Posted on by — 1 Comment

StreetLeverage: A Story of Thanksgiving

Gratitude

The StreetLeverage story is YOUR story.

There is no way to tell the StreetLeverage story without attempting to identify a large number of people and to review every small, seemingly insignificant act of generosity which, when woven together, creates a multiplier which has compounded these acts into something beautiful.

This generosity opens doors for us to learn, enjoy, and share this work. It allows us to connect with amazingly talented, committed, inspired and inspiring people.

Generosity, large and small, is the connective tissue that binds everything together at StreetLeverage. Every event attendee and volunteer, every fully formulated post and idea shared, and every reader who likes, shares, or tweets ideas to their peers and co-workers, demonstrates that spirit. With each decision, offer, invitation, open door and open mind, a space has been created for opportunity, for discovery, for expanding possibilities in the field of sign language interpreting.

We are grateful to all the individuals who participate in and support the StreetLeverage endeavor. Without your contributions, this task would be insurmountable. 

It is with grateful hearts that StreetLeverage says a hearty and heartfelt, “Thank You!”

Related Posts:

The Power of “Thank You”: Sign Language Interpreters and Gratitude by Jean Miller

Sign Language Interpreters: Discover & Recover an Enduring Legacy by Debra Russell

Sign Language Interpreters and the Karma of Gratitude by Brandon Arthur

Posted on by — 26 Comments

Respecting Language: Sign Language Interpreters as Linguistic Descriptivists

Respecting Language: Sign Language Interpreters as Linguistic Descriptivists

Sign language interpreters are exposed to language variation on a daily basis. Interpreters and programs supporting interpreter education must cooperate with the Deaf community to adopt and adapt to the evolving stylings of native signers.

 

How We Look at Language

There are two widespread approaches to variation within languages: prescriptivism and descriptivism1. Prescriptivists approach language with a predetermined notion of what rules ought to govern a language. Often these rules are taken from some supposedly pure or superior form of language. Prescriptivists have looked at English, for instance, and insisted on the use of “whom” in object position rather than “who,” on distinguishing between uses of “fewer” and “less,” and on using “from,” and not “than,” as the preposition that accompanies the adjective, “different.”

[Click to view post in ASL]

Descriptivists, on the other hand, approach language variation as it occurs in actual discourse. Instead of seeking to impose rules on language use based on some predetermined agenda or formula, descriptivists simply observe without judgment how the language is used by native speakers. Rather than assuming that one dialect is superior to another, descriptivists note that all varieties of language operate based on a number of equally valid, complex rules.

Linguists generally approach linguistic variation as descriptivists. These scientists insist that there is no objective reason to regard one set of rules as superior to another. For instance, dialects of English that use the past participle “have saw” are not objectively inferior to dialects that use “have seen.” Many textbooks teach the form “have seen” for socio-political reasons. That is, the people who have power and wealth impose their language variety on others by publishing grammar books that espouse the rules of their variety and by discriminating against speakers whose dialects do not conform. As a result, people assume that one dialect is “correct” or more rule-governed than the dialects of less powerful groups who do not have the means to publish grammar books and represent their own dialects in media and other institutions of power. In this way, the language of the establishment becomes a norm that oppresses and suppresses legitimate dialect variation.

Interpreters as Linguists

Sign language interpreters should act as linguistic descriptivists. That is, interpreters should look at language as it is used by native signers in the Deaf community and attempt to emulate that language in their target language production. Unfortunately, there is a trend toward linguistic prescriptivism in interpreter education and in the sign language interpreting community. These prescriptivists focus on some notion of ASL “purity” and how they assume ASL should be signed. While, on the face of it, it seems that such a motivation would be praiseworthy, in reality this approach frames the Deaf community’s language as an object of judgment with the interpreter serving as judge. Prescriptivists lament the supposedly poor and degraded quality of ASL usage today and too often situate themselves as “better” signers than the Deaf clients they serve.

Complicating Factors

Three caveats are in order. First, I am not asserting that everything every Deaf person signs is consistent with ASL grammatical norms. For instance, there are many non-native Deaf signers who use ASL but who did not internalize its grammatical rules growing up. As a result, they cannot be said to adequately represent legitimate dialect varieties of ASL. Though their language use should be respected, they are not ideal linguistic models of native ASL use. Secondly, everyone has bits of language that are idiosyncratic and not representative of linguistic norms. Thus, simply because one native signer uses a particular expression, that expression should not be considered de facto normative and applied widely by sign language interpreters. Thirdly, sign language interpreters who work in educational settings must consider the unique situation of Deaf students whose language is still developing.  Educational interpreters should not limit their usage to that which is common in the particular mainstream setting in which they work. Instead, they should consider the wider Deaf community’s usage when choosing signs and grammatical options. Just as a hearing teacher introduces English structures and vocabulary that are more advanced than those commonly used by hearing students, so should an interpreter include ASL structures that are representative of Deaf adult populations.

Prescriptivism in Our Work

The native signing community serves as the normative standard for the language, and non-native interpreters should not impose our own judgments on the signs and syntactic structures used in the community. To do so is to impose a prescriptivism that is inappropriate to one’s role as a sign language interpreter. I see this prescriptivism in several areas:

  1. Formulaic Syntax. Many interpreters, in their zeal to learn and preserve ASL, often develop an unnuanced, formulaic idea of what ASL is. As a result, they apply overly simplistic “rules” about what constitutes “pure” ASL. For instance, such interpreters expect all ASL sentences to use topicalization or right-movement of wh-questions (wh- question words at the ends of sentences). Such an approach reveals an incomplete understanding of the wide range of syntactic variation available in ASL.
  2. Reluctance Toward English Borrowings. Sign language interpreters often frown on Deaf people’s use of English-derived syntax, signs, and expressions in their discourse. In reality, however, languages that exist side-by-side for many years—as English and ASL have—often experience linguistic borrowing. In particular, the less powerful language tends to frequently borrow from the more powerful language group2.  Thus, ASL’s use of English structures and expressions is not an aberration, but rather an indication that ASL is a normal language.
  3. Preference for Contrastive Structures. Related to the above two tendencies is the trend for interpreters to always search for linguistic forms that are as different from English as possible. This tendency results in the refusal to use a word order that happens to be similar to English word order even if that is the syntax preferred by the community in certain instances.
  4. Insistence on “Conceptual” Accuracy. Signs are not concepts. Signs are lexical items that can represent a wide range of ideas. Just as the English word “bear” can convey several senses, so too can signs convey a wide range of meanings. Rather than attempting to use signs that are “conceptually” accurate, we should ask ourselves which signs are used to convey a particular idea in the Deaf community and use those signs to convey that idea.  For instance, in the Deaf community in which I work, the sign BREAK is often used to indicate the idea of violating a law or rule. Though the sign BREAK did not traditionally extend to the concept of illicit behavior, the community now uses the term in that way and thus the term should be accepted by sign language interpreters in that community.
  5. Avoidance of Initialization. The Deaf community itself is grappling with the long history of linguistic oppression that has affected its language. In an effort to counteract these effects, some signers prefer to avoid all initializations. While it is certainly outside of my role to tell native users how to use their own language, I maintain that the interpreter ought to look to members of the Deaf community she works with as the norm for her own language use. That is, if an initialized sign is accepted in the community, it is not the interpreter’s place to purge that sign from the community’s language. Of course, if a consumer prefers non-initialized signs, then the interpreter ought to use those signs. In the end, the decision for what signs should and should not be used must rest with the Deaf community.

Descriptivism as a Route to Language Respect

Interpreters and interpreter education must remain rooted in the Deaf community. The ideas addressed by Eileen Forestal and Sherry Shaw in their CIT presentation, ”Breaking the Mold of Tokenism”, would aid in the formation of a respectful interpreter mindset regarding the ownership of ASL. The language we use is not an arbitrary entity to be preserved for ourselves according to the rules we prefer. Rather, ASL is a living language belonging to the community we serve. So I invite you to approach each linguistic encounter as an opportunity to observe and to learn from what you see. When we adopt descriptivism as our approach to language, we avoid the burdensome negativity of the judge and can live in the open, engaging world of the eternal language learner.

