Tag: Change

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Pulling Back the Curtain: How Unwritten Rules Impact Sign Language Interpreters

Ritchie Bryant presented Pulling Back the Curtain: How Unwritten Rules Impact Sign Language Interpreters at StreetLeverage – Live 2016 | Fremont. His presentation examines how “unwritten rules” of behavior influence sign language interpreters’ actions and impact their working relationship with the Deaf community.

You can find the PPT deck for his presentation here. 

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

If you enjoy this presentation and accompanying article, consider going to StreetLeverage – Live 2017.

Pulling Back the Curtain: How Unwritten Rules Impact Sign Language Interpreters

In keeping with Deaf Cultural traditions, I’d like to start off my comments with a story. There once was a young, hearing, black gentleman named Jamal, with an outstanding work ethic, was employed as an office manager. He was well-respected by his co-workers for his skill and reliability. His supervisor prized his competence in ironing out issues from Jamal’s predecessor to deliver consistently top quality results. One day, the supervisor invited Jamal out for a round of golf. Hesitant because he didn’t know the game well, Jamal politely declined. Shortly after, the supervisor made an announcement that he had been promoted and his prior position was open. He had given Jamal encouragement to apply, and Jamal went through the interview process with ease and seeming success. But when time came to announce the winning candidate, another applicant had been chosen. Jamal was distressed and at a loss- why had this person, with only three years at the company, been chosen over him? He meticulously reviewed the interview process in an attempt to discover where he could have made a mistake, but he came up empty. Finally, he approached his supervisor to ask what had gone wrong. His supervisor asked him, “Remember when I invited you to join me for golf, and you passed? Our regular Wednesday golf games are when members of upper management assess up-and-coming employees we’re considering for management positions. If someone we invite ends up having a good rapport with everyone, we know they’re a good fit for the job.” What Jamal didn’t know was that in the corporate environment, business is regularly done in informal settings, and handshake deals are commonplace on the golf course. He had unknowingly missed a crucial opportunity for promotion.

“Good Is Not Enough”

This is an example of an unwritten rule. You’ll never see golf game attendance in any employee handbook. And yet, these unwritten rules are everywhere. If you take a look at the slide, you’ll see an image of the book “Good is Not Enough: And Other Unwritten Rules for Minority Professionals.” This book has been an inspiration to me and led to developing this presentation. This text delves into the reasons behind what many women and people of color experience in their professional lives – barriers known as glass ceilings – or the inability to achieve beyond a certain point because there is a lack of awareness of these unwritten rules: rules that inevitably govern our chances of success. Again, they don’t appear in any employee handbook; they are unspoken and inherent to those niches and circles to which they are privy.

Unwritten Rules in the Deaf and Interpreting Communities?

My question to you is: do the Deaf and interpreter communities have unwritten rules? How does that impact those communities, and the relationships within them? From my surveying and personal experiences growing up, I’ve identified eight possible unwritten rules I think apply. I’m pretty certain more than eight exist! This is just a taste of what I’ll be covering later this afternoon in my workshop.

Overgeneralized use of Misplaced Credentials

One such unwritten rule has to do with the RID certification. Have you ever noticed that most job postings for ASL instructors in institutions of higher education, etc., state “RID certified preferred” as a requirement? I’d wager it’s often overlooked. How does RID certification relate to a person’s qualifications for teaching ASL? What does attendance at an interpreter training program have to do with teaching ASL? The assumption is made that if a person possesses RID certification, they have free license to run the gamut of related fields.

Double Standard

Another unwritten rule appears in the Deaf and interpreter community as double standards regarding pre-certification work opportunities. It seems common that hearing interpreters who have graduated from a training program but have yet to become certified are presented with a wealth of opportunity to practice among mentors until gaining certification. Deaf interpreters in similar situations, on the other hand, receive the message “wait.” “Not yet.” “After you’re certified, you can work.” It seems our community is applying two different and unequal standards to these groups.

Financial Obstacles

My next unwritten rule applies to a similar disparity. In order to gain and maintain professional growth and certification standing, interpreters are called on to attend workshops, training, and other costly endeavors to continue practicing. Given the stark difference between the amount of work given/available to Deaf interpreters as compared to hearing interpreters, how can the expectation of professional development be applied uniformly to all? It is less economically feasible to complete requirements if one is a Deaf interpreter working today compared to one who is hearing.

Engaging and Networking

Deaf people, in general, face substantial challenges when it comes to networking, especially those Deaf who do not have use of speech or auditory input. Connecting to the larger society and developing ties with others is difficult due to communication barriers. Hearing individuals, including interpreters, can navigate and develop networks more seamlessly, even getting referrals and work opportunities- hosting a training for a school system, for example. Rarely do these hearing folk collaborate with Deaf individuals for counsel or advice on topics relevant to them and their community, thereby further exploiting the networking gap.

