Alicia Booth outlines the unique relationship between Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters, particularly in medical environments. Role adaptation and flexibility are key to this new and evolving specialty area of sign language interpreting.
For half a century, the field of sign language interpreting has been steadily advancing, yet the interpreting needs for Deaf Professionals are developing at an even faster pace. Deaf Professionals (DPs) are achieving their academic and career aspirations in technical fields such as medicine, law, and engineering. Many DPs who achieve their career goals fought to have interpreters alongside them in graduate level classes, practicums, and clinicals. After securing accommodations, the next hurdle is finding a sign language interpreter who has the unique skill set and the willingness to adapt to a career specialty; thus the need for Designated Interpreters (DIs) for Deaf Professionals grows.
Since DPs are not traditional clients, it would make sense that neither are their DIs. Data from surveys of institutions of higher education, documentation from court cases, , , and anecdotal evidence suggest that a DP’s success benefits from a unique approach to accommodations. Personality and adaptability often rank as the most important qualities for their DI to possess, while mastery of ASL rank much lower. The willingness of the DI to linguistically specialize and assimilate into the DPs field is crucial.
Designated Interpreters are Different
Perhaps you may be asking yourself how DIs are so different and why those differences matter? Since I am drawing from my experience as a Designated Interpreter for Healthcare Professionals, I will share an environmental scenario in the hospital; however, these examples can be globally applied for DPs in most technical professions.
Trauma Scenario: The DI and the DP (medical student) are both sitting in the doctor’s call room working on patient notes. Suddenly an overhead page indicates that a Level I trauma is expected to arrive in three minutes. You both rush out the door and head towards the trauma bay. There is exactly now two minutes left until the arrival of the patient, whom, you learned while rushing to the bay, was in critical condition from a motor vehicle accident, is unconscious, and is losing blood rapidly. With those two minutes, the DI’s preparation is crucial for the team’s outcome. There are also a dozen or more medical staff present to assist in stabilizing the patient. As a DI, you are filtering multiple conversations at once. You are also independently (without the direction of your DP) putting on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), setting up mics for better audio access in the room, introducing yourself to the trauma team, explaining your role, and establishing placement so that you are not in the way, but visually accessible, to the DP. The DP in those two minutes may have been on the opposite side of the room looking at incoming x‐rays, EMS reports, and also getting on their PPE. If that DI was to wait even a second (stuck in the traditional role of not acting on one’s own autonomy), the patient’s care could be jeopardized, as well as the DI’s own safety. The DI might even be kicked out of the trauma bay as an unnecessary bystander, still waiting for the DP to introduce you and for them to indicate what you should be doing and to whom you should be speaking. That DI’s inclusion with the medical team is actually what elevates the DP to be on an equal level with peers and supervisors. When there are only two minutes to designate roles and lives are depending on efficiency, you simply cannot respond as a traditional interpreter does.
Now, this was an extreme example to indicate how DI’s must abandon roles taught to us by ITPs, but re‐examined, we could certainly apply this type of autonomy in a less life-threatening situation. That was a little on how DI’s are different. You may now have already guessed why it matters. Now, Iet’s dissect these questions a bit further.
Adaptability is Key
The traditional role provides a lot of safety for sign language interpreters but it works against the success of Deaf individuals in professional careers. With that said, some DPs do prefer traditional interpreters. We must always keep that in mind when customizing our approach to our clients’ needs. DPs share a common concern that sign language interpreters’ lack of adaptability and limited skill-sets are what prevents them from climbing the success ladder. Some will overcome the odds, but may remain isolated amongst their hearing peers. Eventually, this will lead to plateauing in their chosen field.
DPs and DIs Develop Close Partnerships
The traditional approach to sign language interpreting shields us from encounters that challenge our neutrality. As DIs, our neutrality is still intact but our humanity is exposed. You can not hide your humanity as a DI when you are covered with blood from a patient, interpreting a terminal diagnosis, or witnessing a birth. Being exposed to death and birth will bring us closer to the DP and the medical staff supporting those patients. The DI may be invited to debrief with the staff after trauma. They may also cry or laugh with the DP and his team. That is part of the partnership. The role of a DI exposes their vulnerabilities, weaknesses and strengths which, in turn, can create a stronger bond between the DP and DI. It also helps level out the natural power dynamic that exists in the hearing and deaf world. In a partnership approach, you both have stakes in successful outcomes. Additionally, as a healthcare DI, you are taking up precious space that would otherwise be utilized by another doctor, nurse or student. Standing idly in “neutrality” is not considered a good utilization of resources.