Questions to Consider

  1. How can interpreter education programs encourage descriptivist attitudes among student interpreters?
  2. Can you recall an instance in which you have expressed a prescriptivist attitude? What may have motivated that behavior?
  3. How can sign language interpreters who wish to emulate the language used in their community distinguish between idiosyncratic novelties and instances of genuine, widespread linguistic variation?
  4. How is linguistic descriptivism especially important for educational interpreters in mainstream settings?

 

Related Posts:

A Deaf Perspective: Cultural Respect in Sign Language Interpreting by Trudy Suggs

Bilingualism: Are Sign Language Interpreters Bilinguals? by MJ Bienvenu

The Value of Networking for the Developing Sign Language Interpreter by Stacey Webb

 

References:

1 For excellent analyses of prescriptive and descriptive approaches to language, see  Joan C. Beal, Carmela Nocera, Massimo Sturiale eds. Perspectives on Prescriptivism. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.  

2 See Hock, Hans Henrich, and Brian D. Joseph. “Lexical Borrowing.” Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. 241–278.

Posted on by — 21 Comments

The Power of “Thank You”: Sign Language Interpreters and Gratitude

The Power of Thank You: Sign Language Interpreters and Gratitude

Sincere expressions of gratitude positively impact both giver and receiver. Creating an intentional gratitude practice could benefit sign language interpreters and the field of interpreting.

As the days grow darker with the change of the seasons, there is a sense of despair in many arenas of the sign language interpreting field; rough waters on the national front, a swiftly-changing field of work, expressions of dissatisfaction from those who employ our services the most. It almost feels like the perfect storm. One thought keeps those negative thoughts at bay: could we transform our relationships with the Deaf Community and other sign language interpreters if we expressed our thanks more regularly?

[Click to view post in ASL]

My thoughts here are not original. Brandon Arthur talked about Sign Language Interpreters and the Karma of Gratitude back in 2011. Tammera Richards included the idea in her article, #Doable: How Sign Language Interpreters Restore Relationships with the Deaf Community. If you do a blog search on StreetLeverage, many of the contributors mention gratitude in their articles. It is not a foreign concept, but my sense is that we need to be more intentional, and we need to do more. The darker the time, the more we need the light of our friends and supporters to show us the way.

Upping the Ante

Sometimes, a simple smile, a “hello”, or a friendly wave of acknowledgment when I’m on the phone in my office is enough to make my day. Each of these gestures has made an impact on me, particularly when I might be struggling in some way. When I remember how meaningful it is to receive these expressions of gratitude, it strengthens my resolve to reach out and share them with others.

After the Community Forum at the RID National Conference this year, I did something I rarely do. I approached two of the speakers and thanked them for sharing their stories. For me, that session was the most memorable of the whole conference. I was moved to tears by the courage and strength of those who stood on the stage that night. While I usually convince myself that presenters don’t need to hear me tell them how great they are, I couldn’t contain my gratitude. The conversations that ensued were so heartfelt and so meaningful to me; I carry them with me still. Perhaps it was more beneficial for me than for them, I don’t know. What I do know is that when I walked away that night, I was inspired to be braver. To take more opportunities to thank those who inspire, support, teach and inform my work.

Finding New Mindsets

“If I am looking for things to complain about, I will find them. If I am looking for things to be grateful for, those will emerge.” Patti Digh, Be Conscious of Your Treasures1

In 2006, one of my favorite authors, Patti Digh, offered a challenge on her blog: “Create a list of 37 people who have helped you and write just one or two sentences that captures the gift they have given you.”2 I took that challenge and the experience was profound. In 2013, she posted an entry in her web series, “your daily rock” titled, “write a thank you note.” In that short missive, she states:

“For four years now, I have written a thank you note every morning. It has changed how I see the world. I look for opportunities to thank, not opportunities to criticize. It is not new skills we need to change our lives–it is new mindsets.”3

The idea of changing mindsets resonates with me personally, and I have been wondering how it could impact our professional community, as well. I hope you will consider exploring a new mindset with me.

A November Challenge: Show Your Gratitude

As the month of November begins, as Thanksgiving approaches, and as many of us await the findings of the RID Risk Assessment, I’d like to challenge StreetLeverage readers to show your gratitude in a focused, purposeful way.

There are a million ways to show your gratitude. Here are some ideas:

  1. Write a thank you note to one person you worked with the day before and send it or give it to them each day in November.
  2. Donate time or money to a local Deaf Community organization in November.
  3. Write gratitude tweets or Facebook status updates to thank people in your community and/or in your work life each day in November.
  4. Invite someone out for coffee, lunch or dinner who may not be aware of their impact on your career. Tell them about it.
  5. Start a gratitude journal for your work life. Remember why you became a sign language interpreter in the first place. Do it every day of November (and beyond, if it helps).

Not convinced? Here is an article about the benefits of gratitude.

Creating Momentum

I hope you will join me in a month of gratitude. I’d love to hear about your experiences, transformations and epiphanies. I know it won’t solve the problems of our field, but it might be a step toward mending or strengthening relationships and partnerships, which may create the momentum to address some of the larger challenges that lay ahead for practitioners and the field in general. Or, it might just make you feel good.

Questions for Consideration:

  1. What do you think would start to occur within the field if we started to tell each other the things we assume others already know?
  2. How might an abundance of gratitude impact how we see our work, our teams, the people who use our services?
  3. What if, in the absence of explicit gratitude based on the work we produce, sign language interpreters expressed gratitude to each other for being a good team, for taking a challenging assignment, for correcting our mistakes, for taking the lead on a day when we weren’t quite feeling it?
  4. How can we meaningfully express our sincere appreciation to Deaf community members for their patience, guidance, feedback, and their willingness to share their language and culture?

References:

  1. Digh, Patti. “Be Conscious of Your Treasures.” Web log post. 37Days. N.p., 20 Nov. 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.
  2. ibid.
  3. Digh, Patti. “Your Daily Rock: Write a Thank You Note.” Web log post.37Days. N.p., 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.
Posted on by — 15 Comments

Can Clarity Return Discretion to VRS Interpreters’ Repertoire?

Can Clarity Return Discretion to VRS?

The FCC’s “10-minute rule” and their stance on information gathering to contextualize calls in VRS have been widely misunderstood. Understanding the intent of these regulations can help return discretion to VRS interpreters.

 

A great American journalist, Margaret Fuller, once said, “If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it.” Sign language interpreters often work in isolation and have limited opportunities to interact and, therefore, limited opportunities to share knowledge. Fortunately, with technological advancements, we have platforms such as Street Leverage to disperse information throughout the community.

[Click to view post in ASL]

My inspiration to write this comes from my discovery of information when I was preparing for a lesson on the Video Relay Service industry for my interpreting students. In addition to being a video relay interpreter for the past six years, I am also a lecturer at one of the largest interpreter training programs in the country at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. As a colleague of mine, Brian Morrison, once said, “It takes a village to raise a sign language interpreter,” so I take my job as a lecturer very seriously and work hard to ensure the information I share in my classroom is accurate. Due to the size of our program, I realize the impact I have as an educator on both the Deaf and interpreting communities.  

Revisiting FCC Regulations

While searching through some of the FCC regulations to prepare for my lecture, I came across the FCC’s 2006 revision to the “10-minute rule”. It had been my understanding that unless a switch was requested by the caller (either hearing or Deaf), an interpreter or Communication Assistant (CA), must remain in the call for at least 10 minutes before transferring the call to another interpreter. My understanding was incorrect. On June 16, 2006, the FCC released an order on two VRS issues: the FCC’s 10-minute rule and the interpreter’s role regarding asking questions to callers.

