August 2016 – StreetLeverage

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Nancy Bloch — Leave a comment

[Archives] Marginalization Within the Sign Language Interpreting Profession: Where is the Deaf Perspective?

Our archives are filled with the generosity of our presenters and contributors. It is often enlightening to look back at the path which leads to the present. To that end, we offer this glimpse into the StreetLeverage archives. This presentation was originally published on April 23, 2014.

Nancy presented Marginalization Within the Sign Language Interpreting Profession: Where is the Deaf Perspective? at StreetLeverage – Live 2013 | Atlanta. Her talk explored how the intersectional dynamic between the deaf and sign language interpreting communities has literally been lost in translation amid dramatic and still-evolving changes within the field of sign language interpreting.

You can find the PPT deck for is presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Nancy’s StreetLeverage – Live 2014 presentation. We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Nancy’s original presentation directly.]

Marginalization Within the Sign Language Interpreting Profession: Where is the Deaf Perspective?

Nearly 50 Years of Advancement

Where do we actually find the perspective of Deaf people (Deaf community) within the interpreting profession? Actually, the answer to this question may better be answered by asking, “Who here is Deaf?” Please raise your hand if you are Deaf. Point made. There are few of us here so where do you get our perspective?

There has been a large number of dramatic changes over the relatively short history of RID and we have come a long way in the establishment of the profession. When I say dramatic changes, I do not mean to imply that change is bad. There have been wonderful advancements and many, many very positive outcomes. I value my personal and professional relationships with interpreters and many in the Deaf community feel the same way. In spite of those sometimes very strong relationships, I would like to focus this presentation on how to better involve deaf people within the decision-making structure of the sign language interpreting profession.

Marginalization – and Underrepresentation – of Deaf Persons

I feel that just as there are few deaf voices represented here, there are just as few represented in other areas as well. Deaf people need to be not only welcomed but invited to the decision-making tables of the interpreting field. At the profession’s birth and infancy, the Deaf voice had a stronger presence and over the 50-year history of RID, that voice has been less and less present. We have been underrepresented in all aspects of the interpreting field and industry and I will share with you some ways that can change.

Deaf Perspectives & Contributions Consistently Undervalued

I opened my talk by saying that there have been many positive advancements in the interpreting field over the last 50 years, but with those changes, there have also been some inherent weaknesses that have become clear. One such weakness is not including Deaf people in the evolutionary progress of the field and industry. This fact leads to the important step of asking ourselves why this has happened.

Before I go any further, I do want to apologize for depending on my notes so much. I have recently gone through treatment for cancer and the medications have left me unable to rely on my memory like I used to.

When I say that Deaf people have not been involved in the evolutionary progress of the field, I am pointing a finger at the whole industry. I see the same trend in interpreter education, ethics, testing, certification, professional development, national, regional, and local service organizations, research, mentorship, interpreting service providers/agencies, and joint efforts by the Deaf and interpreting communities, and so on. By not including Deaf people in all of the advancements within the industry, the field misses out on the benefits and contributions that can be gained by their inclusion. The Deaf-Gain.

The Deaf community has not only felt unwelcome and unvalued, we have been uninvited. At this point, we need a personal invite to know that we are welcome and valued. I challenge each of you to invite a Deaf person to the next StreetLeverage Live. Deaf people from within the field but also anyone that the industry could benefit from hearing from should attend. I intend to go as a participant and I hope to see an audience of half deaf and half hearing. Let’s commit to making that happen so that we all can benefit from each other.

Duplication of Effort

Another trend I have seen over time is the duplication of efforts within the Deaf and sign language interpreting communities. I would encourage everyone to look across the fence to see how you can create successful collaborations toward better outcomes for everyone. For example, I am aware that in some states the RID chapters have a close working relationship with the NAD state association but in other states that is not the case. Take a look at your own area and let the states that are doing this successfully be your guide. Work to establish strong collaborations in your local area in order to better support each other’s efforts.

It is high time to weave Deaf people into the tapestry or mosaic of the interpreting field. With a critical eye, we need to look within to examine why there has developed and remains such divisiveness between the Deaf and sign language interpreting communities and between niche groups within both communities. We need to do that important work before we can move forward.

