Posted on by — 15 Comments

Critical Partnerships: Ethical Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters

Ethical Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters

Danielle Meder discusses the responsibility of sign language interpreters when working in medical VRI environments. Since VRI is here to stay, partnering with ethically responsible VRI providers is the most effective way to improve the medical VRI experience.

In her article, Behind the Screens: The Ethics of Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters, Shelly Hansen discussed her perceptions of the ethical implications of VRI. In addition, she explored the most common assumptions about VRI, at times upholding stereotypes while also utilizing extreme examples of patient experiences with VRI. However, by exploring how sign language interpreters and VRI providers can work together to raise the standards and improve the patient experience, VRI will be seen as one viable option for communication access.

[View post in ASL.]

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em

It is undeniable that VRI is here to stay. As a result, hospitals see the opportunity to provide immediate access, increase the availability of interpreting services when on-site interpreters are not available, in addition to seeing the cost-saving benefits of VRI–and as a result, they are making it a permanent part of their language access plans. However, many hospitals are misguided when it comes to the proper use of VRI for Deaf patients. It is unrealistic to imagine all ASL interpreters refusing to work for VRI providers in an effort to drive VRI out of medical environments. Therefore, it becomes the practitioner’s responsibility, when exploring VRI employment, to take positions with ethically responsible VRI companies; VRI companies where sign language interpreters have a voice and Deaf patients are respected.

Ethically Responsible VRI

It may seem like an oxymoron, but ethically responsible VRI companies do exist. Just as sign language interpreters vet any number of companies/organizations they work for, purchase from, or have relationships with, they can also do so with VRI companies. This vetting is not only from the perspective of potential employees but also as allies to the Deaf community. If local hospitals and clinics are going to use VRI, then it is imperative that VRI providers in local hospitals are working with Deaf patients.

As professional sign language interpreters, we should be asking VRI providers if they do the following:

  • Offer CDIs on-demand
  • Empower VRI interpreters to advocate for onsite when VRI is not effective or appropriate
  • Hire experienced and trained sign language interpreters in both medical and mental health vs. general practitioners
  • Provide training to hospital staff on how to utilize the VRI equipment
  • Offer cultural sensitivity training for providers when working with Deaf patients
  • Adhere to all national and state licensure laws for sign language interpreters
  • Provide readily accessible tech support to sign language interpreters and providers

If a VRI provider cannot answer ‘yes’ to the full list above, then practitioners are faced with two options: to not accept work from them or to accept work in an effort to help develop ethical business practices from within the company. Further, it’s important to include local Deaf communities in the conversations in order to limit the ill-prepared VRI provider’s presence in local medical facilities until they change their practices.

VRI Does Work/VRI is Not One Size Fits All

Unfortunately, there are a number of cases where VRI hasn’t worked, and the fallout has been devastating for patients and their families. There are also cases where unqualified onsite sign language interpreters have been hired, as well as medical encounters where no sign language interpreter (onsite or via VRI) has been procured. These situations create equally damaging results. Communication disasters are not exclusive to VRI, and while onsite is best, it’s not a guarantee of quality or effectiveness.

Most commonly, it is said that VRI ‘will do’ until an interpreter shows up on-site or only in a dire emergency room visit, yet there are plenty of times where VRI does work beyond the emergency room. It’s also important to note that VRI is used at the patient’s request, too. Patients are requesting VRI when they want privacy from their local interpreting communities; when they want an appointment this week instead of in two weeks when the first available onsite interpreter can be booked; when their local interpreters aren’t experienced enough; or when they want a CDI for their appointment and their local community doesn’t have or has a limited number of CDIs.

Frozen Screens and Dropped Calls Do Happen

One very real and unacceptable aspect of VRI is that frozen screens, heavy pixelation, and weak internet connections make communication cumbersome, at best, and often impossible. This can also lead to potentially dangerous health care results. It is the responsibility of the hospitals to provide a stable, secure, and strong internet connection. When sub-par internet connections are used, VRI providers, sign language interpreters, and Deaf patients must demand medical facilities invest in fortified internet services for VRI to even have a chance at providing effective, quality communication access. Without a robust Internet connection, even the best sign language interpreters will, in essence, have their hands tied. Again, if VRI is not going away, then it must be properly deployed on all fronts, and sign language interpreters can have a strong influence on that deployment.

ACA Section 1557

“Covered entities are prohibited from using low-quality video remote interpreting services or relying on unqualified staff, translators when providing language assistance services.”

“Providers’ required to give ‘primary consideration’ to the choice of an aid or service requested by the individual with a disability.”

These two statements are linchpins in the Affordable Care Act when it comes to language access. The first statement is the provision that holds providers responsible for quality and effective language access while the second statement is the provision that is most misunderstood and misused when defending the right to an onsite interpreter.

At one point last year, social media sites were ablaze with the phrase “primary consideration” and what that meant for patients. What many thought it meant was providers had to honor the patient’s preference for onsite sign language interpreters. What it means is that providers must consider a patient’s preference, however, if VRI offers effective communication access, then VRI can be used in lieu of an onsite interpreter (ACA Effective Communication). While a patient may want an onsite interpreter because they prefer it to VRI, preference is not a protected right; quality and effective communication is a right. Reasons onsite interpreters must be arranged, and VRI should not be used are when a patient is:

  • Low vision and/or blind
  • Experiencing a highly traumatic incident
  • Experiencing a psychotic episode
  • In a physical position or condition that prevents them from easily seeing and communicating with the interpreter
  • Case sensitive pediatric encounters
  • Not able to communicate because technology is not working reliably
  • Participating in group therapy

There are also case-by-case instances where VRI is not suitable.

I highlight this to further make a point; although VRI is not appropriate for all situations, it is not going away. Therefore, medically experienced video remote interpreters have a multi-layered responsibility. They must provide clear and effective interpreting, while also skillfully explaining to the provider, using healthcare terminology, why VRI is not appropriate for a given situation. Finally, the interpreter must advocate for onsite sign language interpreting services.

In Need of Standards

Currently, the only provisions in place for VRI are the terms ‘quality’ and ‘effective’ as put forth by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). No industry-wide screen size minimums exist, no mandatory medical interpreter certifications, nor experience requirements are in place. Additionally, no internet standards for medical facilities, nor protocol where VRI should not be used are set. At this time, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has written a position paper, and each VRI provider has their own business practices that may or may not align with NAD.

Much like courtrooms across America that have policies, rules, or laws in place which require sign language interpreters to be trained, vetted, and certified to work, medical facilities need to take the same approach when it comes to language access. The ACA made great strides when it stated that family, minors, and bilingual staff may not work as interpreters with patients. However, there is still work to be done to standardize what it means to be a medical interpreter whether onsite or in a VRI setting.

VRI and the CPC

All of the CPC tenets below can be honored and maintained while working in VRI with ethically responsible VRI companies. Sign language interpreters can assess the consumer needs and advocate for effective communication from the moment a VRI call begins through its completion.

2.0 Professionalism:

2.2: Assess consumer needs and the interpreting situation before and during the assignment and make adjustments as needed.

3.0 Conduct:

3.1 Consult with appropriate persons regarding the interpreting situation to determine issues such as placement and adaptations necessary to interpret effectively.

6.0 Business Practices:

6.3 Promote conditions that are conducive to effective communication, inform the parties involved if such conditions do not exist and seek appropriate remedies.

6.5 Reserve the option to decline or discontinue assignments if working conditions are not safe, healthy, or conducive to interpreting.

Further, advocacy should also extend to the leadership and management of the VRI company which, if their priorities are properly placed, will work with the medical facilities to educate them on the proper use of VRI.

Final Thoughts

The VRI industry is booming right now, and sign language interpreters are faced with the choice to accept employment opportunities within VRI or resist on principle. If we, as sign language interpreters and allies to the Deaf community, want to protect communication access in medical environments, then it is our duty to hold providers responsible for ethical practices. We know VRI is going to be one of the communication tools medical providers use, so we must work with ethically sound VRI providers to ensure quality and effective communication access is the top priority for all parties involved.

Guest Translator – Mistie Owens, BA, CDI, QMHI, YMHFAI, has been serving the local Deaf community as a CDI since 2011, although she remembers interpreting from her early youth. Dedicated to the healthcare field, she is employed by InDemand Interpreting and holds certifications as a Qualified Mental Health Interpreter and Youth Mental Health First Aid Instructor; her work in Mental Health and related disciplines are her passion. She resides near Salt Lake City, Utah with her husband and rescue dogs.

Questions to Consider:

  1. What committees or advocacy groups are in place that are working to create industry standards for language access and VRI?
  2. Who is holding VRI providers accountable when they negatively contribute to ineffective and unsuccessful medical encounters?
  3. How can ASL interpreters work within their own communities and with existing VRI providers to raise standards in language access in ways that honor Deaf patients while respecting legal and fiscal considerations?

References:

Hansen, Shelly. “Behind the Screens: The Ethics of Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters” StreetLeverage. N.p., 22 March 2017. Web. 24 April 2017.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. “NAD_RID Code of Professional Conduct.pdf.” Www.rid.org. N.p., 2005. Web. 21 April. 2017.

Posted on by — 51 Comments

Behind the Screens: The Ethics of Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters

Behind the Screens: The Ethics of Medical VRI & Sign Language Interpreters

Shelly Hansen explores the ethical implications of VRI in medical settings, especially the impacts of dropped connections during sensitive consultations and loss of consumer choice regarding live, on-site sign language interpretation.

It’s all the rage. Those smooth little carts with satisfying clicks and keys. Sweet control, right here at my fingertips for your eyes. No more waiting for a live interpreter to arrive. No more scheduling…it is on demand 24/7/365. No more incorporating another breathing human being into the interaction; we’ve gone high-tech and modern, happy to share our space with a “machine interpreter”, the term used locally by health care provider staff for Video Remote Interpreting/VRI. The medical facility loves this kind of sterile control.