Understanding the “10-Minute Rule”

The first issue deals with the FCC’s 10-minute rule, which requires CAs to remain with a TRS user for at least 10 minutes before transferring the call to another CA. In the 2006 order, the FCC clarifies that in the event a video interpreter handling a VRS call in sign language finds that effective communication is not taking place, the interpreter may change to another interpreter before the initial 10 minutes have passed. The FCC explained that

“there may be VRS calls during which the party using sign language, the CA, or both, find that they are unable to communicate effectively because of regional dialect differences, lack of knowledge about a particular subject matter (e.g., a technical or complex subject matter), or other reason. In these circumstances, when effective communication is not occurring, we conclude that the 10-minute in-call replacement rule is not violated if the VRS provider has another CA take over the call.”

This discovery was new information to me. After reading Richard Peterson’s article “Profession in pentimento”, I had been under the impression that one of our most important values as sign language interpreters, our use of discretion, is in direct conflict with the FCC regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulation found on page 266 of the Mandatory Minimum Standards states:“Consistent with the obligations of telecommunications carrier operators, CAs are prohibited from refusing single or sequential calls…”

Can VRS Interpreters Exercise Discretion?

According to Peterson, this rule is widely interpreted to mean that interpreters working as communication assistants must – without exception – accept any and all calls; in other words, they cannot exercise discretion, stating,

“From the frame of reference of the FCC, everything professional interpreters believe about the bedrock value of exercising discretion in our work is misprised, rendered inoperative.”

On their Video Relay Consumer Facts page 7, the FCC states it a little differently:

“Preferential treatment of calls is prohibited. VRS … providers must handle calls in the order in which they are received. They cannot selectively answer calls from certain consumers or certain locations.”

Here the caveat from RID on the applicability of our Code seems almost prescient: 

“Federal, state or other statutes or regulations may supersede this Code of Professional Conduct. When there is a conflict between this code and local, state, or federal laws and regulations, the interpreter obeys the rule of law.” (RID/NAD Code of Professional Conduct 2005: 2)

If you look back to the revision of the FCC’s regulation made in 2006, you can see that Peterson’s argument is not necessarily true if the interpreter is aware of the revision and their ability to use discretion.

Lack of Understanding or Lack of Information?

I decided to see whether this 2006 revision was widely known to video relay interpreters by talking to several interpreters representing various VRS companies across the country. I found that we all had the same misunderstanding. We were all under the impression that the FCC’s 10-minute rule prohibits interpreters from using their discretion. So, in essence, Peterson’s argument has some validity if we are not even aware that we CAN, in fact, exercise our right to discretion and still follow the FCC regulation. As you can see, it is not the FCC’s regulation that is holding us back from adhering to that bedrock value of exercising discretion, but it is our lack of full understanding of our options as professional and ethical interpreters.

As I stated, knowledge truly is powerful. A recent case study on VRS interpreters’ decision making revealed that one common theme interpreters cited was the focus on rules (Holcombe, 2014). One interpreter reported that she was thwarted in her intention to provide effective service in part due to her understanding of a federal regulation. When responding to a request to team, she was unable to immediately replace a struggling interpreter because of the “10-minute rule,” which she believed mandated that an interpreter must remain in a call for a minimum of ten minutes. Her decision making was an example of deontological thinking with a focus on rules (Holcombe, 2014).

Stress and Sign Language Interpreters

Another theme that came up during the case study was the incidence of stress. In Holcombe’s findings the same interpreter stated she experienced stress due to the constraints of the “10-minute rule”. The data and literature review from the study shows that the FCC’s orders are not clearly understood by VRS interpreters, which can be an additional cause of stress. This added stress is a huge concern given that in a self-report study, the VRS industry had been found to be one of the top settings of occupational risk for interpreters (Dean; Pollard; & Samar, 2010). More recently the issue of occupational stress and resulting injury in the VRS setting has been addressed in a survey conducted by the by the Video Interpreter Member Section (VIMS) of the RID (Kroeger, J., 2014).

Hetherington (2011) performed a phenomenological analysis to study occupational stress in the signed language interpreting profession. Analysis of the research identified three themes related to significant causes of interpreter’s stress—real and/or perceived constraints on their role by other professionals, their own understanding of the responsibilities coupled with complexities of the role, and the feeling of powerlessness when the goal to ensure effective communication is hindered by the constraints (Hetherington, 2011).

Industry Standards and FCC Regulations Can Align

RID and industry standards suggest that it is best practice for interpreters to obtain information in advance in order to be most successful (RID Standard Practice Paper, 2007). In its second ruling, the FCC clarified that a VRS interpreter may ask a VRS caller questions during call set-up when this is needed to ensure that the interpreter can effectively handle the call. The FCC explained that “in some circumstances the complexity of sign language may make it difficult for the CA to effectively relay the call if the CA does not understand the subject matter or context of the call.” In addition, the Commission noted that “it is universal practice in the interpreting profession to ask customers questions prior to an assignment in order to better facilitate effective communication. As the Commission has noted, one sign can have different meanings depending on the context.” However, according to the RID standard practice paper about VRS, gathering information from callers prior to phone calls being placed is not a common policy among VRS providers (RID SPP, 2007).        

Knowledge Sharing and Reflective Practice

Now you may ask yourself, who is responsible for ensuring that the interpreters possess this knowledge? Is it up to the individual interpreters or is it up to the companies to ensure that the interpreters are given this information? How can interpreters share their candlelight of knowledge if they are not even certain about the origin of the rules and guidelines that govern the VRS industry (Alley, 2013)? Also, how can we expect interpreters to share their knowledge with others if they lack understanding of the delineation of authority between FCC regulations and corporate practices and policies (Alley, 2013)?

One solution I propose to reduce misunderstandings and ensure information sharing is the opportunity for interpreters to talk with one another and engage in a form reflective practice with colleagues. Reflective practice has been a common theme that has been discussed in previous Street Leverage articles.  We are fortunate to have such notable supporters of this effort who share their positive experience of engaging in reflective practices. Please see Anna-Witter Merrithew’s article, Sign Language Interpreters: Breaking Down Silos Through Reflective Practice,  Kendra Keller’s Case Discussion: Sign Language Interpreters Contain Their Inner “What the…!!!?” , Robyn Dean’s article Ethical Development: A Sign of the Times for Sign Language Interpreters and Kate Block’s piece,  Horizontal Violence: Can Sign Language Interpreters Break the Cycle? for more in-depth explanations of what reflective practice is and the benefits it has to the interpreting community. I have been both a participant and facilitator of reflective practice groups known as “supervision groups”. The experiences I have had as a reflective practitioner have enhanced my critical thinking skills as an interpreter. If you have not participated in one of these groups,  I highly recommend you do.  For information on future groups and what reflective practice is, please visit this site. 

Questions to Consider

  1. What do you do to help ensure the light of knowledge gets passed on throughout the interpreting community?
  2. Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the FCC rules and company policies are understood?  Is it the interpreters, the VRS companies, or both?
  3. How do consumer expectations impact FCC regulations, company policies and interpreter behavior?

Related Articles

Station Meditation: VRS, Compassion and Sign Language Interpreters by Judith Webb

VRS Sign Language Interpreters: An Appropriate Legal Tool? by Tara Potterveld and Nichola Schmitz

 

References

Alley, E. (2013). Video Relay Service: The path from student to professional? International Journal of Interpreter Education, 5(2), 96-110.

Dean, R. K., Pollard, R. Q., & Samar, V. J. (2010). RID Reseach Grant Underscores Occupational Health Risks: VRS and K-12 Settings Most Concerning. VIEWS, 41-43.

Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, CG Docket No.03-123, FCC 06-81,released June 16, 2006.                    

