Posted on by — 9 Comments

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

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

Deaf Interpreters (DI) bring a wealth of cultural and linguistic experience to Interpreter Education. Jeremy Rogers investigated the DI experience with Education Programs resulting in some practical recommendations for how to better welcome them to the table.

 

In 2014, Eileen Forestal, PhD, RSC, presented at StreetLeverage – Live in Austin, Texas. One of the most poignant statements she made was, “Deaf Interpreters have been involved every step of the way since the beginning of the profession. Deaf Interpreters are here to stay. We will shape the future of the profession for all interpreters whose work includes American Sign Language and English” (Forestal, 2014). In 2016, I found that working Deaf interpreters and Deaf interpreting students did not share the same outlook.

[View post in ASL.]

I was introduced to the concept of Deaf interpreters early on in my college education. Originally majoring in elementary education, I decided to take American Sign Language to fulfill my language requirement. I randomly selected an ASL 100 course that fit into my schedule. The instructor happened to be a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI). Eventually, I changed majors to interpreting and transferred to Gallaudet University for my Bachelor’s in Interpretation. While at Gallaudet, I regularly observed Deaf/Hearing interpreting teams, as well as Deaf/Blind interpreting done primarily by CDIs. Having such consistent exposure to Deaf interpreters falsely led me to believe that working with Deaf interpreters was common practice. I quickly realized after I returned to California that this was not the case.

When I began working as a Video Relay Service (VRS) interpreter, I was again surprised to find that we did not have Deaf interpreters in the call center. Staffing Deaf interpreters seemed like such a logical component in video relay settings, especially having such high call volume for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) calls. What was even more surprising was the number of colleagues I had whom had never worked with a Deaf interpreter before. Some colleagues even scoffed at the idea that they would need a Deaf interpreting team; after all, they knew ASL and had been doing this for years! I soon realized this was no longer a simple theme I was encountering; it was a very serious problem.

Research Process

I began my graduate studies at Western Oregon University in 2014. After considering dozens of topics of interest, it struck me: What is Deaf interpreter education? What does Deaf interpreter education look like and how can it be most effective? The magnitude of these research questions was overwhelming. I needed expert guidance, and so I asked Carole Lazorisak, a working Deaf interpreter, to join my research committee. There was no way I could define most effective approaches to Deaf interpreter education, as I am not a Deaf interpreter; I could, however, reach out to working Deaf interpreters and Deaf interpreting students to gain insight into their educational experiences. In June of 2015, the first national Deaf Interpreter Conference was held in St. Paul, Minnesota. I mailed consent forms to St. Paul to be distributed at the conference; out of 208 registrants in attendance, 52 registrants completed and returned a consent form. 8 additional participants completed the consent form. In the end, 9 participants were selected for an interview. Interviews were conducted via videophone or online video conferencing platform and screen recorded for documentation. Interviews were then transcribed from ASL to English; initial transcriptions were returned to the interviewees for feedback and corrections, and, once approved, the transcripts were coded for data.

 

Findings of Research Study

While the full findings of the research study can be found below, I would like to share the more unexpected findings that came to light. I was disheartened to discover that there was such a common theme of interpersonal/intrapersonal strife amongst Deaf interpreters; that is, the negative perceptions that Deaf interpreters had of themselves, not only because of the experiences they had in interpreting programs, but also working in the field alongside hearing interpreters. Several interview participants reflected on their experiences in both interpreting programs and workshop settings and noted a strong sense of distrust by hearing interpreters; many of these same Deaf interpreters criticized the constant emphasis on interpreters’ hearing status rather than the skills and abilities they had to contribute to the interpreting process.

Perhaps the most disturbing theme that arose from the interviews conducted was the resigned acceptance of the conditions of our current climate. Several participants concluded that even though they recognized the injustices in place, there was very little to be done if they hoped to continue to work as Deaf interpreters. One participant went so far as to state, “I take it from hearing interpreters right now because I am working toward building my reputation and securing more opportunities for myself. If I am not careful with how I react, I am risking my job security” (Rogers, 2016). Another participant commented, “If the bickering and arguing and discord between Deaf and hearing teams continues, hearing interpreters are going to continue being resistant to working with us. And that means less work for us in the end” (Rogers, 2016).

Recommendations by Participants

Participants were asked for their insight and recommendations for improving Deaf interpreter education in existing interpreting programs across the nation; both working Deaf interpreters and Deaf interpreting students made the following recommendations:

  1. Stronger Deaf presence in interpreter education: participants stressed the importance of hiring more Deaf faculty members to teach in interpreting programs, as well as maintaining higher numbers of Deaf interpreting students so as to avoid any perceived or actual tokenism. Participants also encouraged interpreting programs to invite the Deaf community into the classroom to participate in interpreting exercises; this would allow for more authentic interpreting practice.
  2. Skill sets to be focused on: a strong emphasis was placed on Deaf interpreting students’ command of both English and American Sign Language, noting that being a heritage user of either language did not qualify a Deaf student as linguistically capable. In regards to curriculum design, participants generally believed that hearing and Deaf students should learn together in interpreting programs, but that some courses should taken independently to address skills specific to Deaf interpreters (i.e. gestural communication, expansions techniques, ethical decision-making practices).
  3. Support for Deaf interpreter education on a national level: as most of the participants were in attendance at the 2015 Deaf Interpreter Conference (DIC), there were several comments made in reference to the DIC. All comments made were supportive of the conference and many participants stressed the importance of continuing to provide opportunities for Deaf interpreters to gather at a national, or even regional, level; this would encourage a sharing of ideas and information, thus nurturing the growth of Deaf interpreters’ education and practice.

It is time for us, as a profession, as a community, to reflect on Forestal’s words and remember that Deaf interpreters are here

to stay. As a hearing interpreter, I am humbled and honored to have been afforded the unique opportunity to record and share the experiences of Deaf interpreters who came long before me; I wish to again thank all of the participants of this research study for their time and commitment to our work.

Questions to Consider

  1. What are your thoughts on Deaf interpreter education and curricula design?
  2. How can we address the interpersonal/intrapersonal issues plaguing the dynamics of our field?
  3. How can Deaf interpreter education gain more support on a national level?

References

  1. Forestal, E. (2014). Deaf Interpreters: Shaping the Future of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession. Street Leverage. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2015/02/deaf-interpreters-shaping-the-future-of-the-sign-language-interpreting-profession/
  2. Rogers, Jeremy, “Deaf Interpreter Education: Stories and Insights Shared by Working Deaf Interpreters and Deaf Interpreting Students” (2016). Master’s of Arts in Interpreting Studies (MAIS) Theses. Paper 31. http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/31
Posted on by — 6 Comments

Designated Interpreters are Different: Examining a Growing Field

Designated Interpreters are Different: Examining a Growing Field

Alicia Booth outlines the unique relationship between Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters, particularly in medical environments. Role adaptation and flexibility are key to this new and evolving specialty area of sign language interpreting.

For half a century, the field of sign language interpreting has been steadily advancing, yet the interpreting needs for Deaf Professionals are developing at an even faster pace. Deaf Professionals (DPs) are achieving their academic and career aspirations in technical fields such as medicine, law, and engineering. Many DPs who achieve their career goals fought to have interpreters alongside them in graduate level classes, practicums, and clinicals. After securing accommodations, the next hurdle is finding a sign language interpreter who has the unique skill set and the willingness to adapt to a career specialty; thus the need for Designated Interpreters (DIs) for Deaf Professionals grows.

[View post in ASL.]

Since DPs are not traditional clients, it would make sense that neither are their DIs. Data from surveys of institutions of higher education, documentation from court cases[1], [2], [3], and anecdotal evidence suggest that a DP’s success benefits from a unique approach to accommodations. Personality and adaptability often rank as the most important qualities for their DI to possess, while mastery of ASL rank much lower. The willingness of the DI to linguistically specialize and assimilate into the DPs field is crucial.

Designated Interpreters are Different

Perhaps you may be asking yourself how DIs are so different and why those differences matter? Since I am drawing from my experience as a Designated Interpreter for Healthcare Professionals, I will share an environmental scenario in the hospital; however, these examples can be globally applied for DPs in most technical professions.  