Deviation from Social Norms

This next image refers to social norms or the ways in which we behave to show concurrence and acceptance of social rules and expectations. An example: faculty at a school that has a Deaf and hard of hearing program attends an in-service training. The topic for discussion is whether or not faculty should sign while in public spaces in the school. Personally, I find that that is a topic for discussion inherently bizarre. If this were a teaching environment in Mexico, would teachers gather to debate whether it was appropriate to speak Spanish while in public places? The same norm of communication holds true for a Deaf environment. For those who would choose to challenge the need to sign in Deaf spaces, where a majority of children and adults are Deaf and sign, serious self-analysis needs to be undertaken on their part. What rights or dominance do they feel that so supersede social norms of respect and deference to a culture’s home environment?

Inequality of Resources Allocation

The inequitable allotment of resources is an issue very much present in our field. There is a dearth of resources available to Deaf interpreter’s professional development prior to certification as compared to those for hearing interpreters, especially when one considers the time and expense. Training specifically geared toward Deaf interpreters are few and far between, meaning Deaf interpreters must travel significantly more than hearing interpreters in order to have regular access to skills training.

The Role of the Enabler

I’d next like to talk about the practice of enabling. Some interpreters’ approach to Deaf people, their treatment of Deaf consumers,  leans toward a more stoic relationship rather than one of sharing information freely. If a Deaf consumer displays culturally inappropriate behavior, does the interpreter intervene or provide correction or information? Typically not. If we fail to intervene in some manner, these culturally conflicting behaviors continue, often to the detriment of the consumer. That silence, that lack of input, poses a hazard and can lead to potential conflict in those relationships.

Credentialing by Hearing Proxy

The next image speaks to the phenomena of credentialing by hearing proxy.  It is often the case that hearing interpreters are looked upon and given credence to be able to speak for the Deaf community, rather than looking to members of the community themselves. But do we condone men’s organizations to speak on women’s issues, or White organizations to speak on behalf of Black organizations? The misguided notion of proxy, when put into other cultural contexts, is self-evident.

”Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error.”

Benjamin Rush, the author of this quote, was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. His quote points to the habit of justifying errors rather than correcting them. This process of justification and obfuscation in the face of clear error is problematic. Hearing interpreters, however conflict-averse, must not shrink from controversy or error. In fact, it is that hesitance to engage in potential controversy that can lead to Deaf disempowerment – a topic Trudy Suggs covered in her first StreetLeverage presentation. Disempowerment can create significant barriers to a Deaf professional’s career advancement.

“Who Moved My Cheese?”

This image you may recognize from the well-known 90s book by Spencer Johnson. The book’s message is simple: change is inevitable. With that in mind, one should always be prepared for and able to adapt to change. This applies to unwritten rules within the Deaf community (many exist!). Perhaps the biggest unkept secret, or unwritten rule, is that, in general, the Deaf community has a tenuous, and often frustrating, relationship with sign language interpreters. We are in a constant struggle to persevere despite unqualified interpreters and make sure to share our experiences with particular interpreters with our community in an attempt at minimizing any further negative impact.

It’s past time that we collectively acknowledge the lack of quality interpreting as our elephant in the room. It is the critical issue of our time. Addressing that together as Deaf community members and interpreters means we must be willing to face some hard truths. Some may not be ready or willing. How do we have the fortitude to think outside of the box, to take the interpreting field to the next level?

Despite nearly thirty years since the dawn of interpreting training programs, there continues to be a stagnation of skill and ability among graduates. Let’s take a step back and rethink how we train interpreters. Instead of having a bachelor’s degree as a requirement to sit for the certification exam, why not instead provide documentation of a strong foundation in ASL? Or perhaps the Deaf community should take more ownership of the interpreting process? That happened in the Bay Area- one particular group established an initiative during which Deaf consumers completed an evaluation form with a rating after working with an assigned interpreter. However, the practice was not well-received among the interpreters. Were they not willing to receive feedback in the interest of their own improvement? Is it a resistance to change? We just saw a presentation- and now I’m blanking on the presenter’s name- about the importance of receiving feedback well.

Closing Thoughts

In the book “Who Moved my Cheese?” the mice, Hem and Haw, were reluctant to change, while their compatriots, Sniff and Scurry, were more than amenable. The old model of interpreter training, in cheese standards, is well past the expiration date. The time has come to begin the exciting search for fresh, innovative models. Collectively, among our communities, we can discover the cheese we’re meant for. It’s uncomfortable perhaps, but necessary. In developing a process for sharing of our unwritten rules, we can create successful win-win partnerships. Those of us here at StreetLeverage – Live are aspiring to achieve that goal.  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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Click to view post in ASL]

Is Geolocation the New Name of the Game?

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

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

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

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

How Does the Stratus InPerson App Work?

Onboarding Interpreters

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

Requesting Interpreters

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

Accepting Assignments

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

Jean A. Miller
Jean A. Miller

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

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

Credentialing and Issue Resolution

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

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

Billing and Payment

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

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

Questions Linger

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

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

Confidentiality

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

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

Quality Standards

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

Meeting Consumer Needs – Cultural, Linguistic, and Other

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

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

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

Teaming/Use of CDIs

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

Standards for Pay

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

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

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

Calling All Stakeholders: Dialogue is Key

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

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

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

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

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!”