Hetherington, A. (2011). A magical profession? Causes and management of occupational stress in the signed language interpreting profession. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm, & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), The sign language translator and interpreter: Preparation, practice and performance. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.

Holcombe, Kathleen C., “Video Relay Service Interpreting: Interpreters’ Authority,

Agency, and Autonomy in the Process of Ethical Decision Making” (2014). Master’s of Arts in Interpreting Studies (MAIS) Theses. Paper 16. http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/16

Kroeger, J. (2014). Findings from the video interpreter member section survey on injuries. VIEWS, 31(1), 42-43.

Peterson, R. (2011). Profession in pentimento: A narrative inquiry into interpreting in video settings. In L. Swabey, & B. Nicodemus (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research (pp. 199-223). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2005). NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. From Registry of the Interpreters for Deaf (RID). http:///www.rid.org/UserFiles/pdfs/codeofethics.pdfSPP.pdf

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2007). Standard practice paper Video Relay Service interpreting. From Registry of the Interpreters for the Deaf: http://www.rid.org?UserFiles?file?pdfs?Standard_Practice_Papers/Drafs_June/20 06/VRS-

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Replenishing Sign Language Interpreting: Extraction Exchange

Sandra Maloney - StreetLeverage - X

Sandra Maloney presented Replenishing Sign Language Interpreting: Extraction Exchange at StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015.  Her presentation explores the concept of the “extraction mindset,” applications to the field of sign language interpreting, and how to combat this thinking.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English rendition of Sandra’s talk from StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015.  We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Sandra’s talk directly.]

Replenishing Sign Language Interpreting: Extraction Exchange

Good morning.

It’s amazing to see so many of you here.

When Brandon Arthur asked me to participate in this morning’s event, I was honored to be asked, particularly in light of previous StreetLeverage presenters. Then I thought, “What will I talk about?” I’m interested and passionate about any number of subjects. I could talk about RID but since this morning comes towards the end of the conference, I decided I didn’t want to focus on RID. I could talk about my graduate research, but that didn’t feel right. Then someone sent me a link to a blog by a person who is not an interpreter nor a member of the Deaf Community. The blog is written by a man named Seth Godin. As I read, I realized I had found my topic – I knew I had to talk about this today. Seth’s post topic was the “Extraction Mindset.” I read the post- I’ll explain more about the blog later on, but first, I want to talk about this idea. As I read, I wondered about the meaning of the term “extraction mindset,” and, being a graduate student, I did my research to gather more information.

Defining the “Extraction Mindset”

The concept of extraction mindset can be applied to various circumstances. For example, consider the rainforest. A person identifies the need for wood and proceeds to clearcut an area, extract all the useful wood, and burns the ground, leaving nothing behind. All resources have been depleted, leaving a barren, useless landscape. Another version of this mindset can be illustrated in sign language interpreters’ addiction to their smartphones, for example, the iPhone. Whenever a new version is released, everyone rushes to buy the latest device in an effort to be the first to have it.The length of the line demonstrates the drive, the hurry to get the latest version. So that idea, that mindset that is “I must get it before others can” is a part of the “extraction mindset.”

Now, I’ll show you a paragraph taken from Seth’s blog and how I envision how it applies to our field.

When I read that, I got goosebumps and my mind started racing with the many potential applications to our field. There are so many ways we can apply this theory. And the results of this “take it now before someone else gets it” mindset…the results are depleted resources. So I started thinking about applications to the field of interpreting – perhaps your minds are working on the possibilities, as well.

Applications to the Field of Sign Language Interpreting

For me, one area that immediately came to mind was freelance interpreting. Wouldn’t you agree? Freelance Interpreting has no set schedule. We don’t know when the next job will come. What that means is that when an assignment is presented to us, we have to decide whether to accept or decline. In the ideal world, before we accept a job, we would consider things like, “Am I the right person for this assignment? Is this assignment at the right time? What is my next assignment after this one?” There numerous other considerations. But often, in the real world, we think about the medical appointment we have the following week, that our child’s schedule is also busy, so we go ahead and accept the job. Often, I see my colleagues accept assignments. They know that they have an 8:00 am meeting to interpret the next morning. When they get a last minute emergency call to the hospital that may mean working through the night, they still accept the job even knowing they will have to interpret in the morning. That’s a prime example of that “take it now” mindset without considering the repercussions. Because we don’t know what is coming next, we focus on immediate things like our income, our bills. There’s nothing wrong with those things, but what is the ultimate impact?

I had another thought about this on an organizational level. Often, we find a good volunteer. Once we find out that they are willing to serve, we get very excited about giving them multiple jobs because it benefits our organization, but what about the benefits to the volunteer? They started out wanting to give back, but how are they benefiting in the long run? As organizations, we need to consider the benefits to volunteers as well as ways to train future generations of volunteers. I think we’ve lost the concept of “training behind” a bit. So now, when we task someone with a project, we don’t provide the necessary resources. We don’t have individuals who can support that next generation person in taking over. That concept has been lost.

Results of the Extraction Mindset

We see this at work in the Deaf community, as well. We want language models; we want people to participate and get involved. We take advantage of their resources.  The Deaf community does want to help interpreters, to help improve the community, to work in partnership with interpreters. But often, people say things like, “I’m done. Let someone else take that on. Let them do it. I’m done.” That response is really a result of the extraction mindset. That type of thinking results in burnout.

results mindset pic

So the result of the extraction mindset is burnout. I’ve noticed recently on several Facebook pages – I’ve joined a number of pages as a participant. I don’t often comment, but I do watch the discussions. I’ve noticed we have a problem in that interpreters are leaving the field to pursue other careers. They no longer work as interpreters. They get tired and become social workers, psychologists, nurses, something other than interpreters. They aren’t continuing to work as full-time interpreters. My thought is that this is due to the “take it all now” mentality and the depletion of our resources. There’s nothing left for them, and we aren’t providing appropriate supports.

On an organizational level…. I often work with affiliate chapters (of RID) who talk about the apathy of the members. “They don’t want to be involved. They aren’t volunteering.” Okay, but what are we providing for them? “They” are tired. “They” don’t know the benefits of volunteering. This has to be a partnership. It has to be. If not, this is what happens – we have problems. We aren’t able to do what is needed. We feel paralyzed because there is no partnership.

The Path Forward: Extraction Exchange

So, how can we succeed? If we are stuck in this short-sighted mentality and solely focused on looking out for ourselves without considering how our decisions impact future outcomes, the problems will only persist, and our successes will be few and far between.

If you’ve focused on that extraction mindset, if you’ve focused on your own gains, don’t be discouraged or disheartened. There is still hope. Any time we identify a problem, it is important that we come up with ideas to create solutions or alternative ways to approach an issue.

the path forward pic

As I researched “extraction mindset,”I also found a concept called “extraction exchange”. That business model requires interaction. Extraction exchange always considers the future – not only for the self, but for the organization and the community. Thinking about the future allows us to examine decisions and their effects on the present and the future and all parties involved.

Preparing the Soil

This week, I’ve gone into numerous workshops where people have said, “You must plant the seed.” Plant the seed. My challenge to you is to go back even further and prepare the soil. That means each of us looking at ourselves and asking, “What can I contribute? What can I give back…to my community? to my local affiliate chapter? to my organization?” We can’t opt out and expect that “they” will fix it. We can’t. We have to act. I’ve seen some examples this week [at the 2015 RID Conference]. For example, at the Business Meeting, someone mentioned that we have to take action on our own and partner with organizations to determine how we can work together. We can’t just set our expectations and hand them off to our organizations and say, “You do it.” We have to figure out how to work together to succeed. We can work together with trust, with information, by determining where the value is and by exchanging ideas.

So, what will your contribution be? I ask you to think about how you can contribute on an individual level, a community level and on a systemic level. How will you contribute?