I have always viewed interpreters as my ally or my partner. I do not want to work with any service provider, whether they be my doctor or anyone else, unless they view me as their partner, too. The idea of partnering between the Deaf person and the interpreter is not a mindset I see enough in my local area, of St. Augustine, Florida. I lived in Maryland for 34 years and was very fortunate to work with so many interpreters that did approach our relationship as a partnership so moving to Florida where I have not found that to be the norm has been a little bit of a culture shock. I have taken it upon myself to share my experience and informally mentor a few interpreters with the hopes that they can change their model.

I do have a vested interest in seeing the field of interpreting grow. I say this because I see the domino effect of what can happen when the field includes more Deaf perspective (Deaf-Gain). It improves the quality of the work sign language interpreters, which in turn will make the efforts of both the Deaf and interpreting community more effective. We have not even begun to tap into the potential of that collaboration.

Deaf people can be valued, contributing, and equal players in the interpreting field’s growth.

“For Hearing Interpreters Only” Mindset

There are many examples where this statement plays out. I have been to countless interpreter events on local, state, and national levels where the predominant language being used is English. That simple act by the attendees leaves me feeling left out, unwelcome, and disrespected. The result is that I feel as if I am an outcast in my own community and if you have experienced this, you know it is definitely not a good feeling to have.

I have been to some events where the speaker is using English and sign language interpreters are provided but there is someone signing ASL on one far side of the stage and someone else signing a different way on the far side of the stage. As a participant, that scenario is confusing at best. I never know where to look when what I really want to be doing is looking at the speaker and an interpreter that I understand within the same field of view. A simple request but you would be surprised how often it does not happen. Over time, the trend to move the interpreter closer to the speaker has been occurring but it is still not as good as having the presenter sign for themselves. Seeing a message from the source is better than through an interpreter so I say the way to get beyond the ‘for hearing interpreter only’ mindset is to establish the expectation that at events for interpreters and Deaf people, everyone will use the common language of ASL.

Unlike spoken languages that have a geographical location where the language is used, there are so few opportunities for sign language interpreters to use ASL exclusively for an extended period of time. Interpreting-related events like conferences are the perfect opportunity for a language immersion experience. This creates a rich opportunity for learning, giving and sharing, and a win-win for everyone. When Deaf people feel welcome at interpreter events, then the collaboration between our two communities has a better chance of occurring.

The unintentional consequence of using English predominantly at conferences and other events is that new and potential interpreters are getting exposed to and modeled a defacto standard that has to stop. If interpreters are not just giving lip service to wanting to be involved in the Deaf community more, then the predominant language needs to be ASL.

I’d like to share a scenario that I witnessed to illustrate the significance of an all-signing environment. I attended an RID conference while Jimmy Beldon was on the national board. He was the only Deaf board member at the time and in the large conference hall where the board was sitting on the stage in a row behind tables. The meeting had not started yet and as I was sitting in the audience with about 2000 other RID members. I saw two hearing board members who were quite able to use sign language speak to each other over Jimmy who was sitting between them. I actually had to check myself to make sure I was seeing things correctly. It made no sense to me and I know that Jimmy felt incredibly awkward and unsure how to handle that situation. This happened because those hearing board members had been using English to communicate during the conference and just continued to do so right in front of, literally, a Deaf colleague.

I can not say it any more plainly, a lot of good things can happen if the playing field is simply leveled by providing direct communication access to every participant. Doing so creates a mutually respectful environment where everyone can participate.

Economics Over Culture and Community

Since I only have 5 minutes left, I am going to tell you a funny…well, maybe not so funny…story. While I was working at the NAD, a private company hired us to organize a few focus groups to do some marketing research. One of the groups was made up of signing Deaf people but there was one participant that was hard-of-hearing and did not sign fluently so we hired interpreters for that person. When we hired the interpreters we made sure to tell them that this hard-of-hearing person needed to be able to see their mouth. Additionally, this particular focus group was of interest to the company so the company’s executives were with me watching the focus group through a one-way mirror.