Partnerships are created through on‐the‐job relationships with the DP and their peers. We are friendly, communicative, and responsive to questions. If we do not communicate autonomously and openly with or without our DP around, it will create immediate isolation for that professional. In other words, we are considered an extension of that DP. Stay with me here, I am not speaking on existential terms. Simply put, we are behaving as we normally would amongst colleagues. We are working to close the formal and informal conversational gap that often occurs with peers who do not share a language. DPs and DIs might finish each other’s thoughts on occasion – this is teamwork.
Either way, we are acting on acquired instincts and, together, our collaborative communication “closes the deal” for a PAH work environment to run smoothly. It becomes obvious why the DI’s personality and adaptability skills are highly desirable. Neither the DP nor DI wants to be stuck together if they are not able to effectively work together. Of course, the only way to create this level of trust is getting to know the DP on both a professional and personal level. How else could a DI read the DP’s thoughts and know when to share a favorite deaf joke, “Why did God create farts? So that Deaf people could enjoy them too!” to a doctor while performing a colonoscopy. It’s always a good laugh, and the doctor may be more likely to request the DP on another assignment because their experience with “our team” went smoothly.
These scenarios only scratch the surface of the depth of this type of teaming environment. DPs are eagerly awaiting sign language interpreters that are ready to embrace change. An interpreter with the aptitude for learning, who is also humble enough to adapt to the DP’s needs will succeed in this role. While not all sign language interpreters are a good match for this work, those few that have this privilege are honored every day to be part of the DP’s world.
Let’s work together to advance our careers and DPs too!
*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:
How are the current traditional interpreter roles holding back deaf professionals?
What are the challenges of interpreters acting on their own autonomy?
How does a Designated Interpreter adapt their role?
 Swabey, L., Agan, T., Moreland, C., & Olson, A. (2016, May). “Understanding the Work of Designated Healthcare Interpreters” Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.cit-asl.org/new/ijie/volume-8-1/#toggle-id-4
 U.S. Medical Schools’ Compliance With the Americans with Disabilities Act: Findings From a National Study. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://uthscsa.influuent.utsystem.edu/en/publications/us-medical-schools-compliance-with-the-americans-with-disabilitie
 Eligon, J. (2013, August 19). Deaf Student, Denied Interpreter by Medical School, Draws Focus of Advocates. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/us/deaf-student-denied-interpreter-by-medical-school-draws-focus-of-advocates.html
 “Breaking Down Barriers: Professionals and Students in Healthcare” (n.d.). NADMag, Spring(2016).
Anna presented, Stepping Out of the Shadows of Invisibility: Toward a Deeper Conceptualization of the Role of Sign Language Interpreters, at StreetLeverage – Live 2013 in Atlanta, GA. Her talk examined how interpreters tend to approach role conception, definition and implementation from an interpreter-centric perspective. In large part, this interpreter-centric approach to our work is the result of role conception that foster the ideal of “interpreter as invisible” and/or non-involved.
I want to talk about our conception of our work as interpreters—what we do and why we do it. What we believe about Deaf people, interpreting and ourselves—and how our beliefs influence our behavior and decisions. Ultimately, this discussion is about how we define professional boundaries, which for this discussion is defined as the space between the practitioner’s power and the consumer’s vulnerability. As we continue to conceptualize our role as interpreters, what do we believe is possible, and what do we know is not.
My own conception of what interpreting is and can be is rooted in my family. Let me tell you a bit about them. My maternal grandmother had seven children—three of whom were Deaf, two sons and my mother. My mother had three daughters—I am the middle one. My father was born in 1907—the only Deaf person in his family. My mother was born in 1918. Imagine the Deaf World they lived in as contrasted with the Deaf World of today!