Trauma Scenario: The DI and the DP (medical student) are both sitting in the doctor’s call room working on patient notes. Suddenly an overhead page indicates that a Level I trauma is expected to arrive in three minutes. You both rush out the door and head towards the trauma bay. There is exactly now two minutes left until the arrival of the patient, whom, you learned while rushing to the bay, was in critical condition from a motor vehicle accident, is unconscious, and is losing blood rapidly. With those two minutes, the DI’s preparation is crucial for the team’s outcome. There are also a dozen or more medical staff present to assist in stabilizing the patient. As a DI, you are filtering multiple conversations at once. You are also independently (without the direction of your DP) putting on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), setting up mics for better audio access in the room, introducing yourself to the trauma team, explaining your role, and establishing placement so that you are not in the way, but visually accessible, to the DP. The DP in those two minutes may have been on the opposite side of the room looking at incoming x‐rays, EMS reports, and also getting on their PPE. If that DI was to wait even a second (stuck in the traditional role of not acting on one’s own autonomy), the patient’s care could be jeopardized, as well as the DI’s own safety. The DI might even be kicked out of the trauma bay as an unnecessary bystander, still waiting for the DP to introduce you and for them to indicate what you should be doing and to whom you should be speaking. That DI’s inclusion with the medical team is actually what elevates the DP to be on an equal level with peers and supervisors. When there are only two minutes to designate roles and lives  are depending on efficiency, you simply cannot respond as a traditional interpreter does.

Now, this was an extreme example to indicate how DI’s must abandon roles taught to us by  ITPs, but re‐examined, we could certainly apply this type of autonomy in a less life-threatening  situation. That was a little on how DI’s are different. You may now have already guessed why it matters. Now, Iet’s dissect these questions a bit further.

Adaptability is Key

The traditional role provides a lot of safety for sign language interpreters but it works against the success of Deaf individuals in professional careers. With that said, some DPs do prefer traditional interpreters. We must always keep that in mind when customizing our approach to our clients’ needs. DPs share a common concern that sign language interpreters’ lack of adaptability and limited skill-sets are what prevents them from climbing the success ladder[4]. Some will overcome the odds, but may remain isolated amongst their hearing peers. Eventually, this will lead to plateauing in their chosen field.

DPs and DIs Develop Close Partnerships

The traditional approach to sign language interpreting shields us from encounters that challenge our neutrality. As DIs, our neutrality is still intact but our humanity is exposed. You can not hide your humanity as a DI when you are covered with blood from a patient, interpreting a terminal diagnosis, or witnessing a birth. Being exposed to death and birth will bring us closer to the DP and the medical staff supporting those patients. The DI may be invited to debrief with the staff after trauma. They may also cry or laugh with the DP and his team. That is part of the partnership. The role of a DI exposes their vulnerabilities, weaknesses and strengths which, in turn, can create a stronger bond between the DP and DI. It also helps level out the natural power dynamic that exists in the hearing and deaf world. In a partnership approach, you both have stakes in successful outcomes. Additionally, as a healthcare DI, you are taking up precious space that would otherwise be utilized by another doctor, nurse or student. Standing idly in “neutrality” is not considered a good utilization of resources.

Partnerships are created through on‐the‐job relationships with the DP and their peers. We are friendly, communicative, and responsive to questions. If we do not communicate autonomously and openly with or without our DP around, it will create immediate isolation for that professional. In other words, we are considered an extension of that DP. Stay with me here, I am not speaking on existential terms. Simply put, we are behaving as we normally would amongst colleagues. We are working to close the formal and informal conversational gap that often occurs with peers who do not share a language. DPs and DIs might finish each other’s thoughts on occasion – this is teamwork.

Either way, we are acting on acquired instincts and, together, our collaborative communication “closes the deal” for a PAH work environment to run smoothly. It becomes obvious why the DI’s personality and adaptability skills are highly desirable. Neither the DP nor DI wants to be stuck together if they are not able to effectively work together. Of course, the only way to create this level of trust is getting to know the DP on both a professional and personal level. How else could a DI read the DP’s thoughts and know when to share a favorite deaf joke, “Why did God create farts? So that Deaf people could enjoy them too!” to a doctor while performing a colonoscopy. It’s always a good laugh, and the doctor may be more likely to request the DP on another assignment because their experience with “our team” went smoothly.

Embracing Change

These scenarios only scratch the surface of the depth of this type of teaming environment. DPs are eagerly awaiting sign language interpreters that are ready to embrace change. An interpreter with the aptitude for learning, who is also humble enough to adapt to the DP’s needs will succeed in this role. While not all sign language interpreters are a good match for this work, those few that have this privilege are honored every day to be part of the DP’s world.

Let’s work together to advance our careers and DPs too!

Questions for Consideration:

  1. How are the current traditional interpreter roles holding back deaf professionals?
  2. What are the challenges of interpreters acting on their own autonomy?
  3. How does a Designated Interpreter adapt their role?

References:

[1] Swabey, L., Agan, T., Moreland, C., & Olson, A. (2016, May). “Understanding the Work of Designated Healthcare Interpreters” Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.cit-asl.org/new/ijie/volume-8-1/#toggle-id-4

[2] U.S. Medical Schools’ Compliance With the Americans with Disabilities Act: Findings From a National Study. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://uthscsa.influuent.utsystem.edu/en/publications/us-medical-schools-compliance-with-the-americans-with-disabilitie

[3] Eligon, J. (2013, August 19). Deaf Student, Denied Interpreter by Medical School, Draws Focus of Advocates. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/us/deaf-student-denied-interpreter-by-medical-school-draws-focus-of-advocates.html

[4] “Breaking Down Barriers: Professionals and Students in Healthcare” (n.d.). NADMag, Spring(2016).

Posted on by — 21 Comments

Accept or Decline? Questions Sign Language Interpreters Should Ponder

Accept or Decline? Questions Sign Language Interpreters Should Ponder

Michael Ballard suggests that sign language interpreters must begin making decisions before an assignment ever begins. Utilizing pre-assignment questions can bring practitioners more clarity when determining readiness for a job.

 

Hello, everyone. I’m Michael Ballard and I’m thrilled to be with you today for Street Leverage. It’s an exciting time. A little about myself: I grew up learning speech and lip-reading in California and I learned to sign at age 15, and I sign still today. My identity underwent a significant change when I started to learn ASL as I began to interact with a variety of Deaf peers at my high school. Through their instruction, my signing ability greatly improved, and I’m still always learning. I also have to thank the friends of mine who are interpreters. Without your hard work, I wouldn’t be where I am today.

[Click to view post in ASL.]

I had been giving thought to this when Brandon Arthur approached me at the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf conference in New Orleans and asked if I was interested in filming an article. I agreed, and after some thought decided to speak on an issue close to my heart and mind: an interpreter’s thought process when accepting or declining a job.

 

Defining the Lens

This article’s lens uses as a foundation Dean and Pollard’s 2001 research on Demand Control Schema, or DCS[1]. An interpreter needs to fully grasp both concepts of what constitutes the various demands and controls before accepting an assignment.

Demands and Controls

The category of “demands” can be broken into four parts:

  • environmental demands: terminology, technology, roles, physical environment
  • interpersonal demands: that which is specific to the interpreter and clients involved
  • paralinguistic demands: That which is specific to the expressive skills of the client (deaf or hearing)
  • intrapersonal demands: That which is specific to the interpreter (inner thoughts, feelings, bias, physical/emotional state)

The concept of “controls” describe what a person can exert influence over in the situation, such as:

  • actions or behavior,
  • Particular translation/interpretation decisions
  • Internal/attitudinal acknowledgments

Accurately Assessing Readiness

Before I go on, I would like to note the word “anosognosia,” a term coined in 1999 by Dunning-Kruger in an article at Cornell University[2]. The phenomenon of anosognosia arose to describe research participants’ excessive overestimation of their skills and abilities, and the tendency of we as humans to inflate reality so it reflects positively on ourselves. However, it is only through recognition of error that we can reflect and grow. It then follows that interpreters could be prone to the overconfidence that comes with anosognosia, and should make every effort not to overlook that tendency.

Pre-Assignment Analysis

I’d like to pose some overarching questions for interpreter analysis. As an interpreter, one should ask: Do I possess enough controls to satisfy the demands of this assignment? Each of the following sub-questions should be considered through self-analysis and review using a Likert scale approach (1=weakest ability to 5= strongest ability).  

  1. Do I have sufficient linguistic skill and content knowledge in the necessary languages to meet the needs of this assignment, and to interpret or translate with accuracy and cultural equivalency?

It is incumbent on the interpreter to communicate with the managing entity to get all relevant details and demands of the assignment to make that determination. That process takes experience.

At my first staff-faculty meeting at the start of the semester- I am an ASL instructor and moved recently for the job- it so happened that several colleagues wanted to learn some signs, so I invited them to join my class. After two weeks, we attended a meeting to which an agency interpreter had been assigned. The interpreter was not certified or licensed and was clearly incompetent. I was consequently unable to participate in the meeting because I couldn’t understand the content. During the meeting, a colleague texted me and asked about the interpreter because they were noticeably confused and fumbling. I gave feedback about the interpreter to the agency after the meeting on the need to improve the quality of services, and it is my hope that in the two years since that meeting that they have improved. That is an example of the necessity of an interpreter possessing the linguistic skills and knowledge required in an assignment in order to interpret effectively and accurately.