One of the sign language interpreters was slouching, signing sloppily, and I was concerned that the hard-of-hearing participant would not understand him, so I wrote a note and had someone take it in and give it to him to ask him to sign more clearly and to sit up. He complied but when the focus group ended, he came around to the room that I was in and complained that he should not have been asked to change his way of signing. He said that he wanted to talk to the person that was in charge and that hired him. When I told him that it was me that had asked him to change the way he was signing and that it was me that had hired him he continued to argue. Unfortunately, this situation did not end well because when I gave feedback to the agency we had hired to secure the interpreters, I was met with a curt response of, “We will take your feedback into consideration.” This type of response was received by this agency more than once. I won’t say which agency it was, even though Anna Witter-Merithew has been teasing me that I should say who it was. We laugh about it but the situation was unsatisfactory.

Transformation

Since Brandon has asked me to keep my talk positive, what we have seen lately is that more and more Deaf people are getting involved in hiring sign language interpreters and running agencies and that can only be a good thing.

This afternoon’s workshop will focus more on how we can transform the profession. Transformation is not easy and certainly does not happen overnight. It has to start at the individual level to create a paradigm shift for far-reaching, positive, and lasting impact. We also need to see active involvement of Deaf persons and sign language interpreting-Deaf community alliances throughout industry. Alliances that have been successful in the past, like the Allies conferences of the 90’s, can be a good model for us. Involving Deaf people on every level of the sign language interpreting field will ensure core “Deaf Heart” values, beliefs and practices are reflected throughout the industry.

Without this paradigm shift within the sign language interpreting profession, we would not be true to the to the original reason the industry was established. Together we can and should work together.

We, the Deaf community, cannot be lost in translation.

* 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 right-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on August 17, 2016 by Pamela Collins — 1 Comment

Bringing Scheduling Into View: A Look at the Business of Sign Language Interpreting

Pamela Collins presented Bringing Scheduling Into View: A Look at the Business of Sign Language Interpreting at StreetLeverage – Live 2016 | Fremont. Her presentation encourages a recalibration of the processes involved in scheduling sign language interpreters by taking a global and systemic view in order to ensure improved outcomes for consumers and interpreters.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Pamela’s StreetLeverage – Live 2016 presentation. We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Pamela’s original presentation directly.]

What is involved in the process of scheduling sign language interpreters? Whether it be in medical appointments or in an academic setting, most people are unaware of the step-by-step processes involved in scheduling interpreting assignments. In my own experience, before I was officially an interpreter, I did ad hoc interpreting for the community, which often happened at a moment’s notice. These requests came from Deaf community members in questions like, “Pam, what are they saying?” In those situations, “scheduling” an interpreter meant being sought out by a community member and approached in person to interpret. That community connection and these ad hoc interpreting experiences, whether or not I felt qualified, continued throughout my studies to become a professional sign language interpreter. For me, all these experiences had roots that began in the community.

When interpreting became my profession, I maintained my community connections and continued to keep in mind the needs of the community and how I might best match my skill set to those needs. Recently, I’ve seen a shift in that practice and a growing gap, a disconnection from our community in how our profession approaches the scheduling process. It is true that Deaf people and interpreters all have a range of backgrounds and experiences, and sign language interpreters all have individual journeys to and through the profession in terms of knowledge, training and skill sets. When an interpreter is assigned to a job, how does one know if that interpreter is an appropriate match for that situation, and what steps are involved in that vetting process?

Are We Meeting Client Needs?

As mentioned, there is a clear link between the Deaf community and those who serve as interpreters. However, the circle of community has since widened to include those who interact as interpreter schedulers in the context of those who are establishing businesses to provide interpreting services. These growing number of agencies include many based on spoken language services, perhaps without an understanding of the skills, knowledge, and qualifications necessary to accurately assign ASL interpreters. These factors, along with my past experiences, led me to delve into a journey of self-analysis on how I gained the judgment to know when I best fit an interpreting situation. And again, I noticed changes in practice over time.

Over the course of my experience, I have increasingly felt pulled into interpreting situations for which I may not have been in the past. The days of Deaf community members inviting me into an interpreting task were fast diminishing. In their place came preset schedules handed to me by a seemingly faceless scheduling entity from an agency for which I work. I felt increasing conflicted by this process which seemed often to lead to an incorrect match. Instead, I yearned for a more global view of the processes being used in order to determine guidelines and protocols – all with a goal to create a better, more successful system.

Without such as system in place, can suitable scheduling matches be obtained, and is access achieved? As independent interpreters, we need to work with agencies to build a more comprehensive workflow that ensures appropriate interpreter-consumer matches. This requires looking at each step of the scheduling process in a measured way, including the role of the scheduler. In my research, I have included perspectives from several schedulers, as well as interpreters. One of my research interests included examining the backgrounds of schedulers as compared to interpreters, specifically regarding experience and training.