Thank you.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Trends Report: Aligning Interpreter Education & Tomorrow’s Challenges

Dennis Cokely and Cathy Cogen

Dennis Cokely and Cathy Cogen

StreetLeverage had a great time providing coverage of the 2015 RID Conference in New Orleans, LA August 8-12, 2015. If you attended or watched the conference live-stream feed, you’ll remember that on Saturday, August 8, 2015, Dennis Cokely and Cathy Cogen presented, “Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education.” It was one of the standout presentations at the conference to be sure.

Greater Insight on the State of Interpreting

To our good fortune, both Dennis and Cathy were willing to sit down with Brandon Arthur, StreetLeverage founder and curator, to discuss their findings and their visions for the future of sign language interpreting and sign language interpreter education.

* To view the conversation with Dennis Cokely or read the English transcript, click here.

* To view the conversation with Cathy Cogen or read the English transcript, click here.

RID Trends Presentation Summary

If you missed the presentation, you can find the PPT deck used by Dennis and Cathy here.  

Their presentation focused on three main areas:

  1. Trends impacting current and future interpreting services
  2. Current Issues in Interpreter Education and the dynamics at play within the field which may impede or facilitate efforts to address interpreter education and professional development needs
  3. Recommendations for aligning Interpreter Education with the challenges of tomorrow, including some significant departures from the status quo in interpreter education.

Finally, they issued a call to action for conference participants to commit to partnerships, practices and policies which will support the creation of a better future.

 

* 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 — 15 Comments

Missing Narratives in Interpreting and Interpreter Education

Erica West Oyedele at StreetLeverage - X

Erica West Oyedele presented Missing Narratives in Interpreting and Interpreter Education at StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015.  Her presentation explores the lack of diversity within the predominantly White, female field of sign language interpreting and provides a call to action for potential allies.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English rendition of Erica’s talk from StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015.  We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Erica’s talk directly.]

Missing Narratives in Interpreting and Interpreter Education

Thank you, StreetLeverage, for giving me the opportunity to be here with all of you. This presentation is based on the research I conducted during graduate school that looked into the experiences of African American/Black interpreters, and took into consideration African American/Black Deaf consumers and their experiences with interpreting services. However, my comments today are not just for them. Rather, they are for all of you. Additionally, it is important for me to thank all of the interpreters of color and all of the Deaf people of color who participated in my research study.

Today I want to talk with you about the narratives that I believe are missing from the field of interpreting and interpreter education. Initially, I planned to show a slide that included the demographics of the field of interpreting. Two days ago, I changed that slide because every day this week there has been a presentation that has shown us the demographics of the RID membership. Hopefully, you’ve paid attention as those numbers have been presented. If you were paying attention to the statistics, then you know that approximately 88% of the RID membership is made up of White interpreters. Therefore, the remaining 12% of RID’s membership are interpreters of color. This slide is a representation of our 12%.

ITOC forum 2015
Photo by Bill Millios

If you attended the ITOC (Interpreters and Transliterators of Color) Member Section forum, then you also would have seen as a part of the presentation a slideshow of various interpreters of color. We make up a diverse population. We are from a wide range of backgrounds. We are hearing, Deaf, straight, gay, lesbian, Codas, and so much more. For interpreters of color in our organization there is a wealth of diversity beyond race.

As I mentioned, we’ve already seen the numbers presented to us throughout the conference so that will not be the focus of this presentation. To be quite honest, for those of you who have seen those numbers presented (88% White interpreters and 12% interpreters of color) and responded with surprise, I ask, why? I can tell you that these numbers are of no surprise to the 12% of interpreters of color within RID. The numbers have been the same for many years! Of course there is some small fluctuation in these numbers from year to year, but the percentages have been consistent. So instead of talking again about the numbers, let’s talk about the impact of these numbers. The impact to interpreters of color, consumers of color, and the impact to all of you, our White allies. You notice that it is my hope that you will become our allies.

True Story

I want to begin with a story. This story comes from one interpreter who participated in my research study. I have to warn you that this story contains language that will be uncomfortable for you and that’s okay! When you start to notice your own discomfort, breathe in, and then analyze the source of your discomfort. Then we’ll discuss some more.

 

True Story - Erica West Oyedele Presentation at StreetLeverage - XOne of the reasons we are challenged to engage in these types of discussions is because of the fear we hold around this type of topic. I want to let you know that the fear I am referring to extends to me too. Again, that is normal. Right now, my fear has to do with how I will be perceived by my colleagues as a hearing interpreter of color, who has just been sworn in to the RID board. All of those thoughts I recognize right now are a part of who I am. Furthermore, this topic is not easy, yet it is easy for me to become a target when bringing forward this type of discussion. I’ve made the decision that the discussion is important enough that it needs to be addressed.

When you read this story, I want you to recognize that this is the experience of interpreters of color. Although this particular story took place after the interpreter had completed their work, we have to acknowledge that interpreters of color confront systems of oppression before, after, and during their work. What is most unfortunate is that while they are working they often face this discrimination from consumers and colleagues alike. That is the impact of the numbers we have seen but that we have failed to discuss. Perhaps if we have these candid discussions we might come to a place where we would see the number of interpreters of color rise.

When I look at this story, I also recognize the interpreter’s emotional response. Again, it is a normal emotional response, yet I am personally often aware of not wanting to be labeled as the angry (fill in the blank) person: the angry Black person, Deaf person…the angry something! But if we look at what happened, you notice that the interpreter experienced a range of emotions that included confusion and fear, in addition to anger. This is because having to confront systems of oppression becomes an additional demand for interpreters of color. When I speak of demands I am referring to the Demand-Control Schema as presented by Dean and Pollard. Taking into consideration their theory, I think it’s fair to say that interpreters of color have additional demands they have to confront when they go to work. Why isn’t this discussion taking place in interpreter education programs and in workshops in our field? If we truly want to see an increase in the number (or percentage)  of interpreters of color, we need to consider what doable actions we might take to acknowledge this reality in our field.

Why Should You Care?

My aim is not for you to read this story and then leave here today feeling sorry for interpreters of color. We don’t want your pity. We want action. Because these stories are not shared in workshops, and because these stories are not shared in interpreter education programs, interpreters of color are not being prepared for the field of interpreting that they will actually face. It also means that the 88% of White interpreters are not learning how to become allies.

Impacts of Power and Privilege

Colleagues

Are interpreters of color really being prepared for the field of interpreting? Are White interpreters prepared to work with us as allies? I don’t know. I think we would be more prepared if we figured out ways to work together. We have to acknowledge the impacts of power, privilege and oppression within this field. The number of African American/Black study participants in my research was 116. 72% shared that they experienced overt acts of discrimination and oppression while they were working. I am no longer talking about before or after work. The majority of Black interpreters experienced oppression from consumers and colleagues at some point while they were working.

Consumers

Participants in the Black Deaf focus group that I conducted also shared their concerns regarding the field of interpreting. We have long discussed in this field the relationship between language and culture. We have acknowledged that for a complete understanding of language to be present, we must first understand the underlying influences of culture. This is not a new discussion for us. Yet, most of the Black Deaf participants in my focus group felt that interpreters did not have an understanding of their culture. Let’s consider what that means for consumers of color. It means they are working overtime to assimilate to the needs of interpreters, instead of interpreters working to accommodate their needs. Interestingly, for the Black Deaf focus group in particular, they overwhelmingly shared that they felt a sense of relief when they had access to interpreters of color. They felt understood.  They perceived interpreters of color to be both linguistically and culturally competent. I of course followed up by asking how often they had access to interpreters of color. Every Black Deaf focus group participant said that it was rare for them to have access to interpreters of color.