  1.  Am I psychologically and emotionally stable enough to perform the job requisites? Can I interpret without having a negative influence on the parties involved?

Due to the unpredictability of assignments, an interpreter must be mentally and emotionally capable of handling unexpected events.

For example, at the birth of my oldest daughter- we have four children- the interpreter at the hospital was respectful, competent and professional and made the experience as seamless as possible, even given the 3:00 A.M. delivery. I’m grateful to have had that positive of an experience. We specifically requested the same interpreter for our second child’s birth because the first experience had been so wonderful, and it made the day that much more fun. However, at the birth of our third child my wife and I were terribly disappointed at the assigned interpreter’s lack of professionalism in their behavior- they were flirting, making jokes and in general being inappropriate. It was upsetting for my wife to be actively in labor with an interpreter interjecting in the midst of everything. Unfortunately, it’s an example of an interpreter not possessing the mental and emotional clarity to navigate that type of situation, and that lack of self-regulation has a serious impact. 

  1. Am I taking this assignment because I’m qualified, or because I want the experience?

As I mentioned, our first two childbirth experiences were exceptional because the interpreter was qualified, but I wonder if the interpreter in the third birth accepted the job solely to gain more medical interpreting experience. I didn’t think to inquire at the time because I was focused on my wife, but the question for me remains. I suggest in those situations that an interpreter looking to gain experience instead ask to observe or mentor with a qualified interpreter and select appropriate assignments rather than cause a situation where communication access in high stakes settings is in jeopardy due to ill qualifications.

  1.  Does my preparation vary based on my views of what kind of Deaf client or position is seen to be “high profile” or not?

My belief is that there is no hierarchy of clients or professions- a Ph.D. should be approached with the same respect and care as a welder, teacher, nurse, carpenter, stay at home parent or any other occupation or station in life. All have value, but are interpreters investing the same amount of time and energy in preparation to reflect that? Interpreters should take the time to examine assumptions of what merits varying levels of preparation and not unfairly weight some assignments or clients above others. Providing interpreting services in a kindergarten or first grade is just as critically important as interpreting doctorate courses, and we need to examine bias, appreciate the human element and rethink how to approach “high profile” vs “low profile” assignments. 

  1. Am I able to keep my bias in check?

A common phrase among interpreters is one on neutrality in assignments: “I’m neutral, not getting involved,” etc. Metzger (2011)[3] states that the idealistic “neutral conduit” does not exist. Your biases affect and effect how exchanges take place. Will my presence lead to further oppression of a marginalized group or build bridges that bring groups together? An interpreter should be aware of biases and look for ways to mitigate any negative impact on the interpreted product. For example, if an interpreter finds themselves in a situation where they feel strongly about communication modes being discussed for cultural or educational reasons, or perhaps are interpreting political views that may contrast their own, it is important that the interpreter recognize biases and thoughtfully consider their ability to provide quality service. If it’s not possible, they need to excuse themselves from the assignment or allow a team interpreter to interpret. An interpreter not possessing adequate controls will ultimately deliver a flawed product. Ideally, an interpreter should be mentally and emotionally aware enough to recognize biases and determine qualifications and fit prior to the assignment.

Post-Assignment Considerations

I’d like to shift focus from pre-assignment self-analysis questions for considering to post-assignment questions. In my estimation, it’s rare that in-depth analysis post-assignment happens as often as it should, but it is worthy of thought. Similarly to the initial set of questions, these would be helpful to answer using the Likert scale method:

  1. Am I confident that my interpretation was linguistically and culturally accurate in both English and ASL?
  2. What would I do differently if and when I am in a similar context, linguistically, interpersonally, etc?
  3. Finally, did I approach the client after the assignment to provide clarifying comments or check in about comprehension?

Considering these questions both before and after each assignment will help develop a stronger awareness of self and decision-making process.

In the End: Gratitude

Again, I want to reiterate that without interpreters, I wouldn’t be where I am in my life today. My life journey would look completely different. For all of your hard work, the hours of training, your minds and hearts, blood, sweat, and tears- many, many, thanks. I look forward to seeing you around in the community and will gladly accept any questions on this article. Enjoy your day.

Questions to Consider:

  1. How might I better solicit meaningful advice and feedback from my clients as a resource to maintain a healthy self-appraisal?
  2. What do I do to gauge emotional readiness to interpret in any given environment?
  3. What mechanisms do I employ to keep my bias in check while interpreting?
  4. What does “high profile” mean and how does that definition play a part in my preparations?

References:

[1] Dean, R.K., & Pollard, R.Q. (2001).  Application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training.  Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 1-14.

[2] Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77, 1121–1134.

[3] Metzger, M. (2011).  Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality.  Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Posted on by — 29 Comments

What Are We Really Saying? Perceptions of Sign Language Interpreting

Sign Language Interpreter Framing Their Work

Kelly Decker examines common ways sign language interpreters frame the task of interpreting and peels back some of the implications and impact on the field and the larger communities served.

 

Sign language interpreters are taught that meaning is conveyed through accurate word choice. Do we give the same considerations to word choice when we label and describe interpreting itself? How do our words and actions frame our work?

As a professional sign language interpreter, I would like to address some of the language used when conversing with colleagues, training new interpreters, and depicting the profession to the mainstream media. The frames we use, as a profession, have the power to devalue the work we do, and by extension, the communities we serve. Continued reinforcement of these frames impacts public perception of sign language interpreting.

[Click to view post in ASL.]

It takes years of intentional practice, reflection, and dedication to develop competence as a sign language interpreter. Platforms such as Street Leverage allow us to continually highlight and examine the ways we have yet to grow. MJ Bienvenu’s Bilingualism: Are Sign Language Interpreters Bilingual and Carol Padden’s Do Sign Language Interpreter Accents Compromise Comprehension? illustrate two fundamental problems we face in the field.

While we have begun to address the language we use to talk about our work, there is more work to do. I have selected four examples which demonstrate various ways interpreters contribute to current understandings of our work. There are many other examples that could be analyzed. I encourage you to contribute to this conversation online and with your colleagues to further examine how our use of language can contribute to a misperception of our profession and the disenfranchisement of the Deaf community. These types of conversations lead to greater awareness, which can be a catalyst for change.

The Labels We Use: “Terp”

It is not clear to me where this abbreviation came from. A cursory search on the internet found that it is cited as slang for “interpreter” and paired with the word ‘deaf’. We work with marginalized communities who are continuously disenfranchised regardless of the abundance of evidence and research regarding language, intelligence, and Deaf Gain [1]. We deflate our profession and the work we do for the sake of a few saved keystrokes.

This word “terp” (and I call it a word since it has become commonplace nomenclature and somewhat of a phenomenon within our field [i.e. TERPexpo],) is used primarily in written English when interpreters communicate with and refer to each other, and when interpreting agencies make requests for “terps”. The use of the term “Terp” does not stop within sign language interpreting circles. Since it has become somewhat the norm internally, it has spilled out into the larger community as the preferred label for what many interpreters want to be called. I feel this does a disservice to the field. I am an interpreter.

Misleading Terminology

“Hands-up”

As I understand it, in most instances, this phrase refers to actual interpreting. I come across it when dialoguing with ASL/English interpreting students. This term is used in practicum to indicate a requirement that is different from observation hours – the need for “hands-up” hours.

When sign language interpreters in the field and educators in interpreter education programs use this term to talk about the work we do, it implies that interpreters only interpret in one direction, into American Sign Language. It implies that Deaf people have nothing to say nor contribute. In reality, our work is working between – at least – two languages. This misguided idea is further bolstered by how our national organization frames the act of interpreting. The interpreter certification exam tests interpreting capabilities and decision-making. Yet ASL vlogs, created by RID, refer to the performance portion of the interpreting exam using a gloss that gives the literal impression that the exam is a “signing test”[2].

As explained above, “hands-up” addresses only half of the work we do. Or does it? When colleagues say “I prefer to work into ASL, it’s easier” or “I don’t do any ASL to spoken English work,” is it because interpreters, too, believe that interpreting is only done in one direction?

Additionally, the term “hands-up” perpetuates the erroneous notion that sign language interpreters, most of whom are second language learners of ASL, prefer to work into ASL because they are “comfortable”, “have more experience working into ASL,” or “feel they are clear”.  Substantial evidence is to the contrary [3].

Interpreting, and more broadly, signed languages, have little to do with the hands. While sign language is expressed in a visual modality, the hands are but one element of that mode. Language is rich and complex. It conveys thoughts, emotions, and abstract ideas and it results in human connections. Language is influenced by and interwoven with culture. It is impacted by generational, intersectional and regional influences. Reducing an entire language to its modality is a prime example of how the dominant language and culture exerts power over and diminishes a linguistic and cultural minority.