[View post in ASL]

The patient, on the other hand, may have a mixed response to the cyber–signer. Like cafeteria food and military MRE’s, this is a one-size-fits-all solution. If a person has vision issues, is not a strong signer and/or struggles with the style, speed or information from the “machine interpreter”, if they are dizzy, lying down awkwardly, giving birth, going into a radiology department, are from a foreign country and need a specialized sign language, are elderly and prefer a familiar interpreter, are an active child with attention issues or a CODA utilizing the interpreter, would benefit from techniques used by CDIs such as physical movement, drawings or references to visual aids in the immediate environment (including the current meds list on the computer charting screen), or struggle with paperwork and literacy challenges, they are out of luck. Not only are these individuals out of luck, they now need to self-advocate against a large medical institution or physician who has already invested in a “solution” to this communication barrier, and who feels that due diligence has been satisfied.

Communication in Context

When I step back and consider these experiences as a whole, the impact of VRI appears to be greatest on vulnerable adults. We can all find ourselves vulnerable at times, and some individuals may consistently interact as vulnerable adults. I have noticed that communication is most effective in the context of relationship when interpreting for these encounters. The negotiated meaning within a tangible human relationship provides a context for effective communication that mitigates barriers for vulnerable adults and provides a level of comfort needed to genuinely engage with others. While it may seem an overstatement, trust in the interpreter allows for depth of conversation that is not possible for some clients via technology which has an “outside, looking-glass” quality. I consistently hear feedback about “not remembering what they said”, “not understanding but agreeing anyway” and being told there “weren’t any live interpreters available” when those facilities aren’t calling live interpreters any longer as a standard procedure.

“Do No Harm”

RID Certified sign language interpreters historically have been vigilant to “do no harm”, maintaining high professional standards of ethical conduct, creating ethical codes of conduct, establishing ethical review boards and making every effort to provide quality service to the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, DeafBlind, Late-Deafened, and Hearing communities as allies and professionals. This commitment to the profession has enabled increased access to places of public accommodation throughout society and is a source of quiet pride and job satisfaction for many sign language interpreters who are committed to increased equality, autonomy, and self-actualization.

As a freelance community sign language interpreter, I have seen a dramatic shift in medical interpreting assignments from live interpreting to VRI supported interactions. As I sit on the cyber-fence, wanting to continue the work I love and provide services to people who need, want, and are requesting live interpreters, I am faced with an ethical dilemma. Do I participate in a flawed and “do some harm” medical VRI system because my livelihood is being affected by marketplace shifts?

Sample Scenario of a Botched VRI Appointment

A patient goes to a medical appointment in a facility to discuss the results from a recent scan with a specialist. The office uses a VRI system. The patient is optimistic about VRI, despite prior frustrations with freezing screens and dropped connections resulting in re-scheduled appointments with a local, familiar, RID certified “live” sign language interpreter. The doctor begins to review the results of the scan along with the possible issues that may be causing symptoms of concern. The “worst case scenario” is discussed and then the VRI starts to cut out, freezing. The tech issues cannot be resolved, again. The doctor, exasperated says, “This is not a service, it’s a DIS-service.” The appointment is abruptly curtailed and a follow-up appointment is scheduled for next week with an onsite, “live” interpreter.

When the appointment begins the following week, the “live” interpreter is unaware of the previous snafu. The doctor begins again to explain the medical condition, and informs the patient that s/he does NOT have the fatal condition. The patient breaks down. For an entire week, the last message about the fatal flaw and partially explained scan image had left the person believing that they had the dreaded malformation and the condition was terminal. The visible relief on the face of the patient is combined with frustration and anger. Both the patient and doctor commit to no further VRI appointments, expressing relief to have an in-person sign language interpreter on site. They agree that using VRI just isn’t worth the frustration, miscommunication and emotional duress.

If the “live” sign language interpreter left the room at the moment of diagnosis, s/he could lose her/his certification for ethical malpractice. The patient could file an ethical complaint with RID stating that the interpreter violated NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct tenets 6.2 and 6.4 (see below).

Unintended Consequences

In my area, an older gentleman took his own life after receiving a terminal diagnosis. His family found him alone in the backyard. To my knowledge, this was not an interpreted interaction. However, it is possible that someone could react with serious consequences to a misunderstood partial-diagnosis. A scenario like this happened January 2017 at the Limerick Hospital in Ireland. A man received a terminal cancer diagnosis and took his own life in the hospital chapel.

Codes of Professional Conduct

Let’s look at some pertinent codes of conduct for medical sign language interpreters.

IMIA (International Medical Interpreters Association)

“Responsibility Toward Ensuring Adequate Working Conditions” The interpreter shall strive to ensure effective and productive communication in any professional situation and make every effort to have working conditions in place that will allow him or her to provide quality interpretation services.

“Right to equal treatment” Patients have a right to receive treatment in a language they understand; these rights are governed by federal anti-discrimination laws and the ADA.

“Informed consent” Patients should be aware of treatment options and consent to treatment only after understanding these options. Communicating information accurately is essential to informed consent.

“Beneficence” The health and wellbeing of patients is a core value in all health care professions, as well as in medical interpreting.

The NAD/RID Code of Professional Conduct

4.0 Respect for Consumers

4.1 Consider consumer requests or needs regarding language preferences, and render the message accordingly (interpreted or transliterated).

4.4 Facilitate communication access and equality, and support the full interaction and independence of consumers.

6.0 Business Practices

6.2 Honor professional commitments and terminate assignments only when fair and justifiable grounds exist.

6.4 Inform appropriate parties in a timely manner when delayed or unable to fulfill assignments.

6.5 Reserve the option to decline or discontinue assignments if working conditions are not safe, healthy or conducive to interpreting.

Similarly, the National Code of Ethics for Interpreters in Health Care includes “beneficence” and “do no harm,” along with “fidelity”:

“The essence of the interpreter role is encapsulated in the value of fidelity. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language describes fidelity as involving the unfailing fulfillment of one’s duties and obligations and the keeping of one’s word or vows.”

More Questions than Answers

How can a career medical interpreter agree to work as a VRI medical interpreter with the knowledge that predictable and unresolved VRI technical issues, including consistently disrupted and poor quality connections and communications, are occurring throughout the healthcare system and political practice issues in which “one size fits all” approaches that dictate language use without options for live on-site sign language interpreters are creating barriers for consumers that violate medical and RID certified interpreter ethical standards? Does the interpreter ignore these issues and shift that duty to the health care system and VRI employer, and ignore the systemic impact of complicit participation in a flawed approach to health care interpreting?

At the moment, I am working triage. Those failed VRI encounters, re-scheduled appointments, miscommunicated partial diagnoses are creating a clean-up tier of work for live interpreters. I’m holding out for “live” interpreting, despite the economic uncertainty of increased VRI use and the lower hourly wages those positions offer. Do I want to be part of the machine interpreter phenomenon? How can I ethically participate in quality healthcare interpretation in 2017 and beyond?

Questions to Consider:

  1. What protections are in place for consumers of medical VRI? Are there rating or feedback mechanisms available to track customer and provider satisfaction post-appointment?
  2. What alternatives are available or recourse do consumers have in the event a VRI appointment fails and are there systems in place to allow patients to pre-select live or VRI preferences especially for sensitive or technical appointments?
  3. What duty does an RID certified interpreter have in medical VRI settings and is that duty usurped by VRI companies and medical facilities choosing to eliminate live on-site interpreting in favor of machine interpreting?

References:

The National Council On Interpreting In Health Care, and Working Papers Series. A NATIONAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR INTERPRETERS IN HEALTH CARE (July 2004.): 8. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. “NAD_RID Code of Professional Conduct.pdf.” Www.rid.org. N.p., 2005. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

“International Medical Interpreters Association Code of Ethics.” IMIA – International Medical Interpreters Association. International Medical Interpreters Association, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Collins, Pamela. “Bringing Scheduling Into View: A Look at the Business of Sign Language Interpreting.” Street Leverage. N.p., 17 Aug. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Posted on by — 24 Comments

Linguistic Flexibility: Success Decoded for K-12 Sign Language Interpreters

Linguistic Flexibility: Success Decoded for K-12 Sign Language Interpreters

Decoding language requires linguistic competence and flexibility. Jessica Carter discusses the importance of flexible bilingualism for sign language interpreters, especially those working in K-12 and educational settings.

 

As bilinguals, as in having proficiency in two languages, ASL interpreters code switch on a daily basis, at a moment’s notice. ASL-English interpreters typically do this by borrowing English lexicon or formats for specificity, to match the language considerations of consumers, and to derive equivalent messages from the source to target language. However, code switching goes deeper than that.

[View post in ASL.]

