Tag: Accountability

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Change Ahead: A New Approach to Feedback for Sign Language Interpreters

Jackie Emmart presented Change Ahead: A New Approach to Feedback for Sign Language Interpreters at StreetLeverage – Live 2016 | Fremont. Her presentation advocates a new approach to feedback for more positive outcomes and increased accountability as we encounter the changing realities of the field.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

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

When it comes to giving and receiving feedback, the interpreting profession, along with many other industries, has yet to standardize an approach. There are many reasons for this, but the reality is that from one assignment to the next, we interact with one another in a variety of ways. As a result, after the completion of an interpreting assignment, colleagues ask us for feedback but don’t really mean it; ask us if they can share an observation and then proceed to dance around the issue; invite our observations in a judgmental tone that implies an error in our decisions, behavior, and/or interpreting product; or without regard for the emotional impact, “let us have it” because their heart is in the right place but their soft skills leave something to be desired.

In 2014, I was fortunate to attend the Massachusetts Conference for Women, a gathering of 10,000 women seeking professional and personal development, when Sheila Heen was a guest presenter.[i] She and co-author Douglas Stone had just published “Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood)[ii],” and her presentation got at the heart of why we engage with feedback differently from one person to the next and from one day to the next. As I listened to her explain that we’ve been doing it wrong all along, reframe how we could respond to feedback, and share strategies to engage with those responses, I thought that this information could transform everything for us in the interpreting field, and so here we are.

Annually, organizations spend billions on training supervisors, managers, and leaders to give feedback more efficiently. They’re taught to persist if the feedback they give is not immediately received well. The irony in this, as Sheila revealed in her presentation[iii], is that it’s the receiver of the feedback who holds all the power, not the giver. The giver has no control over how the receiver interprets what is said or whether or not and how to use the feedback. This money and our time could be more wisely spent engaging the receivers of feedback, shifting our energy toward seeking feedback (yes, even the negative kind) and asking for what we need to learn, grow, and develop. This is not only because of the rationale Sheila shared, but because our field and the face of the Deaf community are rapidly changing[iv], and we need to adapt in order to remain responsive and relevant. This can be achieved through our professional dialogues with one another, day in and day out.

Defining “Feedback”

Before I continue, let’s take a moment to acknowledge what is meant by “feedback.” Feedback is any information that we get about ourselves, and even when life is messy and it seems impossible to do so, it can be separated into three categories: Appreciation, Coaching, and Evaluation.[v] Appreciation is about relationships and human connection. It’s “Thanks,” “I see you working hard,” and “You matter to me.” Nearly all (93%) workers feel underappreciated at work and half of all workers leave their jobs because they did not feel appreciated. Coaching is feedback that is aimed at helping someone learn, grow, or change. Examples of coaching are when we give tips to improve a skill, approach, behavior, decision, or an appearance. Evaluation tells you where you stand. It’s an assessment, ranking, and/or rating, whereby there is a standard to which you and your work are being compared. Annual performance reviews fall into this category. One of the easiest ways to get clear on the feedback you’re receiving is to ask what is intended – sometimes it seems we’re getting feedback that falls in a particular category when the giver means for something altogether different. Ensuring that the intent and the impact are aligned will support understanding throughout the feedback conversation.[vi] Let’s also be clear that it doesn’t matter what you call the information you get; I know that some individuals are uncomfortable with calling it feedback.[vii] That’s fine; my goal is not for us to change what we call it. My goal is for us to change how we do it.

We know that finding exceptional teachers and mentors with whom we will always have an open mind regardless of what critique they present is a treasured rarity. Most of our experiences will be with other people who don’t have the time to give us meaningful feedback, who don’t know how to give it, who are just plain mean, or who fall somewhere in between. In order to walk the talk when it comes to our commitment to growth, we need to develop the capacity to learn from everyone.[viii] Yes, everyone.

Why is Engaging with Feedback Tricky?

Feedback sits at the intersection of two human needs – to learn and grow, or achieve mastery and the need for acceptance and approval of me just as I am now. Also, there will always be evaluation in coaching. If I am told how to improve, I’m also inherently being told that I’m not quite good enough and it can be tricky to keep our minds and hearts open when receiving these messages. As we’ll learn later, it’s essential that in our feedback conversations, both giver and receiver compare the giver’s intent of delivering appreciation, coaching, or evaluation, with the impact it’s having on the receiver.[ix]

How we receive feedback one day could be different than how we engage with it the next. There are many influencing factors, including how well we slept the night before, our emotional connection to who or what is in the room, who’s giving the feedback and how, and how we’ve learned to give feedback versus how it’s being given. Now that we’ve looked at the person-to-person experience of feedback, let’s take a step back to consider what’s ahead for our profession and how the changing face of the Deaf community will impact us in the months and years to come.

Now is the Time

Due to current and imminent changes on the horizon, we simply cannot continue to approach feedback and other discussions about our interpreting work in the same way that we always have. In order to meet the ever-increasing demands of these changes, we must find a new way to talk about the work, colleague-to-colleague.

Jackie Emmart
Jackie Emmart

Let’s begin by naming the elephant in the room. According to Humphries et al[x], 80% of all deaf children born in developing countries will receive cochlear implants. Due to the varying policies from healthcare providers and CI manufacturer protocols, there are a significant number of those children who will have no solid first language foundation. If they miss the critical period, they may not ever be fluent in any language. Additionally, cognitive tasks that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation.[xi] This has great impact on interpreters – how we work with these individuals must be different than how we work with Deaf individuals whose first language is ASL. We simply cannot go at it alone; we need to open the discussion with one another so that we are all better prepared to face the demanding tasks of interpreting for individuals with language dysfluency and possible cognitive delays.

The recent Trends Report published by the National Interpreter Education Center[xii] tells us that approximately 87% of deaf children are educated in mainstream settings. Without peers who share the same language and without access to Deaf adults who can shape appropriate language acquisition, there will be great impact on language and social fluency. We will work with Deaf people whose language is idiosyncratic and the interpreting strategies that work for one may not work for the other. Thus, we must be willing to engage with feedback and one another about effectively working with these current youth and future adults.

As of late, there has been an upswing in the numbers of social media posts, blogs, and articles from members of the Deaf community who are calling for interpreters to ‘clean up our house’.[xiii][xiv][xv] Deaf people are taking to public forums to highlight the lack of accountability we have for one another, and to demand that this be shifted so that we can show up to work in their lives prepared to collaborate and be consummate professionals. As guests in the Deaf community, we must listen to their views and find a way to appropriately respond. We can best clean our house through open conversations about our work, about our behaviors, and about what it means to serve the Deaf and DeafBlind communities. In order to work together, we must be willing to have these brave conversations and engage with feedback in a new way.

In the last 20 years, we have seen a boom in racial and ethnic diversity in the US and yet, 86% of interpreters are just like me: white women.[xvi] That means that we will not share the same linguistic styles or cultures of the individuals we serve with an increasing frequency. In addition to increasing the racial and ethnic diversity in our profession so that we can more accurately represent reality, we also need to work together to learn how to best serve those from different backgrounds. Talking openly about the work, about social and economic justice, and about other important issues that directly relate to working with individuals who are from different backgrounds will become imperative if we are to provide effective interpreting services.

Our interpreting work is being recorded and posted online in ways it hasn’t been before.[xvii] What used to be seen by only the individuals present is now publicly viewable and we are receiving “feedback” from anyone who wants to contribute, regardless of their credibility or intent. Again, in order to appropriately manage these situations, we must work together. We must be willing to engage with the feedback we receive from one another and request support as needed so that we can successfully navigate this uncharted territory.

The interpreting industry is changing, the face of the Deaf community is changing; these are just some of the reasons why we must begin immediately to engage with feedback in a new way. We are not quite there yet because giving and receiving feedback can be challenging, and there are many reasons for that.