“Voicing”

This term “voicing” has become commonplace within our field as a descriptor for the spoken language work we do as interpreters. It is a descriptor that oversimplifies the nature of the work, as if it requires no cognitive decision-making by the interpreter, nor cultural brokering between the two languages, and that the interpreter functions simply as a sign-by-sign voice over.  In Jessica Bentley-Sassaman’s article, Taking Ownership: Defining Our Work As Sign Language Interpreters, she states “voicing” does not appropriately state what we do, what does is naming what we are actually doing when interpreting.

As the profession continues to use the term “voicing”, I believe that we perpetuate a medical perspective on deafness. It bolsters the idea, that when deaf people use sign language they need to be fixed somehow, given a voice, and that’s what interpreters are doing.

This portrayal of the work reinforces a view held by the majority culture that  the language used by the Deaf community is somehow deficient. This misconception is propagated by the Alexander Graham Bell Association, whose position was made public [4] after the televised accomplishments of Nyle DiMarco, that desirable language development and outcomes for deaf children are only possible when focusing on listening and speaking, both of which are deeply rooted in the deficit-based medical model of what it means to be deaf.

As sign language interpreters, I believe we ought to unpack the implications and impacts of how we frame our work.

Perceptions of Professional Interpreters: Shake It Off [Interpreter Version] [5]

This video was so popular on social media after its release in December 2014, that the video’s participants were a part of the entertainment during RID’s 2015 national conference in New Orleans, LA. I have cited this piece not based on its participants but as an example of how we portray who we are, what our work entails, and how we approach the task of interpreting.

From what I gather, this video was made as a parody, a day-in-the-life of a sign language interpreter. All joking aside, what I cannot shake off while watching this video without audio input, is that it clearly represents misconceptions about the work we do:

(1) we only work into sign language, as the tired arms, hands and fingers portray;

(2) we only do this work for the money, as the interpreter runs off screen following the dollar bills;

(3) we self-medicate, as the abundance of pills clearly shows; and

(4) we can brush off the significance of the task of interpreting, as the title of the song conveys.

This day-in-the-life video makes no mention of the substantial cognitive work we do, which is the foundation of the product we produce. The sole focus is the self-aggrandizement of the interpreter. We must consider how this can contribute to the  mainstream media’s abundance of misleading and demeaning pieces about sign language interpreters while #DeafTalent continues to go unnoticed.

Holding Ourselves Accountable

These examples are both subtle and not so subtle. As these flawed representations proliferate, we, as practitioners, as educators, and as a professional organization, become complacent and immune to the deleterious effect they have on our profession. We may dismiss it, saying, “This is the way we’ve always talked about the work,” “This how my interpreter training program said it,” or “I never really thought about it.”

We need to think about it. We need to talk about it. We need to question and remind each other when we use language that trivializes our work.

Mastery of interpreting is no easy feat. It is a labor of love, a demanding cognitive endeavor, and a dedication to craft. Above all, we are collectively accountable to representing our work with the utmost respect for the Deaf community.

How will you model talking about the work we do?

Questions for Consideration:

  1. The ways in which we, as a profession, talk about the work we do is anchored upon our understanding of what interpreting means. Are the ways we portray the work, the profession, and the communities we serve accurate?
  2. How do you think the ways that we talk about the work impact the profession?
  3. Do you have examples of times when dialoguing with colleagues where how they were talking about the work just did not sit right?
  4. With those examples in mind, how can you further explore what it is that did not sit right?

References:

[1] Bauman, H-Dirksen and Murray, Joseph. Editors. Deaf Gain Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity. University of Minnesota Press. October 2014.

[2] Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. RID Announces Moratorium on Credentialing You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6PM4a1tR7E Posted 9 Aug 2015.

[3] Nicodemus, Brenda and Emmorey, Karen. Directionality in ASL-English interpreting Accuracy and articulation quality in L1 and L2. Interpreting. Vol 17:2. 2015. p. 145-166.

[4] Sugar, Meredith. Dispelling myths about deafness. Online: http://www.agbell.org/inthe-news/response-nyle-dimarco/ Posted 1 April 2016

[5] Ott, Stephanie. Shake It Off [Interpreter Version] You Tube https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DS2UdoXS3xA Posted 13 Dec 2014.

 

Posted on by — 11 Comments

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

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

In a world where online and face-to-face interactions have lost a level of compassion and understanding, Diana MacDougall outlines a “Civility Revolution” to elevate the discourse of sign language interpreters.

 

The notion of “civility” has been tossed around these past several years, not only by the sign language interpreting profession, but in other professions (such as nursing and education), across the board on Social Media sites, and in ethics discussion groups, like the Institute for Global Ethics.  Everyone is concerned about how we are treating each other, and with good reason. In an era of social media, hit-and-run cyber-demeaning comments can be posted anonymously with impunity. Through the creation of the global internet and online social media (where nobody has to see our faces or know our true identities), we have somehow removed civility and humanity from interactive expectations.

[Click to view post in ASL]

#CommunityIsAccountability

In recent months, StreetLeverage contributors have posted articles on civility, accountability, diversity, and social consciousness within interpreting. They are each timely, and yes, necessary, for our membership to read/watch. (After all, our own CPC tenet 5.1 reminds us to “[m]aintain civility towards colleagues, interns, and students” as a code we all agree to adhere upon joining our professional organization.) The most recent StreetLeverage conference in April stressed civil behavior towards each other in our interactions and discussion groups at least once a day. (And I have to say, this past conference was one of the most socially conscious and aware conferences I have EVER attended in my professional career!) Sitting back and watching the interactions of the participants and the leaders’ role model what civil interaction looks like, I began to think about what “civility” meant and what was needed to carry this movement to the next level. Centering our conferences and discussions around the notion of civil dialogues and accountability for our individual social behaviors is an important step towards a paradigm shift in how we interact with each other. But how do we take it beyond the intermittent “reminders” to “play nice”, if you will? What was it about this past conference that worked so well that could be replicated more consistently for ALL interpreting conferences, and carried over into our own lives as interpreters and as human beings?

Exploring Micro and Macro Levels of Interaction

As a Sociologist who studies social discourse, I often lecture on the concepts of the macro and micro levels of interactions. The “macro” is from an institutional, or large-scale level. The micro is from an individual or small-scale level. For the purposes of this article, I would like to consider our profession as the macro and our individual selves as the micro. I know that when I look at the larger schema of something—say, social injustice—I feel overwhelmed when trying to navigate my place in the world for change. It feels impossible, so I have a tendency to walk away from a global issue. But from the micro level, it feels more manageable; I can do something within my world—my life—to affect change. It is doable; therefore, I am more apt to participate in a social cause. At the micro level, we can see a ripple effect from our actions. It is a basic “cause and effect. Over time, our actions become habitual; therefore, changing how we behave. Because of our social interactions as humans, our behavior influences others around us. In time, other people’s behaviors affect larger groups, and ultimately affect social norms for what is considered—at the macro level—as appropriate behaviors within a society. So, with that being said, I am declaring a “call to arms”, of sorts. Yes, a revolution within our profession, starting at the micro level: us—individually!

Civility Revolution: Tools

As of today, I am declaring a “Civility Revolution”! What will be needed from us as collective individuals? Here are five values for what I believe we will need to “arm” ourselves for this revolution:

Moral Courage

The first would be a commitment to moral courage. Kidder defines “moral courage” as “[s]tanding up for [our] values”, stating that “having values is different from living by values” (2005). Moral courage requires “compassion” towards our fellow human beings.

Compassion

Compassion involves not only sympathy towards others’ experiences but empathy for them, as well. Putting ourselves in other people’s shoes will carry us far in being civil towards others.

Integrity

To be morally courageous and compassionate, we will need another quality necessary to arm ourselves in this revolution: integrity. To me, “integrity” means knowing the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do right, whether anyone is watching or not, and whether it is uncomfortable to do so or not.

Accountability

Another piece of “armor” we need to put on is “accountability”. This is something missing in Western societies due, in part, to technology, where people no longer have to face their objects of critique. We have learned to say whatever we feel about others without thinking about the pain we may cause them. Learning to accept accountability for our words and actions is necessary for a Civility Revolution.

Commitment

And the last piece of armor we need is “commitment”. Individually, we need to commit to following through on living by our values. It is not easy; there are times when standing up for what we believe has a social price to pay. No one wants to be disliked (an American societal condition), and no one wants to be called a “moral busybody”. But, again, as we change our behaviors at the micro level, we eventually affect change at the macro level, and before long, civil behaviors towards others will become the status quo again.