Applied Linguistics

Code switching is defined in linguistics as the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in production. This term is often used interchangeably in the various fields of linguistic study with the term code mixing. It is displayed throughout phases of language learning, both holistically and as new vocabulary is introduced in order to fill gaps in language skills. While in the past we may have thought of code mixing as a weakness in the target language, e.g. borrowing an English word by fingerspelling or not knowing the English term and choosing to display the concept in ASL, more recent sociolinguistic research is suggesting that code switching is a tool of bilinguals. This has been seen in bilingual education and TESOL settings worldwide. Discussions conclude that bilinguals (and multilinguals) use this tool repeatedly in various ways: unconsciously as a bilingual individual, to fit in with others, to develop skills and relationships, to tell a secret, and to help express a thought. On a personal and professional level, I believe that we can all derive at least one of our own stories of code switching for each of these five reasons. This is what is being called flexible bilingualism1,2. Some examples might include:

  • matching a consumer’s language preference whether that means transliterating PSE, tactile signing (TASL), SEE-like signing, or ASL
  • stealthy signing to a friend across a room of non-signers
  • classifier-like iconic gesturing while speaking in English to describe an object

Flexible bilingualism is the thought that pragmatic language in the bilingual brain is adjustable, accommodating, and even pliable. ASL/English users are bilingual and multimodal; we are able to use the aspects and lexicon of two languages to achieve our goals rather than being constrained by one set of rules and expression. The Deaf/hard of hearing community exhibits this diglossic behavior and way of thinking instantaneously as a way of life and means for education and communication. Diglossia is explained as using two languages, or language varieties, under different circumstances. For the ASL using community this is seen in their need to have knowledge of two languages in order to socialize within their community and access interpreting, as well as in order to read, write, and access education, and/or to independently communicate with non-signers. This community exhibits code switching as diglossic people by using both ASL and English as a means for daily life by shifting between the two languages on a constant. Not to mention their abilities to switch between signing variations in the U.S. (SEE, PSE, etc.) in order to meet the needs of communication in their given circumstances while navigating the Deaf and Hearing worlds. This is a powerful tool and communication advantage – keep it close by and refine it.

The flexible bilingualism that native users of ASL have, and will develop throughout their lives and education, is an aspect of their variation and language power as a community. To notice this as interpreters is a descriptivist point of view. Descriptivists take a nonjudgmental point of view that accepts language as it is used and can be tweaked in use for a variety of reasons. A previously noted trend in sign language interpreter education to lean toward prescriptivism3, a predetermined notion of the rules that govern a language to create a pure or superior form of language, limits an interpreter’s opportunity for flexibility. Prescriptivism has its place in language. When writing an academic paper, I am a prescriptivist; when interpreting, I am largely descriptivist. Native English speakers exhibit flexibility in language (L1) use often with diverse speech patterns. For example, we may speak in an accent for affect, stress an atypical phoneme in a word, or toss in a word or phrase of a second language known. Capisce? Now, we can use the same techniques as a bilingual to create similar effects in our L2, ASL, production patterns – similar to the ways that we observe native ASL users.

Educational Interpreting

In an educational setting, most particularly K-12 educational interpreting, flexible bilingualism is an advantage that can be elevated beyond matching students’ language needs. It can be used in a variety of settings that students may be in, i.e. speech and language pathology settings, reading programs, English lexicon decoding, English phonics/syllable learning, affect and intonation, academic vocabulary recognition, etc. Keep thinking and expanding this list.

I encountered a student who uses flexible bilingualism in order to display phonetic aspects of English by applying syllabic fingerspelling in a functional way at the decoding level. That is POWER. At the sight of this power, I adjusted and learned from the student to both meet the student’s needs and enhance my interpreting skills. This is how educational interpreting should be – flexible. The idea is for sign language interpreters in education to heighten flexibility skills to allow for further accommodation of language modeling and teaching in academic settings. Educational interpreters can supply students and educators not only with an interpretation, but a closure of the power imbalance by modeling language, including strategies of flexible bilingualism, and improving academic language in a parallel and equivalent manner between English and ASL.

As interpreters, we are guided to understand that “qualified educational interpreters/transliterators are a critical part of the educational day for children who are deaf or hard of hearing” (RID, 2010)4. Part of being qualified is knowing our students and using our tools appropriately. The ingenuity of our tools and our flexibility in using them can guide in facilitating learning in all settings. When a sign language interpreter fingerspells key words and academic language, he/she is providing access to academic English vocabulary and contributing to the students’ ability to decode English words and recognize them by signs and concepts5. Meanwhile, the students’ knowledge of ASL, a visual, conceptual language, provides them with an on-the-spot dictionary in their bilingual brain as they read in English. The leverage that an educational interpreter holds in providing a parallel between English and ASL has an effect on children’s language skills in both decoding and fluency. This is influential, especially in regards to their diglossic status. So as educational interpreters, let’s start thinking in terms of language education. We can do this by focusing on our status as bilinguals and the advantages that status offers us. It takes years for people to develop fluency in their native language and users have mastery at various levels dependent on education, ability, and efforts. Language development for bilinguals is similar, requiring continuous cultivation and expansion of the L2. Bilinguals are lifelong language learners.

Addressing the Linguistic Minority Dilemma

Whether we have experienced the subjugation of ASL ourselves or have only seen/heard stories of misunderstandings and the language oppression of ASL users, we know that it exists. Varying autocratic behaviors which portray Sign languages as inferior (e.g. “not a real language,” “a language of disability,” “a manual representation of English,” “universal language,” etc.) exist heavily in mainstream education. This may be one of the most difficult parts of an educational interpreter’s job, linguistic advocacy. Educational interpreters must possess the linguistic competency to explain the comparison of languages, bridge sociocultural gaps, and support deaf literacy and academia in order to ameliorate this issue. To expose mainstream educators to the diversity in language, the limitations of translation and assistive technology, the tools of a bilingual, and to what interpreters do is to lead the change in their knowledge and perspectives on educating the deaf/hard of hearing. Admittedly this is a heavy burden to carry, so as professionals we must humanistically approach each linguistic encounter to learn. It’s high time we raise the expectations and reputations of interpreted education. Keep cultivating your tools, be rooted in the Deaf community, and exhibit flexibility in educational interpreting.

Questions to consider:

  1. Can you recall an experience when you adhered to a prescriptivist view of language?
  2. How familiar are you with the IEP/504 processes?
  3. On a personal note – what is your involvement with the Deaf community outside of your 9:00 am – 5:00 pm profession?

References:

1An excellent study on identity and language prejudice in regards to flexible bilingualism, Preece, Sian. “An Identity Transformation? Social Class, Language Prejudice and the Erasure of Multilingual Capital in Higher Education.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity.

2For flexible bilingualism in schools relating to bilingual education see, Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011, April). Separate and Flexible Bilingualism in Complementary Schools: Multiple Language Practices in Interrelationship. Retrieved November, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251586617_Separate_and_Flexible_Bilingualism_in_Complementary_Schools_Multiple_Language_Practices_in_Interrelationship

3For thoughts on prescriptivism in sign language interpreter education see “Respecting Language: Sign Language Interpreters as Linguistic Descriptivists” by Steven Surrency, available at http://www.streetleverage.com/2015/11/respecting-language-sign-language-interpreters-as-linguistic-descriptivists/

4RID standard practice paper for K-12 interpreting, An overview of K-12 educational interpreting. (2010). Retrieved November, 2016, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3DKvZMflFLdcFE2N25NM1NkaGs/view

5Educational interpreting guidelines of the EIPA from www.ClassroomInterpreting.org

Posted on by — 1 Comment

What Did 2016 Teach Sign Language Interpreters About Success in 2017?

What 2016 Taught Sign Language Interpreters about Success in 2017

It is tempting to write 2016 off and move immediately into the new year, but that would mean overlooking some of the profound and fundamental lessons shared by StreetLeverage contributors last year.

While public speaking is one of the most fearful things humans can do, expressing one’s thoughts and perspectives via social media in two languages is probably a close second. Still, StreetLeverage contributors continue to inspire and amaze, bringing new insights and conversations to the table on a regular basis.  If we were to measure the year in the depth and breadth of perspectives shared, 2016 would definitely be setting us up for success in 2017. So, before we bid 2016 adieu, we wanted to highlight a few examples of the generosity and courageousness shown by sign language interpreters and industry stakeholders in the last 12 months.

For Auld Lang Syne

Before we dive into our retrospective, we’d like to express our deepest gratitude to everyone who contributed, in large and small ways, to the StreetLeverage endeavor. Without the writers, readers, volunteers, thought-leaders, videographers, editors, and friends who volunteer their time and efforts to support us, StreetLeverage could not begin to amplify the voice of sign language interpreters or attempt to change the way we understand, practice, and tell the story of the sign language interpreter. For all your work, we say: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

2016’s Nine Building Blocks for Success

1.  Bring Social Consciousness to the Fore

Joseph Hill

As practitioners in the field of communication access, social consciousness is a critical aspect of the work of all signed language interpreters. Joseph Hill’s presentation, Sign Language Interpreters: Practicing with a Socially Conscious Approach, at StreetLeverage – Live 2015 provides an avenue for us to start looking at identity and interpreting through a social justice lens. As we continue to delve into the skewed relationship between interpreter demographics and consumer realities, we look to thought leaders to help us find greater understanding and paths to improvement.

2.  Reach Out to Deaf Interpreters

Where’s the Welcome Mat? Opening the Door to Deaf Interpreters

Another evolution in the field of interpreting that continued to manifest itself in 2016 was the reintroduction and strengthening of the presence of Deaf Interpreters in the field. While this evolution is happening, progress is slow and sometimes arduous as Jeremy Rogers explains in his article, Where’s the Welcome Mat? Opening the Door to Deaf Interpreters.

3.  Look at Insider Discourse Under a Microscope

Sign Language Interpreter Framing Their Work

Semantics matter. As sign language interpreters, language is our currency. Despite this fact, we don’t always consider the impact language has on perspectives when it comes to the words we use to describe our work. Kelly Decker’s article, What Are We Really Saying? Perceptions of Sign Language Interpreting, showcases some current examples of language we use in our insider discourse that may impact perceptions about the work we do and those with whom we work. With lively conversation, this article lit up our comments board, and we hope it continues to do so.

4.  Inject Humor and Humility into Our Practice

Sharon Neumann Solow

As one of the field’s most beloved teachers and mentors, Sharon Neumann Solow inserts equal parts humor, humility, and straight-forward talk into the conversation in her StreetLeverage – Live 2015 presentation, Genuine Confidence: Why Can’t It Be All About Me?. By sharing personal stories, Sharon’s presentation provides context for looking at confidence versus spotlight-stealing and illustrates why the differences matter.