Feedback Can be Messy

It’s probably fair to say that the majority of us are on board with believing that the face of our industry and the Deaf community are rapidly changing. So, what’s preventing us from changing how we engage with one another and feedback to get ahead of the curve? The nature of giving and receiving feedback is complicated and there are likely just as many ways to engage with feedback as there are topics to discuss.

Generally, people believe that if we wanted to know something, we’d ask. Some people think that either we must already know or that someone else will tell us. They don’t want to hurt our feelings. The danger of withholding information, though, is that when we finally meet someone brave enough to share with us, we think whatever they say must not be true because certainly if it were, someone else would have told us by now.[xviii] If, however, I readily and regularly seek feedback from my colleagues, and if I engage with it in a curious way, I will have multiple opportunities to increase my awareness and make improvements as I go.

As mentioned previously, through the course of a feedback conversation, the giver may have a different impression about their intention as compared to the impact it has on the receiver, and thus the receiver responds to what they’re taking away from the conversation, not to what the giver intends. For example, the giver may intend to coach, but the receiver interprets it as evaluation. The onus is on the receiver to check throughout the conversation that intent and impact are aligned, and when they’re not, to discuss them discretely.[xix]

When we do get feedback, it can be easy to overlook and misunderstand the giver’s point. Sometimes they’re vague and we jump to a misinterpretation based on assumed intent[xx]. It’s also incredibly easy to find what’s wrong with the feedback – about you, about the situation, about the constraints – and justify our behavior based on our intentions. Speaking of misaligned intent and impact, did you know that 93% of American motorists believe they are better than average drivers? Or that of the managers surveyed by one 2007 BusinessWeek poll, 90% believed their performance was in the top 10%?[xxi] If we’re to successfully engage with feedback, as receivers we must switch from “wrong-spotting” to “tell me more.”[xxii] In place of justifications, we ought to respond with inquiry. Through the course of this new kind of conversation, we’ll better understand the impact of our decisions, thus mitigating the social blind spots we all have.

There have been attempts to reframe our feedback discussions, such that we now tell one another to separate self from work and talk only about the raw data in a given interpretation. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as raw data. As givers of feedback, we always interpret what we see before we store it in memory. So, by the time it makes its way out of our minds and into the laps of the feedback receivers, what’s being given is an interpretation. We think it’s raw data because that’s how we’ve stored it, but the truth is, there is no such thing. We attend to what we think is important, based on our experiences, values, assumptions, and implicit rules. For the purpose of more deeply engaging with feedback, we must remember that what we see or hear in an interpretation matters just as much as what we did not see or hear.[xxiii] The feedback you give is what is important to you through your lens, so if I really want to learn and grow, I need to seek negative feedback and not wait for others to share what’s important to them.

And then there are first impressions and the myriad studies about them. Regardless of a good or bad first impression, thereafter we seek data to confirm what we originally believed.[xxiv] That means that if we continue to focus on the giver of feedback, we’ll only get the data they’ve collected through their lens. If we ask specific questions about getting feedback, though, and focus on improving how we receive it, we can benefit from data that may otherwise have gone unnoticed.

In this new approach, we will drive our own growth and learning.

Benefits

On a personal level, when we receive feedback well, our relationships become more rich. In fact, a key predictor of healthier, stable marriages is whether or not we’re willing and able to accept influence from our spouses. Additionally, our self-esteem becomes more secure because through the process of learning what we need to improve and subsequently working to improve it, we get better at things and we feel good about it. [xxv]

Feedback-seeking behavior is linked to higher job satisfaction and seeking negative feedback is associated with higher performance ratings.[xxvi] When we’re committed to learning and growth in our hearts and in our actions, it’s no wonder that we will be more satisfied with the work that we do. And when we seek negative feedback from our colleagues and the individuals we serve, our “walking the talk” is perceived favorably as a sign of true commitment to align intent with impact.

For generations, we have seen that our happiness does not spring from the events or things in our lives but rather how we choose to respond to those events. Modern research tells us that it is experiences, not material goods, that create happiness.[xxvii] We have the opportunity to create the life we want to live on a daily basis, by engaging with one another in a curious way about our work, our behaviors, and our decisions.

There are many more benefits for us as individuals and for our field as a whole that we will realize upon making these changes – to shift our focus from refining the giving of feedback to improving how receivers seek and engage with feedback of all kinds.

Are you in?

Feedback is not always easy, but it is always worth it. There are many compelling current and future reasons on individual and profession-wide levels for why we must now shift how we handle the art and science of engaging with feedback. We must collectively decide that we want to proactively shape our future; multiple paths will lead us there, some of which are listed above. For more information on how you can shift your energy and learn to receive feedback well, check out Thanks for the feedback. If you let it, it will change you – personally and professionally.

 

* 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!”

 

References

[i] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[ii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[iii] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[iv] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[v] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[vi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[vii] Emmart, J. (2015). Sign Language Interpreters and the ‘F’ Word. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2015/12/sign-language-interpreters-and-the-f-word/

[viii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[ix] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[x] Humphries, T., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9 (16). Retrieved from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16

[xi] Humphries, T., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9 (16). Retrieved from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16

[xii] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[xiii] C Green. (2014, June 12). Accountability: Clean Your House. [Web log article]. Retrieved from http://deafwordsmith.blogspot.com/2014/06/accountability-clean-your-house.html

[xiv] Suggs, T. (2012). Deaf Disempowerment and Today’s Interpreter. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/

[xv] E Stecker. (2014, April 23). Video Blog Community accountability: Interpreters [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/znK5wUUQe-U

[xvi] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[xvii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.34) Penguin Group USA.

[xviii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.90) Penguin Group USA.

[xix] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.201-202) Penguin Group USA.

[xx] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.88-89) Penguin Group USA.

[xxi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.64) Penguin Group USA.

[xxii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.46-47) Penguin Group USA.

[xxiii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.54-55) Penguin Group USA.

[xxiv] Dimitrius, J. E. and Mazzarella, M. (2000) Put Your Best Foot Forward: Make a Great Impression by Taking Control of How Others See You. New York, NY: Fireside.

[xxv] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.8-9) Penguin Group USA.

[xxvi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.8-9) Penguin Group USA.

[xxvii] Hamblin, J. (2014, October 7). Buy Experiences, Not Things. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/buy-experiences/381132

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

What Are We Really Saying? Perceptions of Sign Language Interpreting

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

Sign Language Interpreter Framing Their Work

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

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

[Click to view post in ASL.]

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

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

The Labels We Use: “Terp”

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

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

Misleading Terminology

“Hands-up”

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

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

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

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

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

“Voicing”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holding Ourselves Accountable

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

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

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

How will you model talking about the work we do?

* 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!”

Questions for Consideration:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Scales of Justice: Legal Ramifications for Sign Language Interpreters

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

Scales of Justice: Legal Ramifications for Sign Language Interpreters

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

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

[Click to view post in ASL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tara Potterveld
Tara Potterveld

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

Nichola Schmitz
Nichola Schmitz

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

 

* 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:

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

 

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Civility Within the Interpreting Profession: A Novice’s Perspective

Recommitting to the principles of civility aligns sign language interpreters with the Code of Professional Conduct while fostering positive interactions both online and in person.

Civility Within the Interpreting Profession

I have always believed strongly in the school of hard knocks. As a sign language interpreter, I have held the opinion that sensitivity is not a luxury we can afford if we want to make it in this field; if you cannot accept criticism, this is not the job for you. My opinion in the last several weeks has changed.