Revolution in Action

The theory is a good one. But we’ve had enough of theory and “discussions” on the topic. What would this look like in action? 

Some ideas:

  • As individuals, we can interrupt audist/racist/sexist/etc. remarks when we see/hear them.
  • As individuals, we can choose to sign in Deaf/Hearing mixed environments for full access for everyone involved, even when others choose not to. (This one takes moral courage, but is SO doable; I believe in time, we will affect change in this arena if we are diligent in our commitment to this action.)
  • As individuals, we can respect the diverse perspectives we have within our communities by modeling the discursive language we use with each other.

Commitment to Civility

So, as you can see, “civility” is definitely an action word! We need to commit to standing together in our individual behaviors at the micro level by demonstrating collective moral courage through our common values of compassion towards our colleagues and clients. By committing to behaving with integrity through accountability for our actions, we CAN begin to affect change in how we interact with one another. So…are you with me? Who will join me in a Civility Revolution!?

Questions for Consideration:

  1. What are three specific habits sign language interpreters can develop and employ to elevate civility in interactions with colleagues? With those who utilize interpreting services?
  2. Remember a time when a colleague did not interact with you in a civil manner. If you could go back to that situation and experience it again with new tools and perspective, how would you approach the person? How can you apply this to future experiences?
  3. Beyond more civilized discourse, how can sign language interpreters and those who utilize their services benefit from this approach to engagement?
  4. How can sign language interpreters support each other in taking on this call to action?

 

References:

  1. Ball, C. (2012). What Role Does Civility Play in the Sign Language Interpreting Profession? Retrieved October 21st, 2015 from http://StreetLeverage.com
  2. DiFiore-Rudolph, G. (2015). Civility Within the Interpreting Profession: A Novice’s Perspective from December 29th, 2015 http://StreetLeverge.com
  3. Institute for Global Ethics. http://www.globalethics.org
  4. NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. (2009) Retrieved June 30th, 2016 from http://rid.org
  5. Kidder, Rushworth, M. (2006). Moral Courage. HarperCollins Publishers. NY, New York.
Posted on by — 40 Comments

Scales of Justice: Legal Ramifications for Sign Language Interpreters

Scales of Justice: Legal Ramifications for Sign Language Interpreters

Traditional roles, responsibilities, and accountability for work product were challenged in a 2016 court case which will affect the work of sign language interpreters moving forward, particularly in legal settings.

 

On January 27, 2016, the Court of Special Appeals for the State of Maryland filed a ruling that affects the work we do as sign language interpreters. The case is Clarence Cepheus Taylor, III v. State of Maryland.1 This ruling centers on whether a Deaf criminal defendant has the constitutional right to confront the interpreter who interpreted his ASL statements into English during a police interrogation when the State offers those interpretations as evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution.2

The defendant, Mr. Taylor, was arrested on the allegation that he had sexually abused minors. A hearing interpreter and a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) interpreted while detectives interrogated Taylor for almost five hours. Later in court, a jury found Taylor guilty of abusing two of the seven complaining witnesses.

[Click to view post in ASL]

Although the appellate court looked at several issues regarding interpreters, the main issue in this case was whether or not the prosecution could include the statements interpreted to the police in English without calling to the stand to testify the interpreter who spoke the English.

Even though Taylor’s attorney objected at trial that an audio of an interpreter’s English-language interpretations of Taylor’s sign-language statements should not be admitted as evidence, the court allowed the jury to hear the interpreter’s voice for the almost five-hour police interview. Taylor took the stand in his own defense and contended that there were many “misinterpretations” and “miscommunications” between him and the interpreters.

How does this decision impact the lives of interpreters and Deaf people?

Interpreters are responsible for word choices and content of interpretations. According to the State’s brief, the interpreter was “merely a relay for Taylor’s own statements,” “simply conveying, in a different language” rather than providing the interpreter’s “own independent statements.” (Taylor p. 30). The appellate court disagreed. The appellate court recognized that interpretation is not a word-for-word process, but one in which the interpreter has control over the target language, in this case, English.

Police interviews need to be videotaped. The interpreters in this case were correct in having the interview recorded. Without the video, Mr. Taylor’s direct answers would be lost and only the English would remain. The videotaped recording was one of the main sources of evidence against Mr. Taylor. As stated above, the trial court allowed the State to play the entire English language recording to the jury. However, the appellate court made a distinction between the “video of the sign-language communications between Taylor and the interpreters” and “the audio of the statements by the ASL interpreter…” (p. 7). The appellate court realized that English is a distinct language from ASL and a truer understanding of what the defendant meant could be obtained through analysis of the actual signed statements. “The English words that the jurors ultimately heard in this case were not the words of Taylor, but of [the interpreter],3 expressing his opinion as to a faithful reproduction of the meaning of Taylor’s sign-language expressions.” (p. 34)

Even the best interpreters make errors, particularly when fatigue sets in. “Over the nearly five-hour course of Taylor’s interrogation, the two interpreters received only two breaks: a ten-minute break after about two and a half hours of testimony, and a two-minute break another hour later. Most of the more incriminating statements attributed to Taylor occurred during the later portions of the interrogation.” (p. 36). Interpreting services are expensive, but police interviews may need to be suspended until a second team of interpreters is available to relieve tired interpreters and monitor for errors. Interpreters are responsible to set limits on conditions that are not conducive to accuracy.

Both Deaf and hearing interpreters need to prove their skill level by obtaining education and certification. “Recognizing the high level of education, knowledge, skills, and judgment needed to produce faithful interpretations between English and sign language, Maryland typically requires that court interpreters of sign language undergo a rigorous certification process.” (p. 33). In Carla Mathers’ StreetLeverage posting, How Practicing Sign Language Interpreters Protect Against Legal Liability, she states, “An interpreter can be sued for malpractice if they undertake an assignment and do not follow the standard of care in performing that assignment. If this breach of the standard of care causes damages to any of the parties, the interpreter can be liable.”

Interpreters need to understand the adversarial legal system before accepting legal work. The Miranda warning and subsequent police interview are the first, and some would say, most important part of a legal case. Interpreters need to understand their roles and responsibilities. In this case, the detective told the interpreter to inform Taylor that anything he said could be used against him. The appellate court responded to this by stating, “A reasonable person in the interpreter’s position would expect that his English interpretations of Taylor’s statements would also be used prosecutorially.” (p. 23). This means that interpreters should expect to be subpoenaed and challenged on the stand for their interpretations. Interpreters should be ready to defend their English word choices or admit to errors. “The interpreter does not escape confrontation simply because he…did not personally observe any criminal act.” (p. 29)

Legal interpreters need to continually update their knowledge of legal decisions. For example, the legal concept of “admissibility of interpreted statements over hearsay objections” has changed over the past few years due to court decisions. (p. 42).  Unlike the past, when the interpreter was seen as a tool to decode languages other than English, now, an interpreter is “the declarant of his or her own statements about what the defendant has said.” 4 (p. 43). These changes recognize that sometimes the English that an interpreter speaks may not have the same meaning as what a Deaf person has signed. Taylor testified that the interpreter did not render the appropriate English of a conditional statement; “He testified that he told the interpreters that, if he had touched anyone, it would have been an accident, and he would have apologized.” (p.9). The statement was interpreted as a declarative stating that Mr. Taylor did touch the girls.

This decision is good for Deaf people. When stakes are high, Deaf people should challenge the accuracy of interpreters. Substantive interpretation errors should be “brought to light.” In other words, Deaf people should not be punished or disadvantaged by interpreter errors.

Conclusion

The 2016 court decision, Clarence Cepheus Taylor, III v. State of Maryland is a pivotal case in the interpreting field. It raises the issue of when an interpreter’s English statements can be used as evidence in trials without challenging the interpreter’s rendition. Going forward, we need the input of Deaf community members and Deaf and Hearing interpreters to help craft best practices and standards. Through dialogue and education, justice will be better served.

 

Nichola Schmitz, MA, CDI, SC:L, is a Trilingual Deaf Interpreter, specializing in Mexican Sign Language and Mexican gestures. She has a BA in Psychology and MA in Clinical Psychology.   Nichola has several generations of Deaf people in her family. She interprets mainly in legal and immigration hearings. She has trained Deaf and hearing interpreters in several countries including Ghana, Trinidad, and Mexico.

Questions for Consideration:

  1. Can the interpreting field develop standards for handling police interactions with Deaf people? What rules would you include in our “best practices”?
  2. How does a case like the one above change your approach to interpreting for the police?
  3. What other recent court decisions affect our work in the legal interpreting field?

 

1 The author thanks Carla Mathers for calling this case to her attention.

2 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]”

3 Author decided against using the interpreter’s name in this article since the issues discussed reach far beyond this one instance.