5.  Support Ethics with Pre-Assignment Considerations

Accept or Decline? Questions Sign Language Interpreters Should Ponder

Job readiness is a topic that comes up in most conversations about sign language interpreting at some point, whether one-on-one or at a conference. Michael Ballard provides a consumer’s perspective on the kind of preparation sign language interpreters could do to help determine their level of preparedness for an assignment in his article, Accept or Decline? Questions Sign Language Interpreters Should Ponder.

6.  Join the Civility Revolution

A Civility Revolution: A Call to Arms for Sign Language Interpreters

With bullying and trolling in the news constantly, it was refreshing to have a conversation about civil discourse. Providing tools and suggestions for action, Diana MacDougall invited sign language interpreters to join a kinder, gentler conversation and revolution in her article, A Civility Revolution: A Call to Arms for Sign Language Interpreters.

7.  Explore the Realities of the Modern World

Keeping Sign Language Interpreters Safe in a Violent World

In a year where violence of all kinds dominated headlines and conversations around the country and the world, Stephen Holter’s article, Keeping Sign Language Interpreters Safe in a Violent World, struck a chord with readers who also shared some of their own experiences and strategies for staying safe. While we hope no interpreter ever needs to utilize these tips and tools, it’s an important conversation to engage in.

8.  Uncover the Intangible

Wing Butler

In his deeply personal and profound StreetLeverage – Live 2015 presentation, Status Transaction: The “It” Factor in Sign Language Interpreting, Wing Butler shared his thoughts on the “It Factor” for sign language interpreters. In his exploration of the intangible qualities that raise community esteem for one sign language interpreter over another, Wing also gives us a formula for success. Skills are important, but there are other factors that create the elusive “It” interpreter.

9.  Examine Personal Cultural Competence

IGNITE Workbook

Our final selection is a compilation of exemplary work from some of the brilliant minds in our field. Our 2016 workbook, Ignite, is a collection of posts designed to lead sign language interpreters and sign language interpreting students through a process of self-discovery regarding cultural competence. This free-to-download offering is an opportunity to look at a specific topic through a variety of lenses in order to gain a more well-rounded perspective. We hope this inaugural edition will be the first of many such workbooks.

Please Continue to Join Us in 2017 and Beyond

We hope this look back on 2016 will provide you with some valuable takeaways that can be foundations for a successful year ahead. Again, thank you for your support, sharing, comments, viewings, and readership. We hope you will continue to join us here on the blog and register to come meet us in St. Paul, MN for StreetLeverage – Live. Please join us in raising our glasses in a toast to a bright new year. Welcome to 2017!

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Building Trust: Accepting the Mantle of Sign Language Interpreter

Building Trust - Accepting the Mantle of Sign Language Interpreter

Trustworthiness is a trait all sign language interpreters must embody. Wing Butler posits that it is our duty to display our commitment and trustworthiness at all times, on-the-job and off.

Trust is a huge part of the sign language interpreting profession. As ASL interpreters, we are representatives of our clients, our profession, and at times the entire Deaf community. At the end of the day, our job is a commitment to honor those we represent and the mantle they’ve entrusted to us.

[View post in ASL.]

The Epitome of Honor

That much responsibility can feel daunting, but sign language interpreting isn’t the only occupation with such a high level of trust. One of my favorite examples of taking on a mantle for a job—and one that comes with high expectations of conduct—is the elite Tomb Guard of Arlington Cemetery.

These sentinels guard the famous Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. According to their official website, those who train for this rigorous assignment must meet the highest standards, “including following strict rules, training guidelines, and the need for complete dedication and commitment to the Tomb.” The Tomb Guard have been watching this tomb 24 hours a day, 7 days a week since 1937! No matter what the weather is like, there is always a Tomb Guard present.

After 9 months of service at the tomb, these soldiers receive the Tomb Guard Identification Badge (TGIB). This award is symbolic of their dedication to the tomb, a dedication they are expected to honor for the rest of their days. Even when the guards become civilians, the TGIB can be revoked for committing a serious offense that discredits the Tomb of the Unknowns.

In many ways, I feel that sign language interpreters should honor our position just like the Tomb Guard. Ours is a job that can be called on at any time, in any condition. Beyond that, sign language interpreters protect the communities we serve. We’re defenders, helping people navigate tricky situations that could end disastrously if we aren’t doing our job right. And often, no one will ever know if we’re doing our jobs correctly or not. This high level of trust is precisely why our actions and words matter, even when we’re off the clock. Recently I’ve noticed that many in our community are not living up to our professional standards the way we should.

An Awkward Situation

Just this year, I was in a group of interpreters at a regional event, waiting for our next assignment. I was an interpreter from out of state, and the downtime gave me a chance to meet the local interpreter professionals. As many conversations do, it turned into a discussion about our profession: ethics, organizational decisions, and the injustices some find in our craft. Then the discussion turned to the ever-common topic of the national professional organization’s financial decisions—and how much my peers disagreed with them, to the point of emotional vitriol.

As the criticism became harsher and harsher, I found myself slipping to the back of the group. These interpreters had no idea I had left the treasurer position just a couple of months prior. I tried to diffuse the situation by asking if anyone in the group had watched the treasurer’s latest report. The video addressed many of the issues they were complaining about. But they didn’t follow my lead. Instead, the blaming and ill-will finding marched on until I finally told them the truth: that I had recently left the treasurer position. All the interpreters stared at me in shock—and quickly moved the entire conversation to a more supportive, civil place.

Consider The Shadows We Cast

Loud complaining always has the potential to embarrass the complainer, but that isn’t why I’m sharing this story. I’m more concerned about the deeper consequences of being publicly hostile toward viewpoints we disagree with. And how simple venting and unproductive negativity is harming our professionalism as interpreters. Whether we like it or not, our behavior directly impacts our integrity and our trustworthiness as representatives and guests of the Deaf community. We must pay special attention to our actions at all times so we can be worthy of greater trust through greater professionalism.

The Path to Greater Professionalism

How do we become more trustworthy? Our Code of Professional Conduct is a great place to start, but here are some other suggestions to help us stay professional as sign language interpreters.

1.  Show Respect through Restraint

No matter how you shake it, our public behavior off the clock—whether that’s in person or over social media—has consequences for our reputations as interpreters. This is exactly why we need to honor our profession through thoughtful consideration of our actions.

Too many of us are taking our role lightly by posting anything and everything online. Even when we’re expressing disagreement or sharing ideas, the key to showing professional restraint is keeping our expression civil even when it’s tempting not to. In the spirit of keeping things civil, there are certainly opinions that shouldn’t be expressed in public at all. To know which ones, try out the elevator test outlined in my StreetLeverage article “Does Social Networking Impair Sign Language Interpreter Ethics?”

2.  Watch Out for Intergroup Bias

Humans naturally identify with other humans that are like them, whether it’s a sports team, a family, hearing people, deaf people, or people who share a common profession—like sign language interpreting. We all naturally favor the “us” that’s like you and disfavor the “them” that’s unlike you. Psychologists call this concept intergroup bias. According to Professor Mina Cikara, research suggests that an “us versus them” mentality is one of the key factors that drives groups to collective violence. This violence can be as small as hostile discussion or as widespread as genocide.

Intergroup bias is running rampant in our society, but I would suggest that our interpreting community has much more to lose by engaging in intergroup bias. As we’re striving to be trustworthy in our profession, we must all make a concerted effort to stop vilifying others around us. Let’s stop looking for a “them” to blame for our problems and start listening as we try to understand perspectives different from our own.

3.  Share Opinions in a Spirit of Empathy

This one is always a good idea. Are we expressing opinions to share of ourselves and build up the world around us? Are we open to thoughtful, understanding discussions? Even with people who disagree with our beliefs?

In my StreetLeverage Live presentation “Status Transactions: The ‘It’ Factor in Sign Language Interpreting,” I talked all about the power of humility in an interpreter. It is truly an act of humility to slow down, listen to others, and consider both sides. It takes time and it certainly requires effort, but giving other people the benefit of the doubt can improve both our professional and personal lives. Empathetic listening and seeking the truth is the fastest way to come up with creative solutions to our problems. Which brings me to my final point . . .

4.  Focus on Positive Action

Going back to my experience with my fellow interpreters, that entire situation could have gone very differently. All of us could have participated in a thoughtful, civil discussion about our organization’s finances. Maybe we could have watched their annual report together for context. If everyone still felt unsatisfied with the status quo, we could have drafted a letter to the Board proposing a solution in a respectful yet assertive fashion. This whole experience could have turned into positive action to make our sign language interpreter community better.

In a world that’s already filled with harsh critique, we’re going to make a much bigger difference by turning our opinions into meaningful actions. After all, having opinions isn’t nearly as important as how you live by them; that is what makes you a trustworthy interpreter.

Greater Trust is One Decision Away

To me, being worthy of trust boils down to one simple choice: committing to a higher standard of professionalism. If we all strive for a spirit of civility and positive restraint, we’ll already be changing ourselves and interpreting for the better. That is how all of us will truly become guardians of our profession and those we serve.

Questions to Consider:

  1. Think of the most trusted interpreter in your community. What traits do they display which set them apart from other sign language interpreters? Do you share these traits? If not, how can you develop them?
  2. In what ways are you actively seeking to decrease intergroup bias in your professional circles? What is one step you can take to dismantle an “us versus them” paradigm?
  3. Would you be willing to invite an interpreting colleague to join you in committing to a higher professional standard? What would that accountability relationship look like for you?

 

Posted on by — 28 Comments

Keeping Sign Language Interpreters Safe in a Violent World

Keeping Sign Language Interpreters Safe in a Violent World

“At-risk” and “sign language interpreter” are not synonymous for most people. Stephen Holter highlights some risk factors and preventative measures sign language interpreters can use to stay safe.