Mentors/Educators

For those of you who are mentors or educators in this field, the majority of interpreters in my study (around 63%) felt that their mentors and educators were ineffective when it came to discussing multicultural issues or addressing issues of cultural competency. 86 of the participants who were in my study completed a formal interpreter education program. So again, 63% to 64% felt that their instructors were ineffective at addressing issues of multiculturalism or cultural competency. An additional 14% stated that they could not respond to my question because there was no discussion of multiculturalism or cultural competency in their programs at all. Frequently, research participants shared that when discussions of multiculturalism or cultural competency took place, those discussions were limited to Deaf and hearing cultures only. They addressed a Deaf-hearing binary that oversimplifies the two cultural groups, because we know that Deaf and hearing individuals come from a multitude of diverse backgrounds. People of color can be trilingual interpreters, they can be Codas, etc. They have a whole host of identities beyond being hearing or Deaf that impact who they are. That is intersectionality. So when we are not discussing culture beyond the Deaf and hearing binary, we are marginalizing the communities that we serve, we are dismissing who they are, and we are not doing good work.

What Can You Do?

So, perhaps we can’t stop situations like the one I shared with you at the beginning of this talk with the interpreter of color who was innocently walking to her car and confronted discrimination. There is no expectation that we will change the system overnight. But we can start with ourselves. We can start at home!

Allyship Skills

This message is for all of you, the 88%. Develop your allyship skills. Often we use the word ally as a badge, as though it is who we are. I mentioned briefly during the community forum a few nights back a range of different skillsets for allies. On one side, we have avoidance. That’s a skill. You can see oppression happening around you and choose to do nothing. On the other side, we have allyship, which means actively doing anti-oppression work.

Build Cultural Competence

Develop your cultural competence. I realize many people don’t know what that means. I’ve seen many different frameworks that help to describe cultural competency. I have not included that information in this presentation for the sake of time but if you contact me, I am happy to share resources with you. The point is, if you are working with interpreters of color, think about how you are going to connect those interpreters with communities of color. If you are an educator and you are working with interpreters of color, what types of resources are you utilizing in your interpreting program? There are resources out there for you. Are you utilizing the NMIP (National Multicultural Interpreter Project) curriculum to supplement your instruction and as a part of your mentoring resources?  

The NCIEC (National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers) recently released their social justice module for infusion within interpreter preparation programs. Are you incorporating those messages into your curriculum? When you require students to read articles or books, who are the authors? When you invite people of color to come to your classes and workshops to present, do you invite them to discuss race only or do you invite them to talk about the whole of their experiences and who they are? When you extend invitations to people of color, and you only ask them to talk about race, that looks like tokenism to me.

Invest in Social Capital

My closing comment is this.  Invest in social capital for interpreters of color. In short, social capital is a term used to describe the quality of relationships people have within a particular group. If you have good, strong, relationships, and you have a large network within your community to interact with, then your social capital is strong. However, if your relationship ties are weak or your network is small, then your social capital is weak. So in your interpreting programs and in the workshops you teach, when you name RID or NAD, make sure you also name NAOBI, name Mano a Mano, name NBDA, name the Asian Deaf Congress, and the many other organizations of color that are out there. Connect interpreters of color with organizations and communities of color, and while you’re at it, check these organizations out for yourself, too. That is a way for you, the 88%, to partner with us.

Thank you.

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Taking Ownership: Defining Our Work As Sign Language Interpreters

Taking Ownership: Defining Our Work As Sign Language Interpreters

As sign language interpreters, we understand the importance of accurately communicating concepts in our choice of words and signs. It’s time to start applying that knowledge to the way we talk about our own work.

Semantics Matter: Using Precise Language

In the field of sign language interpreting, there recently has been a shift toward doing what Napier, McGee, and Goswell (2010) have suggested – naming the actual languages involved in the interpretation. This means that the term “voicing” should not be used as it does not appropriately state what we do when we render a signed utterance into a spoken one. We interpret from ASL into English. Kelly (2004) stated that the term “voicing” is “merely a vocalization of the signs used, not a true interpretation” (p. 1). I have thought about this shift of terminology and it is befitting to better describe what we do as sign language interpreters. That trend can be seen in Interpreting Programs where classes that were once called “Sign to Voice” or “Voice to Sign” have now been renamed “ASL to English” or “English to ASL”.

[Click to view post in ASL]

If you think about it, sign language interpreters are not avatars; we do not have a script that we read off of like voice actors, we do not say exactly what the Deaf consumers with whom we work sign, we interpret. This means that we take into account the pragmatic information about the assignment, the background knowledge, culture, educational level, body language, facial expressions and what is being signed. From all of that, we then interpret what is being said, selecting words that reflect the Deaf consumer’s purpose and are idiomatic to the situation. The goal of a good ASL to English interpretation is to make it sound as natural as possible and to ensure our word choices flow with the communication context taking place.

Culturally Accurate Language Use

Somewhere along the way, sign language interpreters started to use the term “voicing” and this morphed into more than just meaning to interpret from ASL to English; now it is being used to as a synonym for talking (using audible speech) in the interpreting community. This is not how the majority of hearing culture speaks. How often have you heard someone who is not associated with the field of interpreting say, “Is it okay if we voice?” Normally, in hearing culture one may ask, “Is it okay if we talk?” It seems we forget how to speak like those outside of our field.

Sign language interpreters should be considering the hearing consumer as much as they consider the Deaf consumer. The interpretation should be such that neither of the consumers have to re-interpret what was said to make sense. Sign language interpreters should speak in idiomatic terms that sound natural to English speakers. In the hearing world the term “voice” is not typically used as a verb. It is not used to mean “speaking.” As professionals who are supposed to be bilingual and bicultural, we need to know how to make the message sound idiomatic for all parties involved. Kelly (2012) noted that the message needs to “sound or look as normal as possible to the consumers involved in the interaction” (p. 7).

At a Video Relay Service Interpreter Institute (VRSII) Interpreter Educator Symposium, Sharon Neumann Solow made a good point about the term “voicing,” explaining that to many outside of the sign language interpreting field, that term means to have an opinion included. We hear people say, “I want to voice my opinion about. . . . ” As sign language interpreters, we learn that we are not to interject our opinions into our work. When we state “I will be interpreting all communication from ASL to English and from English to ASL,” this clearly defines what we do as interpreters.

At a presentation I attended at Gallaudet, Dirksen Bauman said that he did not know he was “hearing” until he was close to twenty years old (I cannot recall the exact age he gave). For those of us who were not born into the Deaf community, we did not know the term “hearing” before we entered this field . Members of American majority culture do not use that term in their vocabulary. Carla Mathers has noted in her legal trainings that the word “hearing” should not be used when interpreting into English as it holds a completely different meaning in the courts. Again, it is important we are using terms that are used in the communities in which we work. By doing so, we are ensuring the Deaf person sounds natural and the hearing consumers do not have to reinterpret what was just said because they are not familiar with the terms used by the interpreting community.

Differences or Disservices?

If we are not using terms that are used by the hearing majority when we interpret into English, are we truly matching the speaker in a way that can be clearly understood by all? Are we doing a disservice to the Deaf consumers by making them sound “different”? If we are, are we truly bilingual? Are we truly interacting and collaborating with others in words and phrases that clearly explain the work we do?  I know that I personally can think of a few times when I used a term such as “voicing” or “hearing” and the hearing consumer asked me about it. Those terms are not native sounding in English to those outside of our field. This does a disservice to the participants. Terms are used that are unfamiliar to the hearing clients which often reflect negatively on the Deaf consumers.

We are active participants in the interpretation.  As Robert Lee stated in his StreetLeverage article, “Interpret + Person: Presentation of Self and Sign Language Interpreters”, “by not utilizing the cultural and linguistic identities we have to communicate between the Deaf and Hearing parties more naturally, we end up creating more problems.”

Over the past few years, the trend of accurately naming our work – interpreting from ASL to English – has been increasing as we work to elevate our profession. It seems that, at times, we ignore the needs of the hearing consumers and focus solely on the needs of Deaf consumers. Both are equally important and deserve messages that are delivered in ways  that are readily understood. All parties deserve an interpretation that is conveyed in a natural way.