4 See United States v. Charles 722 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. July 25, 2013) (No. 12-14080)

Posted on by — Leave a comment

StreetLeverage – It’s Our Birthday!

It's a StreetLeverage Birthday!

Time flies when you are having fun! For five years, we have been honored to connect with you about the field we love so much.

5th Anniversary - SL Featured Image 2

It’s been a pleasure engaging with practitioners and stakeholders in the field of sign language interpreting for the past five years. A lot has happened in that time. StreetLeverage contributors and readers have engaged in meaningful and sometimes difficult conversations for which we are grateful. At the same time, we have had the opportunity to meet many new friends, reconnect with others, and attempt to create a space where conversation, self-reflection, and accountability are encouraged.

At StreetLeverage, we also believe in taking the time to celebrate the special moments, special people, and good times. This milestone birthday is one of those moments for us. Thank you for supporting and participating in the StreetLeverage endeavor. Raise a glass with us in celebration!

Here are some fun, unpublished facts to help celebrate our 5 year anniversary.

5th Anniversary of StreetLeverage

We’d love to hear from you! Please take a moment to share some of your own StreetLeverage memories in the comments section below. Here are some questions to start you thinking:

  1. What’s you favorite StreetLeverage moment?
  2. What is your favorite element of StreetLeverage (articles, social media coverage, live stream, LIVE events)?
  3. How many StreetLeverage – Live events have you attended so far? Why do you go?
  4. What StreetLeverage post has impacted you the most?
  5. What topics do you want to see covered by StreetLeverage?
  6. Who would you love to see present at a StreetLeverage – Live event?
  7. What is your favorite StreetLeverage – Live presentation and why?
  8. Who do you wish would write an article for StreetLeverage?
  9. If you wrote an article for StreetLeverage, what would you write about and why?

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper left-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Is Sign Language Interpreting Ready for an Uber-like Approach?

Is sign language interpreting ready for an Uber-like app?

Traditional models of sign language interpreter referral are going head-to-head with technology as the digital realm’s innovation and sophistication foster the creation of out-of-the-box solutions for providing access. Read this case-in-point.

 

Are sign language interpreters ready to challenge their own ideas about “standard practices”?

Just as VRS and VRI redefined the field of signed language interpretation, coming technologies have the potential to change the trajectory of work in the field. Could alternative methods for finding, assigning, billing for and paying sign language interpreters mean more choices for consumers, practitioners and requestors?

We can already look to CSD’s Vineya, Linguabee, and now, Stratus’ InPerson app, for examples that we are standing on the precipice of evolutionary events in our field. What are the benefits? Are there downsides to exploring new ways to solve old problems? Traditional standards for vetting sign language interpreters, matching them with assignments, teaming, billing and other established methods in sign language interpreter referral seem to be next in the lineup for radical change. Eschew or embrace it – change is coming.

[Click to view post in ASL]

Is Geolocation the New Name of the Game?

On February 26, 2016, HealthCareIT News posted “Stratus Video to Debut Uber-like app for interpreters at HIMSS16.”  According to Stratus Video insiders, the article regarding the release of their InPerson app was a bit premature. The article’s publication, however, prompted Brandon Arthur, founder of StreetLeverage.com, to reach out to Stratus Video for an interview about the app, their strategy for moving forward, and their thoughts on a variety of questions many sign language interpreters posed as they learned about the app’s official release. In a telephone interview, Brandon spoke with Kathryn Jackson, Vice President of Language Operations, joined by Tom Thompson, Executive Director of Stratus InPerson, and Kate Pascucci, Director of Marketing.

Stratus Video has been in the process of developing their InPerson app in response to growing evidence that while VRI (video remote interpreting) can be beneficial in many situations, it is not always the best fit for patients, hospital personnel, or interpreters using signed and/or spoken languages. While they recognize that the avenues used to provide interpreters can be important and impact the success or failure of a given interaction, Stratus believes that “even though the products are exciting, we know we are really providing interpreting services.”

Initially slated to roll out to hospitals and courts, Stratus’ InPerson app is designed as an added support for current, on-demand interpreting services provided via video. Leveraging technology to create a new model for interpreting may reduce costs for medical and other facilities while maintaining market rates of pay for interpreters, according to Tom Thompson.

Stratus believes that by considering the needs of all parties – the patient/consumer of interpreting services, the interpreter, and the requesting entity – the InPerson app, combined with Stratus video services can be a win-win-win. Over the last two years, Stratus met with groups of interpreters and administrators to ensure they were getting the big picture. A successful release of the app could signify a radical change for sign language interpreters in a marketplace that has already been impacted by video technology and other technological advances.

How Does the Stratus InPerson App Work?

Onboarding Interpreters

For interpreting professionals, downloading the app from the Apple iTunes Store or Google Play is free. The first screen allows practitioners to “Register as an Interpreter” and requires interpreters to answer a variety of questions to provide specific information which will be used to determine assignment offerings based on the needs and requirements of the requestor. Once the interpreter’s information is entered, a Stratus team member will contact them to verify the validity of credentials, skill sets, experience, education, etc. When an interpreter is vetted and approved, they will be entered into the network as an independent contractor and can begin accepting assignments sent to them via the app.

Requesting Interpreters

On the provider side, the facility can put out a request for an interpreter via the InPerson app, as well. After determining the language need, the facility provides the time(s) needed, the specific location within the facility, rate(s) of pay, special instructions, and other pertinent information so that the job can be broadcast out to interpreters who meet the criteria for the job. Requestors also have the ability to create groupings based on the practitioner pools they have. If there are preferred interpreters, staff interpreters or interpreters with specialized skill sets, the requests can be filtered accordingly.

Accepting Assignments

Once an interpreter is accepted into the network, they will be able to accept jobs which are broadcast out to them based on the different sets of criteria created by the practitioner and/or the requesting agency. Job assignments are made on a “first come, first serve” basis. If an interpreter meets the criteria and they are available, the rate is appropriate, etc., they can click on “Accept This Job.”

After the interpreter accepts the job, they receive the details and the facility is notified that the job has been assigned, and to whom. The interpreter’s profile will be provided to the facility – they can see a photo of the interpreter so that when they show up, the team knows what the interpreter looks like and has an idea of their level of experience and credentials. The photo also assists when the interpreter arrives so that assigned team members can identify them right away and escort them to the assignment.

Notably, the InPerson App does not include patient/client information due to HIPAA rules and other privacy concerns. Thompson stated, “In terms of the platform itself, there is no patient data that comes across our platform…you are never going to find their name or room number, or any information about a patient anywhere in the system.” Interpreters can accept an assignment and then request additional information directly from the requesting entity. If upon further investigation, the interpreter feels they will not be a good match for the job, they can notify the requestor at that time.

Credentialing and Issue Resolution

While Stratus doesn’t have established credentialing requirements, they do follow the requirements of the facilities who utilize their services. Once a facility signs on, Stratus will onboard interpreters based on adherence to client needs. In terms of quality assurance, Thompson emphasized that there is a review process for both the interpreter and the facility which Stratus will oversee on their end. By allowing for a review process, issues can be managed quickly to ensure happy providers and practitioners. In the course of the interview, there was no specific mention of a review process for consumers.

In addition to the review process following each completed assignment, there is an option on the app to “Open an Issue,” which is a more serious type of monitoring. Both sides can open an issue which allows for investigation and pro-active work to resolve problems before they worsen. An issue, according to Stratus, is usually considered a more serious professional issue – the interpreter does not meet the qualifications for the assignment, the interpreter is late or unprofessional, etc. While not stated in the interview, this may be one avenue for consumer input regarding various interpreters.

Billing and Payment

According to Thompson, Stratus recognizes that each location is different in terms of interpreter rates. Bearing that in mind, Stratus doesn’t set the rates, rather they investigate the market and make recommendations to facilities who are signing on to use their service. Thompson was quick to dismiss Uber comparisons by pointing out that Stratus is not looking for a race to the bottom; instead, they are looking to open markets up for interpreters, hospitals, and courtrooms and for those in need of interpreting services, stating, “We have to make sure that it works for everybody, or it’s not going to work.”

Reportedly, interpreters have responded favorably to the idea that Stratus jobs are paid regularly in two-week intervals whether the requesting entity has paid Stratus for services or not. This kind of revenue stability is attractive to interpreters who often work with variable payment schedules and have to spend much of their time chasing revenue.

Questions Linger

Whether you are an early adopter or reluctant latecomer, the technology this new app represents and the marketing strategies explored are, without a doubt, the wave of the future in many industries. For a high-touch, high context, specialized field like sign language interpreting where tradition and change go head-to-head on a regular basis, it is imperative that we explore all angles. Could one of these new technologies lead to better solutions? Questions linger regarding long-standing, hard-won standards of practice, ownership of quality standards, interpreter/consumer matches, inclusion of the linguistic minority cultures served, the use of CDIs, the “first come, first hired” methodology, etc.