From Need to Assignment: How Does it Happen?

There are several steps involved in the scheduling process, and often many assumptions are made. There has been an evolution from the days of community-sourced interpreting to the advent of big businesses now controlling more of the process of securing an interpreter, which creates the appearance, whether real or imagined, of a greater disconnection of scheduler to community. Blame is misplaced: it has simply become the reality of how large-scale requests are handled. Those hired to schedule are faced with scarcity of supply and great demand and are often bound to a specific process regarding interpreter assignment. With that in mind, who is responsible for looking at the larger picture? Who is attending to and identifying where ineffective or antiquated methods may be retired or revised? How can we arrive at a positive change?

Change starts with the people involved in the scheduling process. I began with interviews on the day-to-day life of schedulers and what their process entailed in order to get a better schema and clear understanding of their job. I then related that to a larger systems view, looking at how systems interacted and influenced those processes. It can be assumed that those who are hired to schedule will adhere to policies and practices as instructed in their job description, but those jobs exist in a system, a company, an agency where there are rules and policies which determine the processes that impact people. I then began to examine, still from a perspective of people, how systems were at work.

Dueling Roles?

Up to this point of my research, I had been focusing on how to find the best, most appropriate interpreter match for each situation. The other part of the equation is that the scheduler’s role often involves prioritizing timeliness in assigning interpreters. These two roles seem to be in conflict with one another, which calls for a more deliberate look at the impacts on the work of both roles- because ultimately, the Deaf consumer is impacted. What causes an interpreter to be misplaced in a medical appointment or academic setting? The analysis needs to start at the beginning of the request.

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Typically, interpreters have viewed misassignment through a people-based lens – ethics, behavior, skill levels, etc., which all have value, but limiting our view to this lens can be short-sighted. Those people work within systems – systems which increasingly involve big business. In the United States, big business is a regular part of the equation and sign language interpreters must become more savvy about navigating spaces other than community-based settings. What used to be “Mom and Pop” shops have become corporate conglomerates where one may seldom interact with a person. As a profession, we need to study our own growing pains as we transition from locally-grown, community-based, ad hoc work to the intricacies of agencies, corporations, and government involvement. How are spoken language agencies winning government contracts and hiring ASL interpreters? We need to examine the whole structure of the system.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is the lens I took for my research. This methodology involves personal interviews – for example, documenting the daily life of a scheduler in map-like detail to see, with clarity, the work being done. Sections are added and expanded upon as needed. For example, if the scheduler mentions following protocol because of a certain system or individual in power, a map would be drawn of the manager’s or authority’s dynamic. Layers of complexity are added to include all involved, Deaf consumers, etc., to get the best picture available. In that way, scheduling processes can be fully visualized so all stakeholders in the community can assess and amend the process and determine if the outcomes are successful or not. So, we start with people, then expand to the systems at play.

Houston, We’ve Got a Problem

The research so far has validated that there is an issue. And again, this is not an exercise in finding a scapegoat. The goal is one of understanding the current policies and practices to find if access is being achieved. That’s a question we have to investigate more closely. In looking at that more closely, I have personally experienced dismay and discomfort when assigned to jobs which may not have been the best choice. In those moments, I have wondered how this occurred. Who decides what an appropriate match is? The Deaf community also experiences these struggles, and we, therefore, need to look at how that situation is occurring with such regularity.

In Closing

So, I’ve just distilled five years of research into a little less than 20 minutes. If you’d like more in-depth information, please attend my workshop. We will look at the scheduling process together. Together, we can isolate each piece and process to consider whether or not best matches are achieved. As a professional field, we have a collective responsibility to start exploring these issues. Other industries explore their issues to help determine successful paths forward. It’s time the interpreting field did the same work to change systems and practices by examining what is in place and determining how to adapt for more successful outcomes. Are you ready? I am!

* 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 August 2, 2016 by Diana MacDougall — Leave a comment

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!?

* 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!”

Questions for Consideration:

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?
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?
Beyond more civilized discourse, how can sign language interpreters and those who utilize their services benefit from this approach to engagement?
How can sign language interpreters support each other in taking on this call to action?

References:

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