[Click to view post in ASL]

According to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), sign language interpreters are required to “maintain civility towards colleagues, interns and students of the profession.” (RID code of professional conduct, Tenet 5.1, 2009).  Unfortunately, with the proliferation of websites like Facebook, Twitter, personal web pages, public forums, and other forms of social media, this tenet seems to be disappearing into the abyss of the internet faster than you can say “LOL J/K everyone.” I can assure you that not everyone is “laughing out loud,” and commentators are not “just kidding.”

I often find myself bearing witness to those who are using the internet as a platform to discuss their distaste for novice interpreters. Previously, when I would check my usual blogs, forums, and Facebook pages, I would ignore these comments. I did not realize, however, that it was not only novices who were the targets of these comments on the internet; seasoned and certified interpreters were being targeted as well.  Despite the fact that these comments sometimes hurt or have made me doubt myself, I ignored them and kept practicing. After all, criticism comes with the territory – if we are not struggling, we are not growing.

How Far is too Far?

One day, I was shown an interpreter’s personal website which was used to promote their services. However, I noticed that this interpreter also used this website as a platform to discredit other interpreters who were deemed “unfit” by this person. This included sharing an – in their opinion – “unqualified” interpreter’s picture, full name and a detailed account of their interpreting errors. A few weeks later, on a different forum, an interpreter posted an image of a novice interpreting and commented that this novice should not be interpreting. To the credit of the forum’s administrator, this post was later removed with a disclaimer stating that this kind of behavior was unacceptable, but as we all know, the internet is forever. Accepting a job you are not qualified to interpret is most certainly unethical, but there must be a better and more ethical way to resolve the issue of qualification that does not involve potentially slanderous behavior.

Time for Change

Shortly after witnessing these actions on the internet, I attended Street Leverage’s Street Tour along with a diverse group of sign language interpreters ranging from current ITP students to seasoned nationally certified interpreters with more than 20 years of experience. Betty Colonomos stood before us and asked a very profound question: “What are you afraid of ?” We each took turns writing down our interpreting-related fears on posters. The result was astounding. Everyone in the room had the exact same fear: fear of being judged by other sign language interpreters.

After realizing we all were sharing the same fears, Betty encouraged us to dig a little deeper; what came to the surface was some serious interpreter-on-interpreter crime. As it turns out, not only were the novices being treated unfairly, but those with many years of experience felt that they, too, were being looked down upon for not having the training or education that some of the new interpreters had. I listened as interpreter after interpreter shared their own stories of slander. ITP students, novices, certified interpreters, and veterans of our field, at one point or another, had all experienced other interpreters tearing them down. I learned that this issue started long before the internet, and it is having a pervasive impact on our community. After listening to us all weekend, Betty left us with a final thought, “instead of being a victim, become an activist.” This is exactly what I intend to do.

A Case for Civility

Gina DiFiore-Ridolph
Gina DiFiore-Ridolph

P.M. Forni, the author of Choosing Civility and the co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project, describes civility as

“being aware of others and weaving restraint, respect and consideration into the very fabric of this awareness…It is not just an attitude of benevolent and thoughtful relating to other individuals; it also entails active interest in the well-being of our communities” (2002).

This is a concept that we, as professional sign language interpreters, are quickly losing sight of. This lack of civility is creating a chasm in our community. It needs to stop. Maintaining civility towards one another is the only way to bring us together. Without adopting a civil attitude, we are going to  continue to tear each other apart.  

It Starts With Accountability

In 2012, Carolyn Ball wrote a similar article for Street Leverage asking us what role civility has in the interpreting profession. Civility begins with ourselves. If each sign language interpreter were to promise never to tear down another interpreter, to maintain civility and to keep the best interests of their counterparts in mind; the change would be enormous. We can repair this rift we have created. I still believe in the school of hard knocks, I still believe that you need to struggle in order to grow; I believe in civility, too. It is possible to believe in both. If we promise to support one another and be mindful of our actions, both on and off the internet, we can create an environment that is more conducive to effective interpreting.  

Conclusion

If you find yourself frequently frustrated by other sign language interpreters, reach out, instead of calling them out. I highly recommend Forni’s book, Choosing Civility. As a person who used to think civility was just “being nice” or “sugar coating things,” I learned, after reading this book, that this is not the case at all. You can still have grit and be gracious. You can still be assertive and agreeable. It all starts with a choice to hold ourselves accountable both on and off the internet.

* 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:

  1. What are three things you can do to increase the level of civility in your professional life?
  2. How can you hold yourself and others accountable for internet interactions regarding other interpreters?
  3. What can you do to support other interpreters in supporting the concept of civility in the profession?
  4. Can you list several concrete ways we can model civility to our peers both online and in person?

Related Posts:

Accountability: A First Step to Harmony Among Sign Language Interpreters? Sabrina Smith

It Takes a Village to Raise a Sign Language Interpreter by Brian Morrison

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

References:

Ball, C. (2012). What Role Does Civility Play in the Sign Language Interpreting Profession. Retrieved October 21st, 2015 from http//:www.StreetLeverage.com.

Forni, P.M (2002). Choosing Civility: The Twenty Five Rules of Considerate Conduct. New York, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. (2009) Retrieved October 26th, 2015 from http//:www.rid.org

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Sign Language Interpreters and the “F” Word

Receiving feedback is as much an art as giving it. By crafting opportunities to receive feedback, sign language interpreters can begin to erase the negative connotations that often accompany the “F” word.

Sign Language Interpreters and the 'F' Word

Several hours after a recent interpreting assignment, I received an email from my team interpreter that simply said, “Can we chat about today?” I had an immediate hunch that I was soon to receive feedback about my performance and, despite the year of study I’ve committed to better understanding accountability and the art of receiving feedback, I froze.

[Click to view post in ASL]

Thanks to Sheila Heen and Doug Stone,1 I had the tools to prepare me for this feedback conversation and so I found a spot to sit that was free of distraction and called my colleague. For the next half hour, we successfully navigated what could have been a stressful conversation. As it turns out, I behaved that day in ways that were off-putting, and though I’d like to believe these behaviors were unrecognizable to an outsider, what mattered was that all of them impacted how my colleague experienced the day.

Sign Language Interpreters and Accountability

As sign language interpreters and engaged citizens of the world, we have countless daily opportunities to both give and receive feedback, which means we also have countless opportunities to have conversations that are a success, that go awry, and that fall somewhere in between. Let’s pause for a moment. Can you recall the last time you:

  • worked with an interpreter whose product was not up to snuff;
  • associated with a colleague who didn’t walk the talk in her or his commitment to the Deaf community;
  • were booked to team an assignment with a colleague who is notoriously late; or
  • worked with someone whose behavioral decisions were a turn-off for Deaf and hearing people, and drew undue attention?

Turning the tables, what about the last time a colleague thought you were any of the above? I believe if we are all better prepared to try on ideas that may at first seem off-point, that we’ll develop a more nuanced capacity for empathy and learning, which will in turn make us more proficient practitioners.

Feedback: Challenge or Opportunity?

Feedback is certainly not always a challenge to receive. It “…includes any information you get about yourself. In the broadest sense, it’s how we learn about ourselves from our experiences and from other people — how we learn from life. … So feedback is not just what gets ranked; it’s what gets thanked, commented on, and invited back or dropped.”2 Because we’ll come into contact with solicited and unsolicited feedback every day, from colleagues and not, practicing the art of receiving it is a worthwhile investment for all.

“The real leverage is creating pull.”3 

Yes, it’s true that if everyone was more adept at sharing feedback, then we may be able to devote less attention to the art of receiving it. One might make the case, however, that because feedback comes in many forms and from many different people, the only control we will have on how “appreciation (thanks), coaching (here’s a better way to do it), and evaluation (here’s where you stand)”4 are delivered is in how they are received (in other words, we have no control on how feedback is delivered). The giver can be as eloquent or offensive as they choose; it is the receiver who decides whether or not to listen to what is said, how to interpret it, and what to do with it.