Application

To raise the status of our profession, we should challenge each other to speak in terms that precisely state what we do. Change does not come quickly or, at times, easily. The challenge is for all of us to start owning our work and stating what we do: we interpret into English. This can be accomplished in many simple ways. When you see the sign “VOICE”, interpret it as “speaking in English” or “spoken English” or “interpreting into English” (depending on the context). When you see the sign “VOICE-OFF”, interpret it as “there will be no speaking English” or “there will be no talking” or “do not use spoken English”. The same can be said with the sign HEARING: this can be interpreted as “people who can hear”. Teachers who work in interpreting programs should encourage students to start speaking in terms that are readily understood by the hearing populations with whom they will work. Talking to other colleagues in the profession about the work and looking at it from a more objective point of view will help all of us improve our skills. The change starts with you. We interpret from ASL into English.

Questions to Consider:

  1. What resistance may there be to stating what we do?
  2. Are you willing to change how you speak?
  3. What positive impacts can you see happening based on this slight shift in how we own our work?
  4. What other terms do we (interpreters and the Deaf community) use that could be stated more clearly?

Related Posts

Sign Language Interpreters’ Attire Leaves a First Lasting Impression by Jackie Emmart, Matt Etemad-Gilbertson, Kristy Moroney,  Lena Dumont, SooJin Chu, Laura O’Callahan, and Will English.

Do Sign Langauge Interpreter Accents Compromise Comprehension? by Carol Padden

Sign Language Interpreters and the Quest for Cultural Competence by Marlene Elliott

References:

Kelly, J. E. (2004). ASL-to-English interpretation: Say it like they mean it. Alexandria, VA: RID Press.

Kelly, J. E. (2012), Interactive Interpreting: Let’s Talk. Alexandria, VA: RID Press.

Napier J., McKee, R., & Goswell, D. (2010). Sign language interpreting: Theory & practice in Australia & New Zealand. Sydney: Federation Press.

Bienvenu, MJ (2014). Bilingualism are sign language interpreters bilinguals? http://www.streetleverage.com/2015/05/bilingualism-are-sign-language-interpreters-bilinguals/

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Deaf Interpreter Conference Finish: Do Do Now?

Ray Kenney - StreetLeverage - X

Ray Kenney presented Deaf Interpreter Conference Finish: Do Do Now? at StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015. His presentation provides an insider’s view from the historic Deaf Interpreter Conference held in June 2015.

You can find the PPT deck for his presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English rendition of Ray’s talk from StreetLeverage – X | RID Conference 2015.  We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Ray’s talk directly.]

StreetLeverage – X

I would like to thank Sandra Maloney, Betty M. Colonomos, and Erica West Oyedele, the presenters before me here at StreetLeverage-X. They said many of the things I had planned to say, so I do not need to repeat it.

How many of you here today went to the Deaf Interpreter Conference (DIC)?  I see quite a few. Forgive me for doing this on stage but I am proud to show this off…this is my tee shirt from the conference. It helps me feel connected. (To see the StreetLeverage coverage of the conference, please click here.)

Big thanks to all the committee members, Jimmy Beldon and Janis Cole for taking the lead to make the Deaf Interpreter Conference a reality. The committee communicated only with Glide using ASL – no emails or texting. The committee would get anywhere from few messages a day to hundreds a day as the Conference drew nearer. They accomplished this huge task in less than 6 months.

Deaf Interpreter Conference

This historic conference, the first of its kind, took place June 20-24, 2015 at St. Catherine University, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Everyone involved was Deaf, the only hearing people I saw were probably the cafeteria staff.

The Conference drew 208 attendees: some CDIs, DIs with experience, and others with no experience. Many of the attendees without experience wanted to become DIs but were not sure how to do it. The DIC had three workshop tracks: Advanced, Beginner and Mixed, so there was something for everyone who attended. Topics presented there are similar what you would find at the RID Conference: Legal, Medical, the mechanics of interpreting, where to go for training; detailed, specialized topics as well as more global topics were covered.

On opening day, the conference held a reframing workshop where we came up with CELT. This concept became our theme for the rest of the conference. I will explain that in a moment, but first understand that when we first arrived, there was a bit of awkwardness as we met, discovered who was there, why they were there, etc. CELT is Compassion, Empathy, Listening and Transparency, and it became our motto for the week. Though the conference only lasted 5 days, it felt like a week!

Another consistent theme that ran throughout the week was the need to educate- educate Hearing interpreters, consumers, everyone.

Characteristics of Deaf Interpreters (DIs) and Hearing Interpreters (HIs)

I have two slides I will be showing you comparing Deaf interpreters (DIs) to Hearing interpreters (HIs).

Themes: DI

What are some characteristics of DIs? DIs are Lifelong Interpreters: we have been interpreters most of our lives. I remember when I was about seven years old, I was in class with several Deaf classmates. The teacher was trying to teach us some lesson. As soon as the teacher turned her back, someone would ask me what she had just said. We would discuss/collaborate/interpret the lesson. We found that was a common experience shared by many of us at DIC: we all relied on each other to understand what was said. These experiences ingrained that role in us and led most of us to continue the practice in the form of the role of DI.

Deaf norms:

I am sure many of you are familiar with Deaf Norms, but one example is the need to have collaborative discussions to understand what is said. This is not true for Hearing people. This dialogical approach is utilized by most experienced DIs as we work with consumers.

Although a Deaf person commonly engages in conversation with the DI, this is not typical for many HIs. While the DI is engaged with the Deaf person, the DI takes in more messages and questions via the HI. We simply keep the dialogue going and incorporate the new information in our conversation. The concept of an interpreter as the conveyor of messages between consumers, without dialogue, is not the norm with DIs. Nor is the idea that if the Deaf person doesn’t understand something – too bad!  This shift to a dialogic approach to interpreting was validated for me at the conference.

In our conversations through the week, we noted a major difference when a DI interprets the Deaf person’s message to the HI. With a DI present, the Deaf person can see the DI’s interpretation and, if needed, correct the information/message. If a DI is not present, the Deaf person never knows if they were understood or if their message was properly interpreted to the Hearing person. This is one critical piece that is missing in more typical interpreting situations. This lack of access has lead to much abuse of power and privilege.

In discussions about our expectations of the HI, particularly in terms of language, there was no consensus among DIC attendees. When considering DIs’ preferences in terms of the language used by HI, styles of interpreting vary from job to job. Some assignments may be at a much higher register than others. The message is the same regardless of how it is conveyed.

Conference attendees also explored ways DIs/HIs might collaborate as a team. One point of consensus was that team members must make agreements prior to the job.

Themes: HI

Of course, much discussion took place about Hearing interpreters throughout the week. Complaints were raised, for sure, but I want to focus on the qualities of HIs that enhance our work as DIs. We are all learning to be collaborators in the interpreting process.

One practice DIs appreciate is when the HI trusts the DI to handle the on-site introductions. This approach alleviates the awkwardness that occurs when the HI tries to explain “who we are,” etc., while signing simultaneously. The DI can introduce the team and explain the process while the HI interprets providing simultaneous explanation to both the Hearing and Deaf person. Developing a rapport between the HI and DI is key for this kind of confidence to develop.

I want to acknowledge Amy Williamson for sharing the concept of “Brokering” at the 2015 Street Leverage Live event I attended in Boston. She provided a term for what we do: this process of working together to communicate the information/message to both Deaf and Hearing parties.

Another characteristic DIs appreciate is the willingness to “Pre-Brief” before a job.  I don’t think “pre-brief” is a word in English, but I am using it to describe the meeting that should take place before we begin to interpret. Typically, DIs also like to debrief after the job is completed.

How much time do I have left? (Presenter asks timekeeper at the session.)