They married later in life. My father was in his mid 40’s when I was born. He was a furniture maker and a part-time pastor to a small Deaf congregation. In rural communities, it was customary for Deaf churches to meet in the basement of a mainstream church building—due to their small size and somewhat symbolic of their second-class standing in society. Mom was a homemaker who stayed at home and took care of our family. Both of my parents were deeply involved in the Deaf-World. Our home was located in the middle of a small very rural Mennonite farm community in southern Ohio.
Interpreting—A Valued Position
My earliest conception of what interpreting for people who are Deaf meant might be a bit different from other CODAs due to the very strong religious beliefs held by my parents. My sisters and I were rarely asked to interpret or facilitate communication. My parents were older and relied often on written communication, and it was their belief that women really should not interpret—particularly in matters of the church where it was not appropriate for women to take a visible or leadership role. And so, because they had no sons, they grew their own interpreters, with assistance from other members of the Deaf World. They recruited young men from the church who showed an interest in ASL and Deaf people and invested many, many hours guiding them into the appropriate use of ASL, how to navigate the Deaf World and how to accomplish the work of an interpreter. I often looked upon this process with great interest—the idea of spending time within the Deaf World in this important role was very attractive.
As my father would be involved in church events—such as pastoral meetings—or the Deaf congregation would visit other churches, one of these home grown interpreters would interpret. And, as my parents would engage in business transactions within the broader society, one of these male interpreters would accompany them. I recall three—two who later became pastors to Deaf churches and one who became a certified interpreter.
So, my early conception was that interpreting was a valued position within the Deaf World. It was a position for which you had to be invited/selected and groomed for by Deaf people. This was my conception on the Day Before that Dennis Cokely talked about.
My First “Day After”
One of the leadership roles my father had in the Deaf World was as the President of the Alumni Association of the Ohio School for the Deaf. He held this position for fourteen years. The association was responsible for the management of a facility that was at that time called the Ohio Home for the Aged and Infirmed Deaf. It eventually expanded into what is now the Columbus Colony. In this oversight role the alumni board met monthly at the Ohio School for the Deaf. I was able to frequently accompany my father to these meetings where I would visit with my dear friend Elizabeth Kelly—now Elizabeth Beldon (mother of Jimmy Beldon) –and enjoy the opportunity to meet and flirt with her male classmates. A definite treat!
My first Day After (and there have been several more since) came when I was about ten years old. My father was scheduled to speak at a fundraising rally at the Home. A variety of public officials and local business people were invited, in hopes that they would donate to the building fund. Now, seeing my father speak was a common occurrence for me. I saw my father pray with our family everyday, teach others about the Bible, preach on Sunday, and speak in other settings. I was always captivated by the powerful way he communicated, the expressiveness of his language. He was my hero! However, until this particular day—in front of the large crowd assembled–I had never heard someone put my father’s beautiful ASL into spoken English.
The interpreter that day was a woman named Margarette Moore, a CODA who was one of the first certified interpreters in Ohio. My father began his speech, and at first when she began speaking simultaneously, I was taken aback—thinking it so rude of her to speak out loud while he was signing. He was talking about the Deaf experience, the important contributions of Deaf people to society, the importance of the Home in caring for those Deaf individuals who were elderly, or Deaf with disabilities. Slowly, I began to realize that she was putting into spoken English what my father was so eloquently signing.
I watched her in a state of disbelief and wonder—she was totally engaged. Her body leaned forward slightly, her affect in concert with her vocal inflection as she focused so diligently to convey his emotion and intention. She was completely attuned to him and his message. In a state of amazement, I looked around at the audience members and saw the respect they were extending to him as they listened intently to his remarks. I was simply awe struck.
That experience impacted my core so deeply, it became one of my life defining moments.
I do not remember the specific details of what my father said that day, but I will always remember the way I felt—proud, humbled, surprised and inspired. It was that day that I came to more fully appreciate that Deaf people have important things to say to the world and when they rely on interpreters to do that, interpreters have to be fully engaged.