Shifting the Feedback Dynamic

Jackie Emmart
Jackie Emmart

With this awareness, I’m hopeful that the sign language interpreting field can begin to shift the feedback dynamic. Instead of investing most of our energy in refining the art of giving feedback, let’s get on board with the receiver soliciting feedback and guiding its provision. In fact, seeking feedback, for better or worse, supports one’s job satisfaction and allows more creativity to solve problems more easily.5 With a job that has been deemed the most cognitively complex task of which humans are capable,6 it’s likely useful to free up some mental energy for problem-solving.

“Creating pull is about mastering the skills required to drive our own learning; it’s about how to recognize and manage our resistance, how to engage in feedback conversations with confidence and curiosity, and even when the feedback seems wrong, how to find insight that might help us grow. It’s also about how to stand up for who we are and how we see the world, and ask for what we need. It’s about how to learn from feedback—yes, even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood.”7

Let’s move forward together — toward a place where we are genuinely interested in being held accountable and one where we seek feedback of all sorts, so as to enrich the practice of interpreting across the profession.

Managing Relationship, Truth, and Identity Triggers

Despite one’s uneasiness at receiving honest observations about their work, actions, and the impact these have on others, it is possible to remain present during the course of any feedback conversation. It’s common to feel triggered into resistance and self-preservation when receiving feedback, but if you can be aware of the reason behind the trigger, it becomes a tool for engagement and inquiry. Heen and Stone outline three different types of triggers: relationship, truth, and identity.8 Your connection to and thoughts about the feedback giver, the truthfulness of the feedback content, and what you believe it says about you can all derail an opportunity for growth, but they can also be managed so as to optimize learning.

Heen and Stone offer eight strategies for managing truth, relationship, and identity triggers:

    1. Separate Appreciation, Coaching, and Evaluation9—to ensure alignment of the giver’s intent and the receiver’s understanding;
    2. First Understand10—to examine “how to interpret feedback—where it’s coming from, what it’s suggesting you do differently, and why you and the giver might disagree”11;
    3. See Your Blind Spots12—to acknowledge that the challenges to seeing ourselves as we really are can be overcome, and develop the tools to do so;
    4. Don’t Switchtrack: Disentangle What from Who13—to help you remain open to learning even when the feedback is poorly timed and delivered;
    5. Identify the Relationship System14—because “understanding relationship systems helps you move past blame and into joint accountability, and talk productively about these challenging topics, even when the other person thinks this feedback party is all about you”15;
    6. Learn How Wiring and Temperament Affect Your Story16—to more fully appreciate why our emotional responses to feedback vary so greatly and why we recover from it in different ways as well;
    7. Dismantle Distortions17—to unpack the feedback we receive and, absent of our emotionally-laden framing, understand what it actually means; and
    8. Cultivate a Growth Identity18—for those who may hold back from seeking feedback, and because we connect with the world, each other, and ourselves differently, it is useful to “move from a vulnerable fixed identity to a robust growth identity that makes it easier to learn from feedback and experience.”19 

For the sake of word count and reader attention, I will not go any further into these strategies for this article. I will, however, elaborate more on each of these and their application for interpreters (and more) at the StreetLeverage – Live 2016 event in Fremont, CA.

Seeking Honest Feedback

In addition to the strategies briefly outlined above, Heen and Stone offer a question we can ask our colleagues, friends, and other loved ones. If we are truly invested in bettering ourselves and shaping our interactions with people who work with us, we can ask this one question to solicit honest feedback: “What’s one thing you see me doing, or failing to do, that’s getting in my own way?” 20

The next time we’re with an interpreting colleague and/or another Deaf individual with whom we’re working, let’s ask them, “What am I doing that is inhibiting my language choices and production?”, “What am I doing that is getting in my way, in terms of my commitment to the Deaf community?”, “What am I doing that is leading others to say I’m notoriously late?”, “What am I doing – or failing to do – that’s drawing this undue attention from the Deaf and hearing individuals at today’s assignment?” or another question that helps us appreciate the way in which the world engages with us as compared with how we see ourselves engaging with the world. The more we ask this of one another, the more we will shift the way we look at feedback. I predict it will become less of a “four letter word” and more of an open and ongoing conversation that allows us to remain accountable to the Deaf community, one another, and ourselves.

 

* 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:

  1. Think back to some of your most successful feedback sessions as an interpreter. What were the conditions that contributed to their success?
  2. What were some of the conditions that contribute to less successful feedback sessions and how might you change those conditions in the future?
  3. How can sign language interpreters support and promote honest dialogue in our local communities based on the model presented here?

Related Posts:

Accountability: A First Step to Harmony Among Sign Language Interpreters? by Sabrina Smith

Vulnerability: A Collaboration Killer for Sign Language Interpreters by Laura Wickless

What Role Does Civility Play in the Sign Language Interpreting Profession by Carolyn Ball

References:

1Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

2Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014a). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 4). Penguin Group USA.

3Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014b). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 6). Penguin Group USA.

4Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014c). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 18). Penguin Group USA.

5Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014d). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 6). Penguin Group USA.

6Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

7Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014e). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 6). Penguin Group USA.

8Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014f). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 16). Penguin Group USA.

9Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014g). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp. 29-45). Penguin Group USA.

10Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014i). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp.46-76). Penguin Group USA.

11Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014h). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 28). Penguin Group USA.

12Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014j). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp.77-101). Penguin Group USA.

13Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014k). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp.102-122). Penguin Group USA.

14Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014m). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p.123-144). Penguin Group USA.

15Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014l). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 101). Penguin Group USA.

16Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014n). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p.147-164). Penguin Group USA.

17Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014o). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp.165-182). Penguin Group USA.

18Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014q). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (pp.183-205). Penguin Group USA.

19Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014p). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 146). Penguin Group USA.

20Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014r). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood) (p. 258). Penguin Group USA.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Accountability: A First Step to Harmony Among Sign Language Interpreters?

Altering our approach to problem-solving by moving from blame to accountability can transform the field of sign language interpreting.

Accountability - The First Step to Harmony for Sign Language Interpreters

Have you ever felt a great line of divide working its way through the interpreting profession? It seems that recently every group discussion, article, or even online discussion revolves around one group being frustrated with the actions of another group. If I am being honest, I must admit, I am guilty.

[Click to view post in ASL]

The more I started thinking about my own frustration, the more I realized I was part of the problem. To become frustrated with a group and sit quietly in that frustration or even worse, talk about it with my peers, only allows the problem to fester. It is because of that realization this article started to develop. I realized that I did not want to be a part of the great divide; I would prefer to accept responsibility for my actions and become part of an even greater solution.

The divisions within the sign language interpreting profession are deep and impactful. We have become a field where like-minded individuals group together, spending our time pointing fingers and placing blame rather than accepting responsibility for our own behavior. The great divide extends to many groups:

  • Deaf and Hearing
  • ITP graduates and Interpreters from the “school of experience”
  • CODAs and second language users
  • Nationally Certified Interpreters and Novice Interpreters

There are also many variations outside of and within these groups. Make no mistake; none of the groups listed are perfect. But what good is it to voice our complaints about these groups if we have no solutions? If complaints are constantly being emphasized, without solutions, then the complainer becomes part of the problem.

There are several issues within the groups listed above that we have the ability to control. While this article cannot address every divided group in the profession, let us look at one of the pairings as an example: nationally certified sign language interpreters versus novice sign language interpreters. More and more often, I have heard novice interpreters express frustration at the way they feel certified interpreters look down on them. I also hear certified interpreters express concerns about how novice interpreters are quick to take work they are not qualified to accept. We see the potential problem within each group’s perceptions. Now, let us discuss possible solutions.