  • Walking through the lobby of the mental health facility, the sign language interpreter had no way of knowing that just a few short hours later, a gunman would open fire, killing the receptionist and injuring several others before turning the gun on himself.  
  • At a university campus in a different part of the country, a female interpreter is walking to her car after completing her night class assignment when she notices a male student from the class following her. Fearing for her safety, she reaches for her phone to call the police.
  • While on assignment interpreting a potentially volatile home visit for a social worker, an interpreter has a feeling of concern for her own safety after noticing that the door is locked behind her.  
  • While walking through the hall in a jail, a sign language interpreter is told by the guard that, if he tackles her, it will be for her own safety.   
  • In a psychiatric facility, an interpreter is suddenly assaulted. She has not been provided with a “panic button” that is routinely supplied to all other hospital staff in the event of such an attack.   

All of these situations are real and were provided by working sign language interpreters discussing personal safety concerns that exist on the job as part of their daily work.

[View post in ASL]

Personal Security and Sign Language Interpreters

A number of factors make the field of sign language interpreting unique in terms of personal security. Freelance interpreters are frequently called upon to work in novel settings at any hour of the day or night. The interpreter is often “alone” in the sense that they are not with others who are known to them. Some settings can be inherently dangerous.   

Sign language Interpreters frequently work in healthcare and social service settings. In 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported more than 23,000 significant injuries due to assault at work. More than 70 percent of these assaults were in healthcare and social service settings. Health care and social service workers are almost four times as likely to be injured as a result of violence than the average private sector worker. (OSHA Updates)

In recent conference workshops, sign language interpreters were asked about the types of settings in which they experienced safety concerns. The most frequently mentioned setting was mental health hospitals. With HIPAA law, interpreters are often given little to no information about the patient. When this is the case, the interpreter may not be aware of the presenting concerns that led to the hospitalization of the patient. It may be the case that it is not the patient with whom the interpreter is working that is a danger, but rather others in the environment. Sign language interpreters who find themselves working in mental health settings would benefit from seeking out professional development opportunities that address working with individuals whose behaviors are escalating to the point of potential violence.  

What Can Sign Language Interpreters Do to Stay Safe?

While risks may be present in any number of settings that sign language interpreters work, there are some steps that may be taken to keep oneself safe. These include the following:

a. Situational Awareness

Regardless of the setting in which an interpreter works, a key factor that will help to keep one safer is situational awareness. This seems, of course, to be common sense but is often discounted. Maintaining alertness to what is occurring in your immediate environment will provide you with time to see approaching danger, react, and attempt to  get away from potential sources of threat.  

To practice developing situational awareness, one important habit is to begin assessing the environment you will be working in upon entering to identify at least two ways to exit the scene if a crisis starts to occur. For example, when interpreting for political candidates or concerts, the interpreter should be in the practice of locating the two nearest exits. Planning ahead will reduce confusion in the event there is a crisis and one of the exits is blocked.

b. Plug Into Notification and Alert Systems

University settings now have alert systems to notify staff and students of situations such as active shooter warnings. Contract interpreters, however, are often not “plugged” into the system to receive such notifications. One solution that has been discussed is ensuring that the agency that contracts with sign language interpreters is, in fact, set up on that system so that they may notify the interpreter of any such emergencies.

c. Be Your Own Bodyguard

As discussed in “Fight like a Girl…and Win; Defense Decisions for Women,” it is important to decide that one is one’s own bodyguard. It is good to have police and other first responders, but it takes time for them to respond and, by then, it may be too late. Realizing that there needs to be a certain degree of self-reliance is the first step to keeping safe.

d. Avoid Complacency

Complacency is clearly one of the greatest factors that compromise situational awareness. As sign language interpreters are racing from one assignment to the next, it is natural to be focused on reading text messages or catching up on voicemails. Attackers will look for easy targets. A person whose attention is focused on the phone is an easy target. In his book, “The Gift of Fear,”  Gavin DeBecker discusses how, rather than giving way to complacency, part of staying safe is tuning into the danger signals that may be provided by one’s own senses.

Interpreters should consider the anticipated length of an assignment when parking. For example, rushing to interpret an emergency room visit, the interpreter might be focused on the potential nature of the emergency. ER visits, however, may often run four or five hours. As such, the lighting in the area where the interpreter has parked may have changed considerably. This should be taken into account for all settings.

e. Stay Physically Fit

How can one become a less desirable target for a potential attacker? Attackers often want to have the greatest reward with the least amount of risk. Physical fitness comes into play in this regard as attackers will often prey on those whom they regard to be easy targets. If one is looking for a reason to get into better shape, this may be it. When looking at workout options, one form of training that may be sought is called Krav Maga. This is a defensive training which not only provides a physical workout, but also provides skills for defending oneself against varying types of physical assaults, including those involving weapons.

f. Utilize Non-Lethal Tools

Some people choose to carry non-lethal self-defense tools such as pepper spray/gel, taser, and a Kubaton. These tools all have relative pros and cons. While none of these tools above will incapacitate the attacker, they are, instead, used to momentarily stop the attacker long enough for one to get a safe distance away.  

Pepper spray or gel:  Pepper spray is small and portable and is available in containers that may look like lipstick. Pepper spray has a range of 8-20 feet and typically costs below $30. One drawback of pepper spray is that it may be affected by wind and be blown back into one’s own face. Pepper gel is now available that is not as subject to gusts of wind. These devices have safety locking mechanisms that require enough familiarity to be operated when one is panicked. Additionally, it will be important to retain control of the spray so that it may not be taken by the attacker and used on the victim.

Stun guns: Stun guns are a potentially effective means of incapacitation.  Like pepper spray, stun guns are also fairly inexpensive and portable. While pepper spray is to be used at a distance, a stun gun requires that one must be close enough to make contact with the attacker. Effectiveness of a stun gun, or lack thereof, also depends on battery life. As with pepper spray, one also need to be able to retain control of the device.  

Kubotan: Another self-defense tool is called a Kubotan. Looking like a pen made of hard plastic or metal, a kubotan may be attached to a keychain for easy access. A kubotan may be used for strikes against joints or fleshy areas for self-defense.  

Conscious Consideration is the Key

As evident in the points that were discussed above, self-protection for a sign language interpreter involves multiple dimensions. It begins with an awareness that some settings may be more inherently dangerous than others. Regardless of the setting, however, maintaining a situational awareness to dangers that may suddenly arise will give you more time to formulate a response that will get you out safely. With the dangers present in today’s world, giving conscious consideration to self-protection is time well spent.

There are multiple aspects that come into play when trying to keep oneself safe as a working interpreter. It begins with the awareness that one may be at risk, maintaining vigilance to recognize when danger might be approaching, and learning physical strategies that might be used in the event they are needed. By using this multi-tiered approach, sign language interpreters can enhance their ability to keep themselves safe.

Questions to Consider:

  1.   What potential security risks do you see while traveling to or within your work settings?
  1.    How do you think you can reduce each of these risks?
  1.   What local resources are available to you to increase your personal safety knowledge and skills?

References:

Becker, G. D. (1997). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. Boston: Little, Brown.

Gervasi, L. H. (2007). Fight like a girl– and win: Defense decisions for women. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

OSHA guidelines for preventing workplace violence for … (2015, April 01). Retrieved September 2, 2016, from https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/evaluation.html

Posted on by — 12 Comments

Presidential Candidates: Who Should Sign Language Interpreters Vote For?

Presidential Candidates: Who Should Sign Language Interpreters Vote For?

Personal politics aside, the 2016 Presidential election is an opportunity to view politics through a “sign language interpreter lens”. Using this angle, Cassie Lang examines the candidates’ views on various issues.

With the presidential election just a few days away, and considering this all began over two years ago (!) you might find yourself in one of two categories: fed up and despondent over the state of politics, or freaked and obsessed with the latest breaking scandal and poll results. Maybe you’re just trying to keep track of the latest sign for TRUMP while interpreting, or monitoring those facial meta-comments whenever the election comes up. With it now possible to watch presidential debates in a movie theater complete with a free drink, and nearly everything being labeled “unprecedented,” the tongue-in-cheek ending line to the SNL debate spoof, “Just to remind everyone at home, this was the presidential debate” seems to be further evidence of a populace that just wishes this circus would pack up the tent and go home.

[View post in ASL]

Is it just me, or does anyone long for days of political yore: some nice, boring analysis of policy statements, voting records and speech fact checking? During a campaign when most voters have already decided who they’re voting for or against (polls estimate only 2-12% are undecided), disillusioned though they may be about it, it just might seem an exercise in futility to dig into the issues facing America today that have so briefly garnered media attention.

What is a typical “Sign Language Interpreter Identity”?

The phrase “identity politics” rings true: we vote for candidates we feel most closely represent ourselves and our interests. With a nod to the latest buzz word but valid cultural construct, intersectionality, I’d like to share what I’ve learned looking at the candidates from the identity lens of a sign language interpreter. This focuses on the major party nominees, but information is also available on Libertarian Gary Johnson or the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

So what do we as interpreters care about? Using myself as an example, I consider things like out of pocket healthcare costs and insurance policies available on the exchanges, since I’ve been full time in private practice. I’m not incorporated nor do I own an interpreting agency, but I do work for several, so I also wanted to learn what if any impact this election may have on small business owners. I also have an eye on education: would massive budget cuts to public education have an impact on funding for special education and educational interpreters? Although the ADA remains largely a bulwark for Deaf-related issues regardless of party administration, I also have concerns regarding the politics surrounding bi-(or multi-) lingualism, minority cultures, and disability issues in order to keep moving forward on things like accessibility and equality instead of reverting to the back foot.