Here are some of the most common questions/concerns posed when the Stratus InPerson App press release first came out. Most are not specific to the particular company/app but address the more global issues sign language interpreter referral has been facing for some time.

Confidentiality

As one of the most fundamental, foundational values of the Deaf and interpreting communities, confidentiality is always one of the most critical concepts to address.

As previously mentioned, the InPerson app does not provide patient/client information as one of the ways Stratus can protect the privacy and confidentiality demands from medical and legal entities. Contractors and staff alike are asked to agree to confidentiality standards and are expected to adhere to them. As in traditional coordination, there is a level of inherent trust that interpreters will uphold the ethical standards of the field with avenues to pursue action should there be a need.

Quality Standards

Coordinating sign language interpreters is challenging under the most perfect of circumstances. One possible downside of the model Stratus is using may be in the “first come, first hired” methodology. If requesting entities are determining skill sets/required credentials, who’s to say that the “race to the bottom” isn’t just happening along a different road? This is one of the most common complaints lobbied at spoken language agencies who provide sign language interpreters. The interpreter is still self-identifying that they are qualified for the jobs they take and according to Stratus executives, the hiring entity is determining the quality and caliber of the interpreter hired for each assignment. On the other hand, Stratus InPerson App does allow requesters to select pools of interpreters. If those within the organization understand what they are looking for relative to interpreter quality, this can support and possibly enhance the quality of services currently being provided to consumers through direct contracts or more traditional interpreter referral agencies, particularly where schedulers do not know the interpreters personally.

Meeting Consumer Needs – Cultural, Linguistic, and Other

Another potential sticking point in placing sign language interpreters via an app lies in the lack of consumer information provided, particularly when focused on the medical, mental health and legal systems. These arenas are some of the most high-stakes interpreting possible with potentially life-altering results. Deaf and hard of hearing consumers are already faced with unknown interpreters, lack of practitioner continuity and poor matching based on availability and poor quality control. Coordination by app does not seem to resolve any of these issues, nor does it exacerbate them as this is currently one of the many Everests interpreter coordinators face on a daily basis.

According to the interview, Stratus interpreters who use the InPerson app would be able to do some follow up with the hiring entity to ensure good matches are made and no conflicts of interest arise, however, those same opportunities exist now and are not always utilized. If the requestor does not know the patient/consumer history with an interpreter or the skills needed to interpret accurately and effectively in a specific arena, they may not be able to answer questions if the interpreter asks them.

One question interpreters posted online after reading the initial press release was, “How can the Deaf or Hard of Hearing individual participate in the hiring of the interpreter? Is there an avenue for that?” No mention was made of this path in our interview with Stratus. If consumer preferences could be captured, how would that work? What would it have to look like for buy-in from the Deaf and Interpreting communities?

Teaming/Use of CDIs

When questioned about the use of teaming or the utilization of CDIs when needed, Stratus representatives were supportive of the professional decision-making of the interpreter. Kathryn Jackson stated, “They can, and should, share their professional opinions with the administrators, and make those requests. And certainly we’ve always supported that – the idea of teaming, the idea of getting CDIs…for the interpreter to do their most effective work.” Again, this is not that different from current standards in jobs which are booked for under one hour. If interpreters find themselves in circumstances where they need a team or the expertise of a CDI, they must advocate for that in the moment, which may or may not happen, and may or may not be successful.

Standards for Pay

Stratus reports that they will go into a market to research current pay rates for interpreters as opposed to researching agency mark-ups which might allow for undercutting. Once a recommended standard rate of pay is determined, this is communicated to the hiring entities to maximize fill rates. Basically, Stratus does the homework to find out what rates interpreters will accept for specific types of work and then transparently charges an administrative fee of $15/hour to facilitate the assignment of interpreters via the app. In theory, the volume of work increases, the middle man (agency) is eliminated thus resulting in lower rates for the requestors, more work for the interpreters and a steady stream of income for Stratus.

While the plan outlined by Stratus makes sense on paper, how does it really work if an entity decides to pay something other than the recommended rate? Obviously, fill rates are on the minds of coordinators, but what happens to the consumer if the hourly rate paid to interpreters is the highest priority? What are the mechanisms that would prevent a vendor from going for the lowest rate as a matter of course?

An additional concern is the vastness of the task. The amount of work required to act as an insider in every market is exhaustive and requires feet on the ground talking to interpreters, hospitals, and other contracting entities. While this methodology sounds like it could have some positive outcomes, how long will it last? If those involved in the process of information-gathering are spread too thin, will their work to facilitate an average rate remain on point? If this model of business becomes unsustainable, what comes next?

Calling All Stakeholders: Dialogue is Key

Our interview with Stratus Video provided valuable insight into their process and perspectives on finding alternatives to traditional interpreter referral and the increasingly utilized VRI solution. Their app works to bridge the gap between the two in the face of evidence that one size does not fit all. Stratus’ research on market needs, local sign language interpreter rates and the leveraging of geolocation technology all point towards new horizons in the business of sign language interpreter provision. While technology like Stratus’ InPerson app challenges our views on vetting, contracting, billing, and other aspects of service provision, it also creates opportunities for dialogue. As Jackson sagely stated, “Anytime there’s something new, there is always going to be a bit of fear, and it’s okay…I think it’s healthy to always have debate; I think it’s healthy to challenge ourselves, and it’s always good to get together in a room and talk about stuff.”  

To be sure, the explosion of technology in the last decade has altered the course of both the practice and the business of sign language interpreting. Whether one eschews or embraces it, this redefinition brings an opportunity for stakeholders to come to the table and consider the impact of new technologies and methodologies on the work sign language interpreters do in support of the Deaf Community.

Questions for consideration:

  1.  How does “referral by app” impact patients and practitioners? Are there hidden human or financial costs/benefits?
  2. Can this type of technology support traditional interpreter provision? Are there ways to combine traditional referral techniques with apps which enhance speed and may lower costs?
  3. How can practitioners, consumers, and vendors work together to ensure that these types of technological advances explore all perspectives and possibilities?
Posted on by — Leave a comment

Awakening Interpretation: Broadway Sets the Stage for Linguistic Equality

Awakening Interpretation - Broadway Sets the Stage for Linguistic Equality

Stephanie Jo Kent explores how Deaf West Theatre’s ground-breaking production of Spring Awakening cast a spotlight on the challenges and possibilities of sign language interpretation.

 

StreetLeverage Note: Deaf West Theatre’s Spring Awakening was invited to perform on the Tony Awards. Due to the close of the show’s limited run, significant expenses were required to make this happen. After a successful Kickstarter campaign,  the cast of  Spring Awakening is scheduled to appear on the Live telecast on June 12. To read more about the Kickstarter campaign, click here.

[Click to view post in ASL]

The natural integration of sign language interpreters in the Broadway revival of Spring Awakening was established powerfully as soon as the show began. A classic classroom scene was distinguished by dialogue in American Sign Language, setting the focal point on communication and establishing the narrative tension for the entire story.

The performance by Deaf West Theatre included an excellent representation of sign language interpreting–not a surprise to Deaf theatre fans but a revelation to hearing audiences. More so, it was the best representation of simultaneous interpreting that I have seen to date. By “representation” I mean a carefully-crafted demonstration of ‘the real thing.’ The actors were not spontaneously interpreting (as we do in real life) but performed premeditated translations in tandem with the spoken utterances of the script. The result is a shift in perception that put ASL on an equal footing with spoken English: a field of linguistic equality.

Plurilingual Social Interactions

Because it was a performance and everyone’s lines were so painstakingly designed, memorized and rehearsed, nothing unexpected interrupts the seamlessly delivery. This practiced perfection was not, however, the most significant aspect of the interpretation. What mattered was how both languages and the interpreters were thoroughly integrated into the fabric of the social interaction. No one resisted the interpretations or seemed weirded out at the odd mode of communication. Instead, everyone cooperated with the necessity of cross-language mediation. This is plurilingual interaction: more than one language in use for purposes of communication. Whether the interpreter was on the opposite side of the stage or right there in the midst of the interaction was irrelevant to the effectiveness of the communication shown on stage because the actors trusted the process.

Meanwhile, everyone in the audience was put in a position of dependence upon the interpreters. Even bilingual members of the audience were captured and had to attend to the processes of communication. The first scene was a classroom where the students are reciting Latin. Interspersed with ASL and English are Latin utterances with neither English nor ASL interpretation. The spoken Latin was paired with written Latin projected on the classroom wall. Few in the audience know what the Latin means, but it turns out that the words are not what’s meaningful in this scene. What is meaningful is the persecution of one of the Deaf students and the inability of his hearing pal to protect him from the wrath of the headmaster.