Certified Sign Language Interpreters

Certified sign language interpreters should accept responsibility for fostering the growth of those novice sign language interpreters. There are many ways this can be done, such as mentoring, providing positive feedback, encouraging them in the right direction, and being mindful of how we approach them to give feedback.

I have heard the phrase “Certified Interpreters eat their young” more than once. While we may joke about this phrase, there are novice sign language interpreters who are afraid to reach out because they feel this statement is true. As certified sign language interpreters, we must be accountable for our actions. We should not base our opinion on our own beliefs and thoughts, rather, we should reach out to our peers for help when we are mentoring or giving advice. Remember, just because the advice did not come from us does not mean the advice is not valid. We should respect the advice that our peers have shared even if we would not offer the same feedback.

We also need to acknowledge when the novice interpreter is trying to follow the rules and be patient while they continue to advance their skills and knowledge. We are setting the standard those novice interpreters will one day follow.

Novice Sign Language Interpreters

As novice sign language interpreters, we should also accept responsibility by recognizing that we have an impact on the field of sign language interpreting. Our reputations will be made based on the decisions we make as we advance through the field.

When in doubt, it is appropriate to reach out to trusted certified sign language interpreters for their advice. We need to be willing to accept feedback from those who have experience. We also need to be willing to decline work that we are not ready to accept, skill-wise.

When we come across certified sign language interpreters who are not approachable, then we must look for others who are approachable. Just like the certified sign language interpreter who must be accountable for their actions, so should the novice interpreter. Remember, we are also representing the community we have become a part of and our actions could reflect positively or negatively on those communities.

We are All Accountable

Accountability is the key to a successful change. Each of the groups identified have issues that are very important to its members. The challenge is to find solutions to the issues that allow the group to stop pointing the finger, and start accepting responsibility.

The time has come to make a change in our field. The energy we have spent making excuses needs to be channeled into a newfound energy for finding solutions. Recently, in her article, Sign Language Interpreter Education: Time for a National Call to Action, Cindy Volk reached out with a “National Call to Action” and outlined ways for interpreter training programs to make changes. These types of articles are important because they offer suggestions for making change possible.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Sabrina Smith
Sabrina Smith

The examples provided above are just the tip of the iceberg. Today, I used Certified Interpreters v. Novice Interpreters as an example. The list of solutions was not an exhaustive list, but it is a start. The need now is for each of the other listed groups to consider, “How can I be a part of a positive change?”

I challenge these groups to find ways to work together. I challenge people within the groups to write more articles and get involved with more discussions that provide solutions. If there is a problem that the group feels strongly about, find ways to resolve the problem that do not include placing blame on the other group and then walking away.

It does not matter if you are an interpreter, presenter, teacher, student, consumer, or where you fit in, next time you feel strongly about a topic in the field, stop and think about how your response will impact the person listening. Remind yourself that if you just complain, you are part of the problem.

If there is one thing I have learned in all my years of interpreting, it is that this field is very distinct. Although I have been involved in the field since 1996, my family still does not know exactly what I do on a daily basis. They cannot understand what is involved in the whole process, no matter how many times I explain it to them. This has led me to the realization that we are a lonely field. If we turn against each other, who can we turn to for support? We each have a vested interest in the field of interpreting, whether we are service providers, or consumers. We need to look within our own groups and decide whether we are part of the cause of the great divide, or part of the solution to mend the gap.

Questions to Consider

1. What are some ways sign language interpreters can accept the challenge of bridging the gap?

2. Why are some people fearful about reaching out to opposing groups? What are some of those  fears and how can they be addressed?

3. What are some ways we can educate ourselves before we make a quick decision about another group?

 

* 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!”

 

Related StreetLeverage Posts

Horizontal Violence: Can Sign Langauge Interpreters Break the Cycle? by Kate Block

Strategic Partnerships: Cooperation Among Stakeholders in Sign Language Interpreting Isn’t Enough by Chris Wagner

Sign Language Interpreters: Is It Me? by Brian Morrison

 

References:

Volk, C.  (2014, October 8) Sign language interpreter education: time for a national call to action. Street Leverage. Retrieved from http://www.streetleverage.com/2014/10/sign-language-interpreter-education-time-for-a-national-call-to-action/

 

 

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Strategic Partnerships: Cooperation Among Stakeholders in Sign Language Interpreting Isn’t Enough

Chris Wagner presented Strategic Partnerships: Cooperation Among Stakeholders in Sign Language Interpreting Isn’t Enough at StreetLeverage – Live 2014 | Austin. His talk explores how developing strategic partnerships among the Deaf Community and the sign language interpreting community is more than a cooperative effort; it’s one of accountability.

You can find the PPT deck for his presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Chris’ talk from StreetLeverage – Live 2014 | Austin.  We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Chris’ talk directly.]

Strategic Partnerships

My topic today is “Strategic Partnerships: Cooperation Among Stakeholders in Sign Language Interpreting Isn’t Enough.”

Let’s talk about the term “partnership”, specifically the partnership between the Deaf Community and the Interpreting community. In reality, there has been little in the way of true partnerships between the two groups for more than a century – perhaps more formal partnerships have taken shape in the past 50 years or so.

Why am I talking about strategic partnerships? Stakeholders are critical element in this conversation. Let’s look at our stakeholders in the Sign Language Interpreting Community.

Major Stakeholders in the Sign Language Interpreting Community

Over the past 20 years, I’ve had a lot of conversations with people in my professional journey. Wow. There are so many stakeholders – not just interpreters or members of the Deaf Community, but numerous people who are involved. Our task is to find ways to engage with those groups and for them to engage each other.

Oftentimes, we focus solely on interpreters and the Deaf Community and forget about those other groups. We can’t do that – we have to broaden our scope to consider to all stakeholders. Specifically, we can’t just consider schools for the Deaf as stakeholders – we have to include mainstream programs, as well. There are so many kids in those programs – remember that approximately 92% of Deaf kids are in mainstream programs. We have Interpreter Training Programs, Interpreter Agencies, Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, etc. – all of these groups and people comprise the whole and are stakeholders. Also included in our stakeholders are smaller groups and individuals – parents of Deaf children, employers, co-workers, and others. I want you to consider these stakeholders groups as we progress through this presentation.

When we talk about stakeholders, we also have to look at how we can transition them into partners. It’s a lot of work. Doug Bowen-Bailey mentioned community organizing, Robert Lee talked about roles and Stacey Storme talked about privilege – all three of these elements are required to establish partnerships. Each piece, independent of the others, cannot succeed in creating a partnership.

Prevalent Issues in the Community

Throughout our history and to the present day, many issues have continued to emerge. Each of us is accountable for the way we address them.

Lack of Knowledge. Sometimes I’m astounded when I meet a person who lacks knowledge, for example, a lack of knowledge about happenings in the Deaf Community or even who the leaders are in the Deaf Community. When asked, they often shrug it off with an “I don’t know” and a perplexed look.

Oppression. Of course, we’ve all talked about oppression for a long time in our community. I grew up oral and learned to sign when I went to RIT, but I still felt oppressed – by my peers, by interpreters, by various people in the community. Intentional or not, I felt oppressed.

Privilege. We all carry different privileges. I’m a white male. I’m a privileged white male. I can’t change that, I can’t help it. My mother chose a white man, so, that’s the reality. But at the same time, other people, friends of mine who grew up using American Sign Language – they have language privilege. I don’t have that. They have language privilege. Some interpreters may tell their stories, as Stacey did, about growing up using ASL in the Deaf community and in her home – they have language privilege, too. Many other interpreters are in the same situation I am in – they don’t carry language privilege.