Issues closely tied to sign language interpreters and the people we work with haven’t gotten the coverage that perhaps foreign policy or personality have, so I did my best to compile sources. Here’s what I found:

Education

Hillary Clinton supports the Common Core Standards and publicly funded early childhood education, and wants to make public higher education “debt-free.” She also wants to reduce the number of standardized tests. She acknowledges problems with charter schools having the ability to be more selective about their students but does support a school voucher program for school choice (NPR, 2016).

Donald Trump does not support the Common Core or making public higher education debt-free, and is unclear on his position of early childcare education, although agrees with Clinton in reducing standardized testing. He supports a voucher program for private and charter schools, specifically proposing to cut $20 billion federal dollars from public schools. If states contribute another $100M each, then those funds combined would give “every student living in poverty” $12,000 toward school choice. States who have more private and charter schools are more likely to get back the subtracted federal funds and if they make a commitment to supporting non-public options. Trump also has a more negative view on teachers’ unions and believes teacher pay should be influenced by evaluations. (NPR, 2016).

Health care

Clinton supports the Affordable Care Act as a public insurance option for those not getting insured through their employer or those who are self-employed, and pledges to lower out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. She also wants to give states incentives to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans and allow enrollment in exchanges regardless of immigration status.

Trump wants to end the Affordable Care Act and replace it with optional Health Savings Accounts (where an individual can choose to deposit a portion of pre-tax income into a yearly account for approved health care costs). He also wants to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, minimizing or eliminating state regulation over the companies. He proposes to give state lawmakers more discretion over what federal Medicaid grants will cover.

Bilingualism

Clinton encourages Americans to become bilingual, does not believe English should be the official language of the United States, and opposes discrimination towards those who do not speak English (2008 debate). She voted “No” on getting rid of legal challenges to English-only job rules (March 2008).

Trump criticized Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail and was quoted as saying, “We’re a nation that speaks English, and I think that while we’re in this nation we should be speaking English…it’s more appropriate.”

ADA/disability and Deaf issues

Clinton has been quoted for needing to recognize the positive impact people with disabilities have had on “changing things for the better” in America. In her position statement, she vows to continue to support the ADA, expand support for those with disabilities to “live in integrated community settings”, “improve access to meaningful, gainful employment” and provide tax breaks for families with individuals who have disabilities. Her website cites her effort when Secretary of State for the US to join the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

She spoke specifically at an event in September on creating more economic opportunity for people with disabilities, such as eliminating rules allowing the exception to pay those with disabilities below minimum wage.

In her answers to RespectAbility’s Report Questionnaire, Clinton details her votes for increased funding for IDEA, her introduction of the Count Every Vote Act to ensure accessible voting, her commitment to work with law enforcement on cultural understanding for persons with disabilities along with supporting the use of police body cameras, and her campaign’s efforts to make her website, media and interactions with voters accessible. Her response also mentioned her support of Bill Clinton’s $3M in grants to expand screenings such as the newborn hearing screening, and her first-ever appointment when Secretary of State of a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights to construct a plan to promote disability rights internationally.

Clinton also has an intern for her campaign who is Deaf.

Trump’s campaign website has no position statements on disability. After he made contorted arm movements while speaking negatively about a reporter with a disability at a rally last November, allegations of him mocking the reporter, including from the New York Times became widespread. He later denied this and was quoted saying, “I would never say anything bad about a person that has a disability. I swear to you it’s true, 100 percent true. . . . Who would do that to [the] handicapped? I’ve spent a lot of money making buildings accessible.” In citing adding accessibility to his buildings as the explanation for his actions being misconstrued, it is unclear whether his purported building improvements were going above and beyond the ADA, or simply coming into compliance with what has been federal law since 1990.

Trump was reported to use derogatory terms and behavior toward Marlee Matlin. Her response here.

Small business

Clinton supports helping small businesses get off the ground with access to capital and deferring student loan payments, streamlining licensing, simplifying tax filing rules, incentivizing health care benefits for business with up to 50 employees, providing training and mentoring to business owners and making sure small businesses get paid for services rendered.

Trump proposes to lower the business tax rate for corporate income from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies labeled “C” corporations (under 8% of small businesses benefit).

Related:

According to a recent Bank of America survey, 74% of small business owners are concerned that health care costs will impact their business, and 79% feel that the effectiveness of government leaders, in general, will affect their business in the next 12 months. Sixty-seven percent of respondents are voting based on personal perspectives as opposed to business.

It Matters in the End

Political polarization in the US is at its highest point in the last twenty years. And our perception of ourselves and others seems…skewed. Basically, people are more often saying “Yeah, my political party is pretty moderate, but that other party- those are the crazies.” And the result? Extreme rhetoric over the years not only has sown close-mindedness, and even anger, but also has nearly shut down the federal government on more than one occasion. It has also spawned the presidential race we have today.

One of my favorite things about StreetLeverage is the value it places on self-discovery and self-awareness of who we are as whole people functioning within systems of power, and the responsibility each of us has individually to effect change. How does who we are influence where we are- as individuals, as a collective? Let’s look at the electoral landscape and apply the same principles StreetLeverage calls us to embody: introspection, engagement, and resolve.

In doing this research, I came across an article that said, “if you don’t like the person, vote for the issues.” It’s up to us as sign language interpreters to determine where our identity politics lead us. We need to be as diligent as we can in looking closely at these and other issues that will form our democracy for the next presidential term. If this election season feels like a Tilt-A-Whirl you didn’t even buy a ticket for, close your eyes, take a breath and vote on November 8. This ride is over soon, kids.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Meet, Engage, Learn & Inspire: Mentoring and Sign Language Interpreters

Meet, Engage, Learn & Inspire: Mentoring and Sign Language Interpreters

Mentoring is often cited as a way to bridge the “readiness gap” for emerging sign language interpreters. Kim Boeh outlines the benefits of mentoring relationships and tips for successful interactions.

You find yourself sitting in a classroom surrounded by your peers and realize that you will soon graduate from your interpreter education program and you experience a moment of panic. You realize that once you leave this college community of peers, instructors, and total comfort zone, you will be all on your own out there in the “real world” of interpreting. What will you do when you need advice? Who will counsel you when you don’t know if you are permitted to wear the swanky new outfit to the assignment or if it is okay to take that picture and post it on Facebook or is it ok to….? What you really need is a mentor.

[View post in ASL]

There appears to be a need and perhaps even an outcry for mentoring in the field of sign language interpreting. There is a dearth of qualified and trained mentors available across the board due in part to lack of availability, lack of training, and lack of feeling qualified to mentor. Mentoring, if done properly, truly has a lot to offer both the mentor and mentee. RID’s Mentoring Standard Practice Paper (2007), stated that mentoring is a learning and growing experience for everyone involved in the process and the experiences that are gained through mentorship foster a higher level of professionalism for each individual practitioner. For many in the field, mentoring is considered an essential component of interpreter education but in many instances, mentoring is a component missing from interpreter education (Winston & Lee, 2013).

Bridging the Gap

Cokely (2005) and Ball (2013) mentioned a gap emerged once sign language interpreters started being trained in colleges in lieu of being chosen for language proficiency and groomed by the Deaf community. Some solutions to decreasing this gap in the education of interpreters that have been suggested in the past include implementing mentoring opportunities for students (Delk, 2013; RID, 2007).

I know what it is like to walk alone into the unknown from college training programs to real-world interpreting. I did not have much access to mentors during my interpreter training program or the first several years working as an entry-level interpreter. There were not enough mentors available to meet the demand at the time. I have personally experienced the lack of support and guidance that many entry-level interpreters encounter. I have witnessed first-hand many new graduates struggling with entry into the field, and this has deepened my belief that mentoring is the key to successfully transitioning recent graduates from college to work-readiness. I say this because I became a mentor in my local community and saw the benefits that occurred when I worked one-on-one with new graduates. We each learned from the experience by collaborating and working together. Collaboration can increase rapport, trust, and unity among interpreters.


For my master’s thesis, I asked over 400 interpreters and interpreting students in the United States and Canada one specific question referring to their feelings of how important it is to have mentors available for entry-level interpreters. The collected data from that question shows there is a strong belief in the importance of mentorship in the interpreting field by those currently working, preparing to work or previously having worked in the field. I also asked if mentoring were made readily available who would take advantage of the mentoring opportunity? A total of 82% of the participants replied they would take advantage of mentorship if available. I believe mentorship could help to bridge the gap that exists between educational preparation programs and work-readiness in the profession of interpreting. It could also lead interpreters to expand their knowledge base, provide professional development opportunities and guide them to becoming more highly-skilled interpreters regardless of their time in the field.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Connect with the Community

Leslie Janda Decker wrote an article for StreetLeverage entitled Sign Language Education: Returning to Deaf Heart. She mentions having D/deaf individuals as mentors and tutors for ASL students and interpreters. Having the D/deaf community and the professional interpreting community come together for the advancement of the field and the services to the communities is paramount. Having mentoring available either in person, via email and/or via live video chats could greatly improve the field of interpreting and the confidence of interpreters.  

Create Awareness and Positive Change

Mentoring can bring about positive changes to the profession. Implementing small group mentoring situations can prevent future students from feeling fearful of entering the profession and feeling alone. Upon graduation, a new interpreter could be assigned a deaf and/or hearing mentor to guide him down the path from student to professional. Mentors are also useful to veteran interpreters wanting to improve a specific skill area or branch out into a different setting they have not experienced previously (e.g. legal). Mentoring can benefit each and every interpreter in a myriad of ways:

  • building trust and rapport in the community
  • learning new signs/expanding vocabulary
  • building self-confidence
  • discussing ethical scenarios
  • exploring new settings (e.g., mental health, legal, freelancing)
  • keeping abreast of new technology
  • staying current with social media sites and apps related to the profession
  • learning proper business practices
  • expanding business opportunities/networking

We all need to work together to fill the void that is missing in our field and mentoring can help.

Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Mentorship

If so many people are interested in working with a mentor, then why are so few people working with mentors? Is it lack of availability? Cost? Fear? Traumatic experiences with previous mentors? Perhaps there are no skilled or willing mentors locally? How can we overcome the issues of not having enough qualified and willing mentors and interested mentees? One thought is that we all have something to offer. The student may learn a new technique or approach that was not around 20 years ago, and they can share this with others in the field. The veteran interpreter has “been there-done that” and can share experiences to shed some light on different scenarios to the novice interpreters entering the field. No matter where you are in your journey, you have something to offer to others and something to gain from others. More of us can set up study programs, workshops, and discussion groups to build camaraderie and share knowledge.

Key Tips to Mentoring

  • Determine what you want to gain from the mentorship (Skills development? If so, pick two elements of your work you want to focus on such as fingerspelling errors and use of space.)
  • Seek out an experienced, professional who is respected in the community and see if they have time to watch your work live or via a video and give feedback on just the two elements that you are working on (e.g., fingerspelling errors and use of space)
  • Feedback should be given and received without the use of evaluative language (e.g., good, bad, should have, you did/didn’t). Instead say, “What I observed was clear, effective fingerspelling. The use of space was ineffective in this sample due to items being set up in one space but referred to in another space, leaving the message unclear.
  • Focus on the WORK, not the interpreter. The goal of mentorship is to assist in accomplishing goals, and it is never the goal for one interpreter to criticize another. When working in teams and in mentoring roles (as mentees and mentors) we should always focus on the WORK, not the interpreter.
  • Give back! If someone offers to mentor you, find a professional way to give back to them and or the community. Reciprocity makes the world go round.

In Conclusion

We all have something to offer, so let’s find out what that is for each of us individually and share with our colleagues regardless of how long they or we have been working in the field. Whether you choose to start mentoring or become a mentee yourself, there is so much more out there if we are all just willing to take that next step to meet, engage, learn, and inspire. What are you waiting for?

Questions to Consider:

  1. If academics believe mentoring is one solution to help minimize the work-readiness gap in the field, what can we do now to make mentoring available nationwide?
  2. What do you think the requirements should be for someone who wants to be a mentor?
  3. How can each veteran interpreter find a way to assist the novice interpreters entering the field?
  4. How can each novice interpreter find a way to assist the veteran interpreters in the field?

For a more in-depth look at the research by Kimberly Boeh please visit http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/26/.

References:

Ball, C. (2013). Legacies and legends: History of interpreter education from 1800 to the 21st century. Edmonton, Alberta Canada: Interpreting Consolidated.

Boeh, K.A. (2016). Mentoring: Fostering the profession while mitigating the gap. Master of Arts in Interpreting Studies (MAIS) Theses. Paper 26.

Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the relationship of interpreters and the deaf community. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, E. A. Winston, P. Sapere, C. M. Convertino, R. Seewagen & C. Monikowski (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice (pp. 3-28). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Decker, L.J. (2015). Sign language interpreter education: Returning to deaf heart. Street Leverage. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2015/01/sign-language-interpreter-education-returning-to-deaf-heart/

Delk, L. (2013, February 28). Interpreter mentoring: A theory-based approach to program design and evaluation (Rep.). Retrieved from National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers website: http://www.interpretereducation.org/ aspiring-interpreter/mentorship/mentoring-toolkit/articles/.

Ott, E. (2015). Horizontal violence: Can sign language interpreters break the cycle? Street Leverage. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2015/03/horizontal-violence-can-sign-language-interpreters-break-the-cycle/.

RID. (2007). Standard Practice Paper. Mentoring. Retrieved December 20, 2015 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3DKvZMflFLdcGktcFhxaS1jSUE/view

Winston, B. & Lee, R. G. (2013). Introduction. In B. Winston & R. G. Lee (Eds.), Mentorship in sign language interpreting (pp. v-viii). Alexandria, VA: RID Press.

 

Posted on by — 6 Comments

What Makes Us Tick? Sign Language Interpreters, Values & Motivation

What Makes Us Tick? Sign Language Interpreters, Values & Motivation

Knowledge of personal beliefs and value systems enhance a sign language interpreter’s professional practice. Audrey Ramirez-Loudenback posits articulating our “why” may positively impact job satisfaction and longevity in the field.

I embarked on this research as a student in Western Oregon University’s MA in Interpreting Studies with a belief that our motivations will influence every part of our professional practice. Literature confirms that values are the foundation for any decision making process, whether a person is consciously aware of this or not (Amentrano, 2014; Brown, 2002; Rokeach 1970, 1974). As sign language interpreters, our responsibility is to start identifying and articulating the values that are expressed through our choices.

[View post in ASL]

Values have been discussed by many in the field of sign language interpreting (Bienvenu, 1987; Cokely, 2000; Dean & Pollard, 2013), including here on Street Leverage (Meckler, 2014). My research attempted to take what we know about values and collect information via an online survey from a large sample of sign language interpreters and interpreting students about their own personally held value systems to see what kind of patterns and trends emerged.  

Values That Motivate

The survey included the Portrait Values Questions (PVQ), an instrument used to collect data that was designed by Dr. Schwartz, a researcher and teacher in the field of Psychology (Schwartz, 1994, 2012, Schwartz et al., 2001, Schwartz et al., 2012). The survey also included questions about demographics and one open-ended question. I received 298 completed responses from interpreters and interpreting students all over the United States. A large portion of the research results centered on the responses to the open-ended question; respondents were asked to briefly describe their reasons for becoming an interpreter.

My findings showed that most respondents described reasons for entering the field that were not congruent with the value system expressed in their PVQ results (Ramirez-Loudenback, 2015). One recurrent example of this incongruity was a response that described a pleasure derived from using American Sign Language. A common example of this was “I fell in love with the language”. Most respondents that had a response similar to this example had results from their PVQ that did not match the values expressed with this idea of loving a language.

Much work has been done in the area of occupational fit and values (Amentrano, 2014; Brown, 2002; Watt & Richardson, 2007). This literature shows that values are an important part of choosing an occupation. One question that emerged from my research was about the consequence of having reasons for choosing to become a sign language interpreter that are not in-line with an individual’s personal value system (prioritization of essential values). I believe that we should be encouraging all emerging interpreters to consider how their values are being expressed in the choice to pursue this profession. This will lead pre-professionals to consider if interpreting will provide a career in which they can have the longevity and satisfaction that comes with an occupation that is congruent with their value system.

Values That Divide & Unite

My research also indicated a variation in value systems from respondents who did not identify as “White/Caucasian” compared to those that did identify as “White/Caucasian”. It is natural for individuals from distinct cultures to prioritize values differently. In fact, one of the reasons Schwartz developed this theory and model was to examine values across cultures (1994; Schwartz et al., 2001). The proportion of respondents (11%) who identified with an ethnic group other than “White/Caucasian” (89%) matches fairly closely with RID’s membership data, which was 87.7% (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2014, p. 58). Within the small number of respondents who did identify as “Asian/Asian-American” or “Latino/Hispanic,” a stark contrast in the prioritization of values with the overall group emerged. Those that identified as “Latino/Hispanic” or “Asian/Asian American” ranked conformity the highest of all ten value types. Conformity includes the values of “Politeness, obedience, self-discipline, honoring parents and elders” (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003, p. 1208). The mean for the overall sample, of 298 participants, ranked conformity 5th out of the ten value types. I believe this leads us to some important questions as a professional community of sign language interpreters and interpreter educators regarding recruitment and retention of interpreters from diverse cultures. What is the experience of being raised with and having a value system that often seems to contrast or even conflict with the majority of your peers/colleagues? How does the majority’s value system create barriers for others to be heard and understood?

Through my study of this topic and my own experience with Supervision Sessions as a Supervision Leader for Western Oregon University’s Professional Supervision of Interpreting Practice (PSIP) program, I have noticed that most ethical conflicts can be reframed through the lens of values (Cokely, 2000; Dean & Pollard, 2013; Glover, Bumpus, Logan, & Ciesla, 1997; Karacaer, Gohar, Aygun, & Sayin, 2009; Meckler, 2014). Most dilemmas can be rephrased by asking: How are the values I am prioritizing conflict with my team/consumer/setting in this moment? Using Schwartz’ Motivational Values Theory and Model we could teach interpreting students and emerging professionals to view professional ethics in a way that is less deontological (right vs. wrong) by framing them in terms of competing values. This could improve professional discourse and lead to deeper reflective practice. When we have the language to articulate those conflicting values, I believe we can engage in a more productive conversation about how to navigate a conflict, one that honors the integrity of all involved.

Start Early for Positive Outcomes

Beginning this self-assessment of personal value systems early in an interpreter’s career may lead to richer dialogue about the impact of those values on ethical decision making. Values not only have profound impact on the choice to become a sign language interpreter, but also the choices in which settings to work, which consumers we feel we ‘match’, and the ethical standards we practice every day.

Questions to Consider:

  1. What motivated you to become an interpreter?
  2. What values do you see represented in your response to question 1?
  3. Which values do you hold dear that have the greatest impact on your work?
  4. Identify a time in your professional history when you thought a colleague was acting unethically. How can you reframe their choices and your own choices in terms of values that were being prioritized and conflicted?

