2000). Peterson (2010) has suggested that when teachers feel a lack of commitment on the part of parents, they may limit parental participation and partnerships by restricting parents’ roles to monitoring assignments and attending meetings. Our study also revealed that teachers were willing to improve their partnership with parents if both parties respect and fulfil their roles. Therefore, parents and teachers can work together if they assume their primary responsibilities (Hornby, 2011; Reed et al., 2000).

Finally, based on the perceptions of parents and teachers, regular training of parents and teachers, rewarding parents and teachers, parental visit, home visits by teachers, and the use of technology was suggested as strategies to enhance partnerships between parents and teachers. This finding is consistent with reports from (Epstein, 1995; Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Kocayörük, 2016; Olmstead, 2013) that varieties of strategies have to be adopted by both parents and teachers to improve PTP in schools for the deaf. However, teachers were more interested in an increase in parental visits and in-person discussions with parents than in the use of technology (social media platforms such as WhatsApp) in enhancing partnerships. Although parents also admitted that partnerships have to be improved, they were also more interested in home visits by teachers and outreaches by the school than in-person meetings with teachers, attributing to a busy work schedule. Also, findings from this study are consistent with reports by (Gross et al., 2003; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001) that the training of parents leads to effective partnerships. The PTP allows for knowledge exchange and reflection on the progress of deaf students. Therefore, to improve innovation and creativity for effective educational programmes for the deaf, PTP in schools for the deaf must be strengthened.

Limitations

Data were collected and analysed in two out of 16 schools for deaf students, which are both in the Central Region in Ghana; therefore, findings may be peculiar to schools for the deaf in this region. Besides, because of the small sample size, findings cannot be generalised as being an accurate reflection of all other schools for deaf students in Ghana.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study aimed at developing an understanding of PTP in schools for the deaf in Ghana. Our findings suggest that the partnership that exists between parents and teachers in schools for the deaf was implicit, and this led to a less effective partnership between parents and teachers. This study recommends that parents and teachers should be trained together on how to construct and document clearly stated goals and outcomes for deaf children during PTA meetings to improve PTP. The findings of this study are the first of their kind to show the partnerships that exist between the home and the school in schools for the deaf in Ghana. More rigorous research is needed to explain the effect the various kinds of partnership would have on the learning of deaf students.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).