Lack of Community Accountability. I can give you another example. There are a lot of issues coming up for both the Deaf and Interpreting communities. Often, when issues arise in the Deaf Community, interpreters step back and take a “hands off” approach to the situation. “It’s not my issue,“ they might say. Some interpreters feel they have to set a firm boundary – signing it as if drawing a line firmly between the person and the situation at hand. I would recommend a change in how we sign the concept “boundary” – instead of “drawing a line”, establish a line that moves closer to or further away from the signer. Sometimes we have to set a boundary that will keep people or situations at bay, but at other times, those lines are closer in. We have to think about how far we need to go. If we just “set a boundary”, as in drawing that line, that’s the end of the discussion. We have to start thinking about how to maintain some fluidity and movement in our boundaries.

Quality vs. Quantity. I’m sure you recognize this issue. Groups, conferences, etc., will often cry for large numbers of interpreters but what of the quality of the interpreter?

Empowerment. Some people will say “Interpreters are the ones who make all the decisions and take control of things.” We need to consider all of this.

From Complaint to Action

Chris Wagner
Chris Wagner

Ultimately, my reason for bringing up all of these issues is to comment on what I’ve seen. I’ve seen the Deaf Community complaining and the interpreters are complaining when what they should be doing is turning those complaints into action. (Moves the ASL sign COMPLAIN from the chest to the sign ACTION or DO with the same handshape.) Stop complaining and take action. Get involved!

I see people complaining and I don’t have a lot of patience for it. Do you know why I got involved, why I’m where I am today? Growing up, I had a lot of things I didn’t like – captioning, interpreting, and other issues and I complained about those things. My grandmother raised me, bless her.  She would say, “Chris, if you are going to complain, do something about it.” I learned from that. Over many years, in my professional work, I learned to take complaints and transform them into actions. You all must transform your complaints to actions. You have to be accountable.

Accountability

Another issue we need to discuss – we complain a lot and we talk…I’m going to sign TALK like this: Signs the sign “TALK” with the 4 handshape touching the non-dominant hand as if showing the hand “talking” instead of touching on the chin as in spoken language…but we don’t walk the walk.

You have hold yourself accountable. You have to stop, today, while you are sitting here, and consider: Am I involved in my Deaf Community? Do I contribute to my community? Do I sit down and engage in dialogue with my community about how I can improve my skills as an interpreter? On the flip side, a Deaf individual might ask how they can improve their leadership in the community. How will we know if we never have the dialogue? That’s something to think about. Another interesting part to all of this – do we really embrace it? Sometimes, I find myself sitting back and pondering, “Do I really embrace what I’m doing?”

The Challenges We Face

Unfortunately, there are some bad apples in every group but we are all here for one reason: communication. You all are here to support our community. We are one community – we aren’t two separate communities. We are one community. I’ll give you an example of how to get involved. Are you aware of the CRPD?  It’s the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The United Nations (U.N.) has been encouraging Deaf people to sign on to this. But wait a minute. Deaf people aren’t the only ones. This impacts you as well. Language rights are human rights. This has an impact on you, as interpreters, too. Change your complaints into actions.  You have to get involved.

Questions for us to ask ourselves: Who owns this? Who makes the decisions? Is it the Deaf person? The interpreter?  Really, the answer is both. It should be both. It depends – now wait. So, my decision as a Deaf person is based on how I want to progress forward. My decision is based on action. Interpreters have to accommodate these decisions by working with us. Some interpreters may disagree with a person/group’s decision and decide that they don’t accept the decision as it stands. That’s fine. They can go on their way and we can find someone else. As an interpreter, you become my voice. We have to be on the same page. There has to be agreement.

I always dreamed of something as I was growing up – I had aspirations. Many of you despise politics – I know. I admit it. It’s all right. I hate politics, too. But how can I change the current political system? By getting involved. So, I decided I wanted to run for office. I’m not talking about the National Association of the Deaf (N.A.D.) – I’m talking about a real office – like state senate or state house of representatives. I considered it and decided okay. I started having conversations with various people – I had brought in an interpreter for these conversations, but over time, I realized I wasn’t feeling any connection. There was some kind of disconnect. I wondered if I was doing something wrong. I know the system, I understand politics, I’ve studied political science – but still there was a disconnect. I realized it was “my voice” – the interpreter. The issue was with my voice. So, I excused the interpreter with thanks for their work and searched for an interpreter who would collaborate with me – we would work together, they would function as my voice.  I wanted someone who would help make decisions  and we would own it together. As it turns out, that interpreter had the same passion I had, the same desire. You all have passions, too. It’s critical.

Embracing Change

Many people say they hate change. It’s true a lot of people hate change, say they don’t take change well. The Deaf Community is the same way, and I tell people they have to accept change. Interpreters have to accept change, too. Technology is changing all the time, the world is changing. But some people want to opt out.

Think of it this way. Thirty years ago, the beehive was all the rage. Do you remember the beehive hairdo? Now, women have cut their hair and consider themselves much more chic. That is accepting change. If we look at our cars – think about the windows. Back in the day, we had manual, roll-down windows with a crank handle and no air conditioning. Now we have power windows and air conditioning. We’ve accepted that change. Remember the old days – remember TV dinners with the rolled back foil? I’m that old – I’m not that young…I remember popping those TV dinners in the oven and waiting for the chicken, dessert, corn and mashed potatoes to cook in the one little tray – pretty cool, huh? Now, pop something in the microwave and 1-2 minutes later, you’re done. We have changed. Back in the day, we had to adjust the antennae on our television sets to get the picture. Now, we have our remote and our cable TV, our tablets where we can also watch TV.  We’ve accepted those changes. But people in our community refuse to accept change when it comes to how we run things in our community. Organizational change is difficult. It’s hard to change our desire for things to remain the same. That hurts us in the long run.

Let’s go back to the concept of partnerships. Partnerships – what can we do? What can we do? I want you to think about that. I don’t expect you to answer now. I want you to think, “How can I go back home and create community partnerships?” How? Sit down and talk to people. Robert, Doug and Stacey talked about making connections. Sit down with people in your community and engage in dialogue. How can we better work together? This is so important.

If you pooh-pooh the idea, just remember that without the Deaf Community, you are in the unemployment line. That’s the truth of it. That’s the bottom line – unless you want to be teaching ASL to hearing students or babies. But if we want one community and we want to cherish it, we have to work together.

Respect is Key

The most important point is respect. Mutual respect. I’ve been on the N.A.D. board for the last 10 years- well, 8 years. I’ve seen a lot during that time. I wish I could say we were all one big happy, cooperating community. I wish I could say that, but we are like the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress currently. It’s sad. We could set a good example for them and encourage them to follow our community’s successes. But, sometimes, it can be fun to learn from the debates. We can learn from that. I just want to emphasize the idea of mutual respect.

Ask Yourself What You can Do

The bottom line is that we have to ask ourselves, “What can we do as a community?” Leverage – that’s the perfect term. How do we get there? We are leverage. Not just interpreters, but also Deaf Community members, all the stakeholders. How do we get them involved? We see Deaf clubs closing; schools for the Deaf are seeing their enrollment decrease. We can’t afford a hands-off approach. Get involved in whatever ways you can. Sit down with the Deaf Community. Sit down and have conversations about how we can improve and strengthen our community. I’ve seen so many amazing things.

You all know that yesterday was Interpreter Appreciation Day, right? Were you aware? In reality, every day should be Interpreter Appreciation Day. Thank you all for doing what you do. But I ask you, as colleagues, to be part of the community to help us fight. There is still oppression happening. You can’t just stand there close-mouthed and do nothing. Where is your accountability? Help to stop oppression. You have to participate. Help to end oppression. I’ve seen interpreters allow other interpreters to oppress the Deaf person in a situation. How do we stop that from happening?  I tell Deaf people, “You have to be accountable, too. If you see someone oppressing the interpreter, step in.” That same thing holds true for interpreters. If you see someone being oppressed, stop it. We have to support each other and stop that behavior amongst ourselves. It’s sad that we have allowed this kind of behavior to occur and to continue. So, how do we stop it? By working together. By setting aside our personal opinions and by setting aside our personal philosophies. By saying, “Stop. We are one community. We MUST work together.”