A Professional Interpreter
Years passed and in 1972, when I was in my early 20’s, I became involved in interpreting through several family friends who were Deaf and encouraged me to step forward. This invitation was always accompanied with the rationale that my signing was “clear”—a seemingly simple word that I came to learn means much more from the Deaf perspective. I was excited about the prospect of becoming an interpreter and shared with my parents that I had been extended the invitation. They cautioned me that it was a career that might not suit me well due to my emotional and sensitive disposition. They reminded me that Deaf people suffered many injustices and seeing that everyday could take a toll. Although I appreciated their wise counsel and carried it with me, the desire for this level of engagement within the Deaf World exceeded their expressed concern.
The Deaf Community, through a state Association of the Deaf, sponsored me through a 10-week, intense interpreting program offered during the summer at Delgado Community College in New Orleans. At the time, ten-weeks was longer than the majority of intense programs. It was there that I was introduced to the prevailing conception of what it meant to be a professional interpreter. Some of what was taught fit my existing conception of the work of interpreters—much did not.
For example, I was taught we were to function as if a machine or telephone—someone who simply took what they heard and expressed it in sign and took what they saw and expressed it in spoken English. And there was great pressure to generate interpretations simultaneously. We were taught that a good interpreter was one who ensured that Deaf people in an audience laughed at the precise moment as the rest of the audience. This is what marked equality.
My desire for entry into the profession was great and so I worked hard to find ways to make the teachings “fit”. Over time, the pressure to express the volume of information conveyed versus the meaning of the message took a toll on my language use. My use of ASL diminished and was replaced with a more English-based approach to signing—transliteration versus interpretation. I worked to be the best transliterator I could, believing that what I was doing was in the best interest of Deaf people. And with this shift my early conception of what it meant to be an interpreter suffered.
It took me nearly a decade of practice to realize that much of what I was taught was simply faulty—based on inaccurate assumptions that fostered an unrealistic and inauthentic approach to our work. What I was taught was based on two premises. The first was that it was important that Deaf people learn to live in the hearing world and since English was the dominant language of that world, they needed to learn it. To learn it, interpreters should use it.
The second premise was that interpreting was about creating equal footing—which is a standard often applied to spoken language interpreting and found in the language of the courts. The intent of the standard is that the non-English speaking person should receive an interpretation that results in them being on equal-footing with their hearing counterpart—no more and no less. It sounds like a reasonable premise. However, in application, it is often used to promote a literal representation from one language to another. And from this perspective there is heighted concern that anything other than a literal representation gives “more” to the non-English speaker than is fair or appropriate.
This standard seemed to work in limited situations. Many of the Deaf leaders of that time were individuals who had become deaf after their acquisition of spoken English due to the meningitis or other cause. They represented that portion of the Deaf World who most closely resembled the majority society. This conception of the work of an interpreter—to generate an interpretation that was literal—seemed to fit their needs, because they understood the hearing way of being. However, it was inherently faulty when applied to many of Deaf people I encountered in my everyday life.
This standard of equal footing is faulty because it assumes that other than having ears that do not hear, Deaf and hearing people have the same starting place. In reality, the starting place for the majority of Deaf people is significantly different than their hearing counterparts—even those who grow up speaking a language other than English. Typically, Deaf people do not grow up in a family context where they acquire natural language. In fact, most people who are Deaf begin school with significant language delays and strive to catch-up for many years. Many experience information and language gaps for their entire life. Therefore, how could they be given “more” if they don’t have the “same” to begin with?
Our reality as interpreters is that we are often working with individuals whose starting place is so vastly different than their hearing counterparts that it is not possible to achieve equal footing within the moments of interpreting. Therefore, to be concerned about giving “more” is unnecessary. The more accurate concern is whether we are giving enough to create meaningful access.
Another consequence of this conception of the work of professional interpreters is how we have applied the standard of impartiality or neutrality—it is expressed in the notion that we are like machines or should behave as if invisible. This application has resulted in interpreters detaching from their work and from the consumers with whom they work. It has resulted in our assuming less and less responsibility and accountability for the interpretations we generate. This signals our lack of a deeper appreciation for what being neutral or impartial really means.