Historical Dynamics

The historical dynamics of audism and oralism were deftly established concurrent with the audience’s exposure to how the communication would work: signing actors were voiced by someone (somewhere, either nearby or farther away); bilingual actors spoke and signed at the same time; and non­-signing actors’ lines were signed by a ‘voice’/shadow interpreter or projected as English captions without any ASL interpretation. The result was a constant chase…Deaf eyes seeking out the next signer, hearing ears absorbing speech while their eyes scan for the source, and all eyes on alert for the shift to written text. Every audience member had to be constantly ­­ready to shift modes depending upon the language profile of the actor. This need to keep giving attention to how the communication was happening is what generates the linguistic equality of the space. No one language holds dominance: the usual hierarchy of (spoken) English overwhelming (signed) ASL is defeated. Brilliantly, the cast occasionally falls into complete and total silence. Eyes are left to quietly absorb the visual scene with no accompanying commentary. Reliance on vision overtakes hearing people’s dependence on sound.

Turn-taking and the pace of interaction was relentless: that rhythm mirrors real life interpreting! Too often interpreting in a group setting results in a senseless kind of cacophony. Overlapping talk, weak listening, and little accommodation to each other’s communication styles. In this play, we witness a gallant artistry and professionalism from all members of the troupe as they engaged seamlessly and fluidly with each other and with the interpreters. The beauty is how the interpreters were included and engage themselves with the events, relationships and troubles which arise. These interpreters were not flat caricatures speaking for others held an arms-­length away, neither were they ever the stars of the show. But they were irrevocably present and interactive. Wendla’s “voice” (her “interpreter”) encourages Wendla to enter the relationship with Melchior Gabor, and Moritz’ rockstar interpreter­-shadow supplies him with a gun. The “voice” of a gay boy spins in glee on the piano stool, not out of role but embodying and animating the pleasure of a first kiss: as ‘in role space’ as one could possibly be. While some may debate these as boundary violations, I suggest that they are achievements of voice. Not only do the expressions (the words, the signs) get ‘interpreted’ but the meanings are made crystal clear.

A Hierarchy of Simultaneous Interpretations?

Symbolically, more can be mined from the display of simultaneous interpretation in this play. The acting “voices” (interpreters) all contribute to the aural landscape by playing musical instruments as well as singing and speaking the lines of their assigned Deaf actors. Are the role space constructions lopsided in favor of the Deaf more than the Hearing? Does this feed, subtly, a logic of hierarchy; that the interpreter “exists” for the language minority user more than for the majority language user? Or is it just practical accommodation for the signing-impaired? Musical accompaniment and singing was necessary to satisfy hearing people’s addiction to sound, so that they would not be distracted by its absence and therefore lose focus on the substance of the play. ASL drives the action in this play; the challenges of communicating information about sexuality is an allegory for the harms done to Deaf people when ASL is not respected.

Collaborative Communication

Importantly, the benefits and limits of interpreting were clearly shown in Deaf West’s masterful performances. Communication access in­ and of­ itself will not end oppression or even diminish the consequences of audist or oralist prejudice and discrimination. Still, the Deaf West production of Spring Awakening presents an exhilarating example of what simultaneous interpreting makes possible: collaborative communication among people speaking different languages leads to better, even safer, relationships.

Questions for Consideration:

    1. Can you draw out more of the symbolism of the play? For instance, does the rote drilling of Latin phrases with no interpretation suggest anything about the habits of interaction people often perform in real life?
    2. Does the concept of plurilingualism help us better explain the values of interpreting?
    3. When have you experienced a “field of linguistic equality”? What did it feel like? How did you know that equality was achieved?
Posted on by — 10 Comments

2016 Reboot: 7 Must Have Apps for Sign Language Interpreters

7 Must Have Apps for Sign Language Interpreters

With apps available for everything, recommendations can narrow the search. In his 2016 reboot, Brandon Arthur highlights apps that make communication, commuting and productivity easier, faster and safer for sign language interpreters.

 

What a difference a few years make! In 2013, StreetLeverage featured Leave Now, Google Maps, Evernote, Expensify and Bump as must-have apps. In the years since that post, daily life for even the most tech-averse sign language interpreter has evolved. As a group, sign language interpreters are likely some of the most teched-up, tech-savvy professionals around. It’s probably hard for most of us to remember what life was like before we had the ability to manage the intersection of our work and personal lives with the swipe of a finger.

With the bazillions of apps released annually, which ones are particularly useful for sign language interpreters? Below are seven more apps that may help you communicate more effectively, reclaim some of your sanity, and be more productive in the process.

1. Glide

“Live Video Messenger. Experience lightning fast, back and forth video chat.”

I still remember the horrifying moment when a Deaf colleague said, “Wow. You are really behind the times. You need to get Glide. Send me a message when you do.” I later learned that the first Deaf Interpreter Conference was planned entirely through Glide communication. There is no better match of technology and sign language interpreter than the Glide app. Combine the perfection of being able to send messages in ASL to Deaf friends and colleagues with Glide’s interest in supporting the Deaf community and you have a no-brainer.

Here is just one example of the way Glide is engaging with the Deaf Community: Dear Hearing People – video made by Glider users and Glide Community Manager, Sarah Snow.  

Cost:  FREE  

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play, Microsoft Store

Info: http://www.glide.me/

2. Uber

“Uber is the smartest way to get around. One tap and a car comes directly to you. Your driver knows exactly where to go. And payment is completely cashless.”

Another ubiquitous app attending to users in the Deaf community is Uber. As the popularity of Uber spreads, so, too, do opportunities for Deaf and Hard of Hearing drivers. For sign language interpreters who prefer not to use a personal vehicle or want to move between assignments without paying the high price of urban parking, supporting Uber gets you there quickly and inexpensively while supporting the Deaf ecosystem. What more could you want in a free app?

Watch this latest example of Uber’s work to support the Deaf community.

Cost:  FREE 

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play, Microsoft Store

Info: https://www.uber.com/

3. Cyberdust

“Private Messaging. Private Networking. Send private, encrypted, disappearing messages to friends or co-workers.”

Private, encrypted texting which disappears after reading, Cyberdust’s app supports one of the major values of sign language interpreters – confidentiality. Messages disappear after they are read and do not touch any hard drive in the process. Unlike other “private” messaging apps, Cyberdust messages are not stored. Unread messages disappear after 24 hours.

Cost:  FREE 

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play, Microsoft Store

Info: www.cyberdust.com

4. SignEasy

Many sign language interpreters have to manage multiple invoices, forms and other pieces of vital business paperwork. SignEasy allows you to sign documents in various formats from almost anywhere.  Easy to use, this app’s most basic form is free, but for additional features, users will have to pay a fee.

Cost:  FREE for basic functions

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play, Desktop download

Info: http://getsigneasy.com

5. Tasker

Looking for an Android enabled app that does everything but fix the kitchen sink? Tasker may just be the one you want. Listed as one of the most powerful productivity apps available, Tasker has more than 200 different actions including LED flashing for text messages, a screen dimmer you set for specific times of the day, and home screen buttons you can program to send standard text messages like “on-the-way-home”. Most reviews indicate there is a learning curve, but this app may be worth it.

Cost:  FREE 

Downloads Available: Google Play for Android

Info: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch.android.taskerm&hl=en

6. Dictionary

Language is every interpreter’s superpower, except when it isn’t. Need a pronunciation or a definition while you are stuck in the basement of a University classroom with no signal? This Dictionary app works offline, so definitions, word spellings, origins, and synonyms are literally at your fingertips. With more than 2,000,000 English language definitions, you can find idioms, slang, and specialized vocabulary to suit any interpreting situation. With the Dictionary app, you’ll always be wearing your smarty pants.

Cost:  FREE 

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play

Info: http://www.dictionary.com/apps

7. SafeTrek

While we hope that sign language interpreters don’t find themselves in risky situations, SafeTrek is an app that can keep you safe. There are times when interpreters have felt unsafe walking back to their car after a late appointment or find themselves in other uncomfortable circumstances. With a “Hold until safe” button, users let go of the phone in the event something happens, activating the phone to call the police. SafeTrek has been highly rated as one of the top safety apps available.

Cost: Free 30 day trial/$2.99 per month or $29.99 annually  

Downloads Available: App store, Google Play

Info: http://www.safetrekapp.com

Harness Your Life One App at a Time

As sign language interpreters, we have a keen sense that time is our most valuable asset. I am hopeful that you will find these apps helpful in adding time back to your life.

After all, in a world that is increasingly busy, anything that takes our mind off of the logistics of the job, enhances our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently, and helps us focus on the work at hand is a good thing, no?

What apps have made a difference managing your work?