Be the Change

Community accountability. We have a plethora of organizations in our community. It is imperative that they all work together. We are a diverse community – we have people of color, people of different gender identifications, we must all work together. I know that by working together, we can accomplish so much.

I want to share something my grandmother said when I was growing up. I was brought up orally, so I had to get this from speech reading, but luckily, she often wrote things, as well. She told me,”Chris, if you can make a significant impact on one person, it will truly make a difference among many others through that person.” I feel honored to be a part of that change. No matter what, no matter how old you are, no matter where you are from, your background, your experiences, your skills – none of that matters. When we are all working as one, we can make changes that will impact the world.

Finally, I want to ask you all to listen to each other, respect each other and learn from one another. When we do that, we will become one powerful ASL Community. Thank you.


* 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 by — Leave a comment

Sign Language Interpreters: Is it Me?

Sign Language Interpreters: Is it Me?As sign language interpreters, we know there are aspects of our industry that just aren’t working the way they should.  Just looking through the StreetLeverage site, we see examples and stories of the failings in our profession. From the disempowerment of our Deaf consumers to the underutilization of Deaf interpreters; from sign language interpreters’ lack of Deaf heart to the “business” view of the profession; from the lack of BA degree level education to the lack of support for new members entering the profession. As we reflect on these, and numerous other issues facing our field, we often fail to consider our role in these industry failings. We are also reluctant to ask ourselves the ever important question…“What can I do?”

[Click to view post in ASL]

Underlying Factors

Maybe the answer is as simple as this…It’s easier. It’s easier to abdicate our responsibility and blame others for the failings we see. It’s easier to hope that others in positions of leadership will fix the problems so we don’t have to.

Maybe it’s a business decision. Being complacent with the status quo keeps us working. We need this work to make a living and can’t risk losing it. We let agencies dictate standard practice because they are paying the bills.

Maybe we are concerned about being viewed in a position of disempowering the Deaf consumer with our actions. We therefore revert to more of a machine model of interpreting in order to avoid that label. We deny the power we have rather than recognize that we may, in fact, be contributing to the disempowerment.

Maybe it’s not so much “what can I do?” but “how can I do it?” Maybe we want change and know that we need to do something, but we aren’t sure how to go about it. We continue to ask ourselves “how” and since we can’t answer that…we choose not to do anything.

But maybe that “how” isn’t what we should be asking.

Asking the Right Questions

I recently started reading a book called “The Answer to How is Yes” by Peter Block. In this book, Block discusses our tendency to focus on the “how we do things” rather than the “why we do things.”  He encourages individuals to choose accountability and saying ‘yes’ to our values and ideals. It’s a “discussion of what is required of us if we are to act on what we care about”.

Focusing on the individual as part of the organization, Block posits that the asking “HOW”, while reasonable, can be asked too soon and keep us trapped in our present way of thinking. Instead, the alternative is to say “YES”. Saying YES allows for the possibility of change.

The following chart outlines how Block proposes we reframe HOW questions into YES questions:

HOW   Questions

YES Questions
How do you do it? What refusal have I been   postponing?
How long will it take? What commitment am I   willing to make?
How much does it cost? What is the price I am   willing to pay?
How do you get those   people to change? What is my contribution   to the problem I am concerned with?
How do we measure it? What is the crossroad at   which I find myself at this point in my work?
How are other people   doing it successfully? What do we want to   create together?

Asking the YES questions as an individual and as a community will help us focus on what truly matters and not just maintain the status quo. While it might be scary to confront our failings and make changes, we can and we must recognize the impact we have as individuals.

Three Qualities for Change

In order for these types of questions to be successful, Block identifies three qualities that will ground us while we navigate this process.

The first is idealism. Many of us have lost that feeling of ‘what’s possible’ and have replaced it with ‘what is’. If we can once again create that feeling of idealism, we open ourselves up to pursuing our values and bring focus to what matters.

The second is intimacy. We are living in a world of virtual reality. We walk around tied to our electronics…texting, emailing, and Skyping our way through relationships. Intimacy is about the quality of our contact with others. We must continue to seek out direct contact and interaction with the world. As with idealism, intimacy is necessary for focusing on what matters.

The third quality is depth. While idealism and intimacy are required for us to focus on what matters, if we aren’t able to go deeper and reflect on what exactly does matter, no change will take place.

Brian Morrison
Brian Morrison

The failings of the sign language interpreting industry are evident.  Just looking through the StreetLeverage site, we see common stories. We can no longer deny that we have a role in these failings. We can’t sit by and expect the profession to fix itself and solve the problems for us. But we can start to ask YES questions. We can make a commitment to change. We can influence the change that fixes our industry. That starts with each of us.

 Committing to YES Conversations

Once we have committed to change, we must have conversations we each other. Anna Witter-Merithew’s article, Sign Language Interpreters: Breaking Down Silos Through Reflective Practice, provides us with some great strategies for having these discussions and reflecting on our work. These kinds of experiences can tie together the three qualities of idealism, intimacy, and depth and help us get the YES questions answered.

In the words of Peter Block…

“Transformation comes more from pursuing profound questions than seeing practical answers”.

 

* 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 by — Leave a comment

Nelson Mandela: Have Sign Language Interpreters Disappointed the World?

Thamsanqa Jantjie, the sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela's funeral
Thamsanqa Jantjie (Picture by Itumeleng English/AP)

The terrible cocktail of “schizophrenia,” unethical business leadership and uninformed government decisions makers that lead to the sign language interpreting debacle at Mandela’s memorial service is a tragedy.

As a sign language interpreter, I cringe at the thought that as a field, we are responsible for the world’s distraction from the celebration of one of the planet’s most widely recognized human rights leaders and for yet another injustice served up to the Deaf Community.

The question that continues to roll around in my head is after the tsunami of sensationalism, swarming armchair quarterbacks, and CYA puffery blows over is, what will change?

While Thamsanqa Jantjie is the current face of the issue, unqualified sign language interpreters deploying or being deployed into local communities around the globe is a longstanding and widespread problem. A problem that necessitates the cooperation of a multiplicity of industry stakeholders willing to put down their nursing agenda and be accountable for the breakdowns in the system that continue to allow this problem to persist.

Are we courageous enough as field, both practitioner and organization, to make the hard decisions necessary to truly eradicate the problem?

If we come away from this debacle truly resolved to create meaningful resolution to the issue of unqualified sign language interpreters infringing on the human rights of Deaf people, perhaps we should consider taking action on the following:

  1. Insist that industry stakeholders publicly and actively subscribe to upholding the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
  2. Incorporate the applicable aspects of the UNCRPD as part of the ethical practices system for working sign language interpreters. Further, to insist on more aggressive and timely actions for violations.
  3. Found a national organization to create, uphold and promote standards of practice for businesses deploying sign language interpreters.
  4. Establish a coalition responsible for a partnership between national associations serving the Deaf community, national organizations serving sign language interpreters, and organizations responsible for the public awareness of the rights of Deaf people and the roles and responsibility of sign language interpreters.
  5. Insist on local partnerships between Deaf and sign language interpreting organizations that result in the perpetuation of native perspectives among practicing sign language interpreters.

Care to add?

Thanks to Mandela for doing in death what he did in life, using his existence to raise the awareness of the atrocities, injustices, and disadvantages suffered at the hand of privilege, while working to make the world a more inhabitable place.