To be objective or neutral means to be fair minded—to approach our work with the maturity necessary to have an open mind and to address the circumstances that are before us in a fair minded manner. This means we are not invested in a specific outcome, but rather in creating the greatest degree of equality in the communication event as possible. To achieve this fair mindedness, we must be attentive, engaged and fully dedicated to creating meaningful access. Anything less would not be fair minded.
That instead our application of these concepts has resulted in our detachment from our work and consumers is unfortunate because my assumption is we all became involved in interpreting to make a positive contribution. But, when our conception of our work and our practices and actions are in opposition to that intention, or promote self-interest and protection over consumer well-being, or lead to indifference, detachment, fear or complacency, we are out of integrity. In these instances, our behavior and actions are oppressive.
The faulty conception of interpreter as machine or interpreter as invisible inhibits authentic interactions that are based on more natural ways of human interaction. It also limits Deaf people from having meaningful access in the broader society. And the roots of the interpreter as invisible run deep. Even interpreters who have come to appreciate that this model is an ineffective conception of our work still struggle to change their behavior and actions when interpreting.
Sometimes we work so hard to preserve the boundary of neutrality and objectivity by functioning in a detached and disinterested manner that we expend all of our energy, leaving nothing for the task of creating the authentic and natural connections necessary for linguistic access. It is as if preserving detachment is our goal, rather than meaningful linguistic assess. Such applications of role are inherently faulty—it is simply not possible to be fully present, engaged and contributing to the creation of linguistic access and behave as if invisible. It is counter-intuitive. Thus, one of the reasons we often feel conflicted.
Part of the current discourse in the Deaf and interpreting communities relates to the fact that many individuals entering the field lack Deaf-heart, a state of awareness, respect and commitment that comes from being in authentic relationship with Deaf people. We cannot put all the blame on these practitioners when the field’s conception of our work remains stuck in the invisibility/neutrality paradigm. We collectively need to more fully conceptualize the work of interpreters!
And, in doing so, the bottom line is this—without authentic engagement, there is no commitment. Let me emphasize this again. If there is no engagement, there is no commitment. We have to conceptualize our work in a way that ensures practitioners are fully engaged in what they are doing—that their focus, attention and energy are invested in being present and accountable for what they do.
We remain concerned with practitioners being overly involved in the interpreting interaction, fearing they will diminish the Deaf person’s power in the situation. And although this is worthy of our attention, it should not over shadow the consequence of fostering detachment. By over emphasizing concerns for possible over-involvement in interpreted interactions we have fostered under-involvement! Practitioners fail to act in situations where they need to act. This is where I see serious issues—particularly in my work as an expert in legal interpreting.
When analyzing the performance of interpreters—primarily during custodial interrogations—I have encountered too many instances where interpreters failed to apply a best practice. For example, failing to use consecutive interpretation when it is the appropriate action, failing to inform consumers when the process is not working, failing to ask for clarification when they don’t understand. It is common for interpreters to pass on information they do not fully understand by fingerspelling or generating some signed representation of the English expecting that the Deaf consumer should ask for clarification if needed. But, we know that it is the interpreter who has the duty to understand. If the interpreter is not willing to ask for clarification, why would the Deaf person? These are just some of the ways that as interpreters we are under-involved in owning our work.
An authentic role conception must be based in the reality that our role is socially constructed—it occurs in the midst of human communication, within the particular social relationships and power struggles that exist in human interactions. Although it is important that we continue to collaborate with spoken language interpreters, we cannot fully adopt their orientation to their work because it fails to recognize the inherent differences that exist when interpreting for people who are Deaf. Our fuller conception of our role must take into account the life experiences of Deaf people. Achieving this requires an appreciation that our role boundaries are contextual and must adjust depending on a variety of factors–including who are the specific individuals involved in the interaction. One narrow application of boundary doesn’t fit all. But, we are not yet at this point of role conception.
We must continue the exploration so that we more fully understand the intersection between what we know, what to do, how to do it and the WHY we do it. It is authentic relationship with Deaf people that will inspire the desire part of this continued exploration. Our work is not yet done. 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!”