StreetLeverage – X Reflection

I want to reflect on the previous presenters and how their presentations connect to what took place at DIC.

Sandra Maloney talked about the “Extraction Mindset” – thinking outside of the box and being open to new ideas. This relates to a wish many DIs expressed at DIC: DIs wish to be welcomed by HIs. We want to work with you. Yes, DIs have our preferences but we recognize the need to be more flexible and learn to work with all HIs.

Betty Colonomos’ concept of gatekeeper is also relevant. At DIC, we discussed this very topic and believe it should be the responsibility of the DIs to manage gatekeeping. Invite DIs to be part of the team and we will take care of the gatekeeping. The key word Betty uses is respect. Respect the fact that DIs are here. Mutual respect for each other and our work will go a long way instead of being treated like extra, unnecessary baggage.

Erica West Oyedele’s topic, People of Color, brought to mind many similarities between POC and Deaf people. Like the Black community, Deaf people, including myself, are angry. We are finding power in talking with each other. I have had HIs describe the sigh of relief they hear from the Deaf person when they realize a DI is there. I’ve experienced this sigh of relief before going into court when the Deaf consumer realized that I was deaf and would be there for him. That should tell you something.

In Closing

The need to educate is not new. Universities, even in the present day, have resisted including Deaf people in their interpreter education programs. This needs to stop. Deaf interpreting must be included in interpreter preparation programs, both in training Deaf people to become interpreters and in teaching the hearing students what DIs do and how to work with us. If you open the door to DIs, we will help all interpreters improve by learning how we can team and work together. As it is today, I personally do not know how to team with some of you HIs.

I guarantee you will be seeing more of us, both out there in the community and at our conferences. It is unfortunate that the 2015 RID conference fell right after DIC as many DIs were not able to attend both conferences.

Thank you.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Performance Testing Suspended: What Else Happened at the 2015 RID Conference?

Community Forum 2015

A look back at the 2015 RID National Conference reveals that recent moves by leadership and by membership have made the workings of the organization more inclusive – and more controversial.

Community Forum 2015As the noise of Bourbon Street fades to allow a framing of the developments at the 2015 RID conference held August 8-12th in New Orleans, LA, questions linger regarding the suspension of performance testing. With some time and the visibility sought from the results of the risk assessment expected in November, we hope for greater clarity for the path forward. For more coverage on the credentialing moratorium click here.

The Future Redefined

Though the suspension decision made by the RID leadership is in question, the membership in attendance recharted the future of the organization through a number of historic endorsements. For details on these and other motions during the business meeting, click here.

ASL Adopted as Official Conference Language

American Sign Language (ASL) was formally adopted as the official language of RID regional and national conferences. This is set to begin at the 2016 RID Regional Conferences. Note, ASL interpretation will be provided in workshops and presentations focused on spoken language.

This motion, Motion A, passed with a count of 249 of 368 in favor. Upon the reading of the results there was an audible expression of relief from proponents.

Continuing Education Gets an Injection of Power, Privilege, and Oppression

Continuing Education within the RID Certification Maintenance Program (CMP) will be adjusted to include a 1.0 Power, Privilege, and Oppression CEU requirement. Of the 6.0 required Professional Studies CEUs [RID requires 8.0 total CEUs per development cycle], 1.0 will now be required to be on topics of Power, Privilege and Oppression.

The discussions were lengthy and spirited. The motion required 186 votes in support. It narrowly passed with 188 in favor, 89 opposed and 15 abstentions.

A More Inclusive Approach to Publishing the JOI and RID Views

In light of the recent announcement of the RID Views going strictly digital, the membership in attendance endorsed publication of the JOI and the RID Views in both ASL and English. The dual format approach to publication is set to begin with the first digital copy of the RID Views and the next volume of the JOI.

A call for the vote left a number of waiting members unable to comment. The motion, Motion L, carried with 188 votes in support and 56 in opposition.

Leadership Commitments

Despite an undercurrent of dissatisfaction among many members, the RID leadership affirmed their commitment to the future governance of RID from the stage at the conference and in interviews with StreetLeverage.

Ritchie Bryant

Increasing The Number of Deaf People and People of Color within RID

Ritchie BryantRitchie Bryant, new Deaf Member-at-Large, sits down with Brandon Arthur and shares his perspective on increasing the number of Deaf people and People of Color within RID.


LaVona Andrew

The Importance of Representing the Perspective of the Membership to the RID Board

LaVona AndrewLaVona Andrew sits down with Brandon Arthur and shares her perspective on representing the interest of the membership to the RID Board of Directors.



Lewis Merkin

When Will RID get a New Executive Director?

Lewis Merkin

Lewis Merkin sits down with Brandon Arthur and shares where RID is with hiring a new Executive Director.




Dawn Witcher

Dawn Witcher Reflects on her Term as RID President 

Dawn Witcher

Dawn Witcher sits down with Brandon Arthur and reflects on her term as RID President and shares what she hopes to accomplish over the next 2 years.

Wing Butler

How is RID’s Financial Health?

Wing Butler

Wing Butler sits down with Brandon Arthur and shared insight on the financial health of RID.



A Discourse Framework

The format of the conference offered daily sessions promoting social and political awareness, broader inclusion, and an exploration of the challenges facing the field of sign language interpreting. These provocative, introspective forums served as the platform to elevate the level of discourse at the conference and extend a blueprint to attendees for use in their local communities.

Please find an overview of the dialogue that assisted in framing the discourse during the conference.

Community Forum

This session addressed a range of issues including generational differences, the implications of the Deafhood movement for interpreters, the power of our words and exploring the difference between having access and having to ask for access, our interface with the emerging field of CDI’s and future trends in the Deaf and interpreting communities. For comprehensive microblog coverage, click here.

Social Justice Roundtable

The Social Justice Roundtable encouraged participants to engage in meaningful exchanges around anti-oppression and social justice issues. For comprehensive microblog coverage, click here.

StreetLeverage – X

This fast moving, interactive session was designed to spark reflection, critical thinking and personal accountability among sign language interpreters on issues of possessing an extraction mindset, impacts of power and privilege, dedicating space for Deaf Interpreters, and the importance of industry gatekeepers.  For comprehensive microblog coverage, click here.

The Big Think

The Big ThinkThis session engaged panelists and audience members in a collective analysis of a few of the challenges troubling the field of sign language interpreting and how they might be addressed. For comprehensive microblog coverage, click here.

Session Perspective

The various conference sessions reflected a broad range of perspectives within the field as well as  a diversity of thought and practice that exists among practitioners and educators. In addition to the standard glass of social media served up by the StreetLeverage social ninjas, they also did a deeper dive on a number of conference sessions.

To view these session summaries, click here.

Active Reinvestment

The StreetLeverage endeavor to extend the 2015 RID Conference to the many dedicated interpreters unable to attend would not have been possible without those possessing ample helpings of generosity, reciprocity, and humility.

Special thanks to the following organizations and individuals for their vision to actively reinvest in their communities.

Sponsors

 

ASL Services

Deaf Access Solutions

PSLI







Social Ninjas

Jean Miller, Lance Pickett, Amy Williamson, Deborah Perry, Kate O’Regan, Dan Cook, Sean Benson, Liz Hollingsworth, and Amanda Moyer

RID

We are grateful for the vision of Dawn Witcher, Anna Witter-Merithew, and Tina Maggio who endorsed the StreetLeverage endeavor to extend the important dialogue from the 2015 RID Conference to those seeking indicators of change and progress within the field.

In the End

Although the discourse of the conference may be overshadowed by the bombshell announcement of the suspension of performance testing, a level of momentum has been generated by the events at the 2015 RID Conference in New Orleans.

Attendees appeared to leave with a greater sense of purpose, an awareness of the gravity of the work ahead, and a new found courage to engage in the reflection required to redefine the field, organization, and what it means to be a sign language interpreter.