References:

Amentrano, I. R. (2014). Teaching ethical decision making: Helping students reconcile personal and professional values. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92,154 161. doi: 10.1002/j 1556-6676.2014.00143.x

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220.  doi: 10.1177/0146167203254602

Brown, D. (2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfaction, and success: A theoretical statement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(1), 48-56. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00165.x

Bienvenu, M. J. (1987, April). The third culture: Working together (M. L. McIntire, Trans.). Address delivered to the Sign Language Interpreters of California. Retrieved from http://www.stringham.net/doug/uvuasl/3330/ 3330_bienvenu_thirdculture.pdf

Cokely, D. (2000). Exploring ethics: A case for revising the code of ethics. Journal of Interpretation 10(1), 25-57.

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013) The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice profession. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

Glover, S. H., Bumpus, M. A., Logan, J. E., & Ciesla, J. R. (1997). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1319-1329. doi: 10.1023/A:1005758402861

Karacaer, S., Gohar, R., Aygun, M., & Sayin, C. (2009). Effects of personal values on auditor’s ethical decisions: A comparison of Pakistani and Turkish professional auditors. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(53), 53-64. doi: 10.1007/s10551-0091012-4

Meckler, A. (2014, June 17). Beyond Ethics: Rules Versus Values for Sign Language Interpreters. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.streetleverage.com/2014/06/beyond-ethics-rules-versus-values-for-sign-language-interpreters/

Ramirez-Loudenback, A. (2015). Are we here for the same reason? Exploring the motivational values that shape the professional decision making of signed language interpreters. (unpublished Master’s thesis). Western Oregon University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/25

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (2014). The Views. Winter, 2014. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3DKvZMflFLda0pDVkZqZDRqYUk/view?usp=sharing.

Rokeach, M. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values individual and societal. New York, NY: The Free Press.  85

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:  10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542.

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fisher, R., Beierlein, C., Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-588.  doi: 10.1037/a0029393

Watt, H. M., & Richardson, P. W. (2007). Motivational factors influencing teaching as a career choice: Development and validation of the FIT-Choice Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 167-202. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.75.3.167-20

Posted on by — 8 Comments

IEP: Faculty Composition Impacts Sign Language Interpreter Readiness

IEP: Faculty Composition Impacts Sign Language Interpreter Readiness

By investing in a faculty rich in diversity, skills and experience, Joseph Featherstone believes Interpreter Education Programs can enhance sign language interpreting students’ readiness while upholding high standards of practice.

There’s been a lot of focus on interpreter readiness, especially for recent graduates of Interpreter Education Programs (IEP). As a Deaf person who often uses sign language interpreting services, as an educator teaching university-level ASL courses, and as a CDI, I want to share some observations and insights that will increase the likelihood that an IEP will turn out graduates who are ready to function as effective interpreters.

[View post in ASL]

Identifying Gatekeepers

I remember once getting a call from a friend who teaches ASL. She had a question about a former student of mine.

“Should I accept her into the program? Or is she going to waste a spot for a potential interpreter?”

It hadn’t occurred to me how my ASL classes impact the Deaf community by feeding ITPs and educating prospective interpreters.

At that moment, I realized, as an ASL instructor, I was a gatekeeper.     

Historically, Deaf community members acted as exclusive gatekeepers and chose who would become interpreters (Ball, 2013., Cokely, 2005., & Fant, 1990). In the 1960s and ‘70s, sign language interpreters were most often those who were already connected to the Deaf Community – children of Deaf parents, close friends, siblings, and pastors of congregations (Cokely, 2005). With time, though, government support for sign language interpreting grew, new trends emerged, and the mode of gatekeeping shifted.

Nowadays, the most common way to become an interpreter is via classroom education through schools and interpreter training programs (Ball, 2013). Due to this change, the role of gatekeeper has now expanded to include a variety of instructors from these schools and programs.

In his article, It Takes a Village to Raise a Sign Language Interpreter, Brian Morrison says, “Rather than viewing interpreter education programs negatively or putting the sole onus on them for having not taught students all they need to know, we can shift our focus to building on their existing foundation.”

I couldn’t agree more.

After the phone call from my friend, my epiphany snowballed. I realized that as an instructor and a gatekeeper, I had the unique opportunity to prepare my students to connect into the Deaf community. I wasn’t on just one side anymore; I had a responsibility to set high standards and teach my students to these standards.

And I’m not the only one. Every instructor along a student’s journey, from those teaching introductory ASL to those teaching the most advanced IEP courses, have a dual role—teaching and gatekeeping. Everyone.

As Morrison says, it takes a village.

For that reason, I encourage IEP directors to evaluate their faculty’s backgrounds and experiences. It does take a village to raise a sign language interpreter, and it takes a village to keep the standards of sign language interpreting high.

The Village

The village, like the gatekeeper, is a metaphor. Village members represent members of the Deaf community in all their variety. In earlier times, the village helped mentor and nurture a budding interpreter to grow in language and cultural fluency.

Today, sign language interpreters are graduating and passing certifications without being immersed in that surrounding village, leaving a gap between them and the Deaf community.

As an interpreter, instructor, and Deaf individual, I’ve seen how this gap affects all of us involved in the IEP student’s journey and how it affects our roles as gatekeepers.

In addition to more and more encouragement (or a requirement) to go out and spend precious time participating in the Deaf community, I propose that IEP directors and boards bring a little bit of the village to the interpreter—for preparation and evaluation.

This sampling of the village cannot replace the knowledge, skills, and experience interpreting students gain by spending time in the Deaf community. But, a faculty that reflects the diversity of the village can help students more quickly build their knowledge, skills, and cultural fluency. And time is short to prepare interpreters to reach graduation.

Who, then, do we bring in from the village?

I’d like to introduce you to four of what I call the village elders: the Native English-Speaker, the Native ASL Signer, the Bilingual Native, and the CDI.

The Village Elders

The Native English-Speaker:

Instructors who are English natives, for whom ASL is an acquired language, aren’t difficult to find. These are hearing instructors. Because they are common, their role in the village can become ambiguous without the context of the other faculty.

As a Native English-Speaker, this elder has the distinct trait of native fluency in English. They share this English first language acquisition with most of their interpreting students. The depth of their understanding of the nuances of English can only help as they interpret in situations rich with jargon or cultural queues (e.g., a hospital visit).

In large part, Native English-Speakers can identify with their interpreter students’ journey because it is one they had to make themselves: they once had to pass by gatekeepers and gain entrance to the Deaf community and the village.

The Native ASL Signer:

Typically a deaf teacher with native ASL fluency, having a Native ASL Signer teaching ASL or ITP classes cannot be undervalued. It’s always preferable in terms of language acquisition to have a native speaker teaching the mother tongue rather than someone who learned it later. Often, the ASL native not only has a primary language learner’s understanding of ASL but also can share their experience and knowledge as a member of the Deaf community.

In the classroom, they represent the Deaf perspective on sign language interpreting. Through their instruction, IEP students can gain a better appreciation for the Deaf community and can develop a basic cultural fluency to build on outside of class.

Many IEPs do not employ Native ASL Signers for classes other than ASL. There are classes that could benefit from a Deaf native’s perspective, like ethics and translation. Wouldn’t it be amazing if each of these village elders could teach an ethics course each semester and offer their different perspectives?

The Bilingual Native:

Bilingual Natives have native fluency in both ASL and English, such as Children of Deaf Adults (CODA). Because they most likely grew up with ASL as their first language, the Bilingual Native more intimately understands the Deaf way. That’s not to say that that they are more invested in the Deaf community than those who learned ASL in school, but that their relationship with the Deaf community is more direct, and as such, they are greatly impacted by the state of the Deaf community.

Bilingual Natives also have a strong understanding of English and can teach on the intersection between the Deaf and Hearing communities, especially as it relates to interpreting.

The CDI:

This may be the most under-utilized Village Elder. A CDI can be instrumental in the holistic development of an interpreting student. Their experience as a Deaf community member and a certified interpreter helps them bridge the perspective gap between ITP students and the Deaf community. They understand the feelings of being a client, and they understand the pressures of being a sign language interpreter.

Sometimes interpreting students view Deaf teachers as skilled in the language but less able to identify with the mechanics of interpreting. CDIs like myself are able to relate on both levels. We are Deaf. We are also not just interpreters, but interpreters who are more often called in for extreme, high-stress, high-stakes interpreting situations. We typically have more experience in the trenches where interpreting mistakes can be disastrous.

The unique CDI role provides us with a distinct perspective and understanding of the interpreting process, the Code of Professional Conduct established by RID, as well as the feelings of interpreters and the recipients of interpreting services—not to mention, CDIs know firsthand the best practices for team interpreting with other CDIs and hearing interpreters.

CDIs have a lot to offer IEP students. It’s been my experience that recent graduates from programs with a CDI on faculty exhibit a more refined situational awareness.

In The End

To rephrase Morrison: “Imagine the outcomes when the new student and the [Village Elders] learn and grow from sharing their knowledge with each other.”  Skill development is quickest when in the community. For our students, that means taking every opportunity to encourage their interaction with allies, advocates, and members of the Deaf community and providing them with a faculty that reflects the strength and diversity of our community.

Questions For Consideration

  1. What skills or perspectives do you and your faculty have that contribute to the sense of the village in your program? What additional skills or perspectives could benefit your program?  
  2. How do you think IEPs can better build a sense of the village and gatekeeping?
  3. Why do you think it takes a village to raise a sign language interpreter?

References

  1. Ball, C. (2013). Legacies and legends: History of interpreter education from 1800 to the 21st century. Edmonton, AB: Interpreting Consolidated.
  2. Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the relationship of interpreters and the deaf community. In M. Marshcark, R. Peterson & E.
  3. Fant, L. (1990). Silver threads: A personal look at the first twenty-five years of the registry of interpreters for the deaf. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.
  4. Morrison, B. (2013). It Takes a Village to Raise a Sign Language Interpreter. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from https://www.streetleverage.com/2013/09/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-sign-language-interpreter/