Let’s not allow the memory of Mandela’s memorial service to be one where the field of sign language interpreting disappointed the world. Let it be one where we honor Mandela’s life by rising from the ashes galvanized to end the rampant problem of unqualified practitioners infringing upon the human rights of Deaf people.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Betty Colonomos | Sign Language Interpreters Fostering Integrity

Betty presented “Sign Language Interpreters Fostering Integrity” at StreetLeverage – Live 2013 | Atlanta. Her talk explored how sign language interpreters operate with integrity and the professional measures needed to ensure the highest standards are, in fact, upheld.

You can find the PPT deck for is presentation here.

The Power of Integrity

First, let me thank Dave Coyne for my opening. His talk about Transactional Leadership presented several traits (e.g. inspiration, idealization, intellectualism) that are present in leaders. My talk adds another to the list: “Integrity.”

My talk this morning looks at the concept of Integrity as it applies to our society in general. I hope you will join this afternoon’s workshop, where we will be taking a deeper look at integrity as it applies to our field and our relationships with the Deaf community.

The Meaning of Integrity

“Integrity is when what you say, think and do are in harmony.”
– Mahatma Gandhi

This quote from Gandhi captures the essence of the meaning of integrity. Perhaps an example from my experience will illustrate this further. As a woman born during World War II, I clearly remember the prevalent racist beliefs of that time. Although we haven’t yet eradicated racism from our country, we have made progress. Many of us value equality among all people regardless of differences. Yet we have been in social environments where racist comments were made and we kept quiet. This behavior contradicts our values. Many of us now openly express disapproval at overt racist speech because we want to maintain our integrity.

Here is another way to capture the concept of Integrity using slightly different language. It relates to Shane Feldman’s talk about RID’s mission and the beliefs it communicates: welcoming membership involvement, creating policies through interaction, and making sure that our By-Laws are actions that express these beliefs. He pointed out that there is a disconnect between actions and beliefs. This state of affairs impacts perceptions about RID’s integrity.

I am so grateful to my mother who, despite suffering great hardships, fostered my love of truth. As a child I was often reminded: “when in doubt, tell the truth.” Of course my truths then (which were, no doubt, always the “right” truths) were based solely on feelings and opinions. Now, the benefit of education, observable data collection, observation, and my wealth of experience contribute to what I consider to be more credible truths. This also means that there may be other truths that are accepted by others as norms. Living one’s life with integrity is difficult and complicated. We see behaviors and opinions that do not fit with our professed beliefs every day.

Integrity Requires SacrificeBetty Colonomos

We know that mainstream Americans value success, and that is demonstrated by the accumulation of materialistic symbols such as a big(ger) house, a fancy car, a degree from a prestigious university, and a highly paid job. The actions, language, and beliefs about being successful do show certain congruence; however, the question we may want to consider here is how this may or may not fit our definition of integrity.

There is inherent conflict in a culture of privilege that purports to cherish freedom, equality, morality, and the Golden Rule. The pressures and stresses that confront us in our daily lives mean that “doing the right thing” often competes with meeting our needs. There are sacrifices that must be made.

There are challenging decisions we must make to live with integrity.

The Faces of Integrity

With regard to people and how integrity interfaces with their lives, there are three distinct groups: Individuals with Integrity (Congruous Integrity), Individuals who believe they have Integrity (Fractional Integrity), and Individuals for whom Integrity is not a priority (Absent Integrity).

Congruous Integrity

The first group, people who have integrity, feel good about themselves. They have a sense of purpose and are optimistic about life. There are many such people and I could point out the actions, behaviors, and beliefs that make them our heroes, but my time is limited here and I will only mention two such people. Rosa Parks took the bold action of sitting in the front of the segregated bus despite the hostile climate. Her brave actions had a profound impact on the Civil Rights movement that has led us to our continuing dialogue today in America and elsewhere.

Abraham Lincoln, who was a man who believed that no one should live as a slave, paid a high price to uphold his integrity. The country endured a Civil War that took thousands of lives to uphold the right of people who were enslaved to be free; he continued acting out his beliefs through his actions and speeches despite great suffering, both personal and political.

Fractional Integrity

The second group consists of people whose expressed beliefs are not consistently congruent with their actions. These are people who advocate good deeds and kindness to others, but use words and display actions that are viewed as “hateful” by others. Similarly, in our community, we advocate for equality and access for Deaf people, yet we say and do things that are hypocritical and oppressive.

Anna Witter-Merithew, in her presentation, illustrated this point very well.  The interpreter who makes an error in her interpretation and hides it from consumers is concerned with embarrassment or negative judgments, and allows those concerns to take precedence over disclosure. When interpreters are accountable for their interpretations by being honest and resolving the issue with consumers, they are much more likely to be trusted and respected.  In other words, they demonstrate their integrity.

Absent Integrity

The third group of people we readily identify: they do not care about integrity. This is evident with those who would bilk people out of their life savings with no remorse. They are the con artists, those who prey on uninformed and powerless people.

Let us briefly examine how other professions strive to maintain agreed-upon standards and maintain their integrity. This list is not comprehensive, as time does not permit a thorough review.

Integrity Requires Accountability

If we look at the medical profession, we see that there is a mechanism of peer review that addresses questionable or poor practices. There are serious consequences for those who repeatedly violate standards, including suspension of hospital privileges and revocation of one’s license to practice. These review procedures are conducted by other doctors (colleagues), rather than patients (consumers). Patients seek recourse in the legal system. This is in sharp contrast to our field, where we expect consumers to initiate grievances and do not encourage colleagues to protect the profession.

Many interpreters have recounted their experiences with colleagues committing serious violations of the CPC. Upon questioning their reluctance to file a complaint, they may justify their inaction by expressions of fear (of reprisal, of being blacklisted, etc.), discomfort, and the amount of effort needed.  How does this speak to our perceptions of integrity in our field?

Another form of professional monitoring is seen in the system of licensure.

Licenses are often awarded on the basis of other credentials, such as a medical degree and completion of residency requirements.  For us, a license is often a rubber stamp given to someone who has received certification.  Enforcement by the licensing entity is difficult, so the legal system is used. We can sue for malpractice and other offenses; however, we don’t hear much about this in the interpreting arena.

We do employ a form of supervision, using the term “mentorship” to identify a range of mechanisms for giving feedback and support to novice interpreters. The mentorship protocols offered to mentees vary within and across communities.  Mentoring can mean assessing vocabulary production and selection, in-depth dialogue focusing on internal processes, and everything in between.  It might serve us well to identify the most beneficial forms of mentoring for our profession and ourselves.

Just a few words here about the afternoon session:

The workshop will analyze numerous scenarios where decisions are made; we will talk about how interpreters with integrity might handle these challenges.

We will not look at poor decisions or failures — we have enough of those recounted every day. Let’s move beyond the “horror stories” and share viable options. We want to learn from each other what actions, beliefs, and words reflect our integrity.  We want to fill ourselves with possibilities and things we can do.

Operating With Integrity

Really, the concept of integrity is woven throughout the entire weekend in presentations, workshops, conversations, and the environment.  In a way, I see “integrity” as the umbrella that embraces the beliefs we hold, the decisions we make, and the processes that bring them to life.

We cannot police everyone. We can work together to make this a reality.

Contrary to popular belief, leaders and people with integrity are not perfect. They make mistakes because they are human.

We need to think about our integrity now more than ever: our field is in dire need of change.  We know that it will take a long time to get there, but we can get through these growing pains if we are honest and operate with integrity.

Not everyone will become the best interpreter around; not everyone will sign like a native. But we all can strive to be the best interpreters we can be.

With a common goal and effort we uphold our integrity, and with that we can succeed together.

Thank you.

 

* 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!”