Inclusion

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Angela Roth — Leave a comment

Seriously!? Do Sign Language Interpreters Still Need to Talk About Diversity?

Angela Roth presented Seriously!? Do Sign Language Interpreters Still Need to Talk About Diversity? at StreetLeverage – Live 2014 | Austin. Her presentation addressed the depth of the challenges our profession still faces addressing individual and collective cross-cultural reality, respect and responsibility.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

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

Seriously!? Do Sign Language Interpreters Still Need to Talk About Diversity?

Good morning. First, I have to admit that when Brandon called me to invite me to present at Street Leverage, my reaction when I hung up the phone was panicked: Why did I say yes?! What am I thinking? But I’m thrilled to be here and see so many beautiful people gathered here today.

A common expression in American English is “good job” or “good work.” When I interpret into Spanish, the expression we use might be signed BEAUTIFUL [speaker mouths Spanish word]. In our community, the concept of “pretty” is not ocular, rather it means beauty exuding from the soul. Since I’m aware of the implications of your presence here today, I can describe you all as beautiful souls.

Slide: Seriously!? Do Sign Language Interpreters Still Need to Talk About Diversity?

The question I ask in the title of this presentation may have many possible answers. I’d like to ask you to think back to workshops and presentations you’ve attended in the past. How often were you asked to take action? Many people’s response to a call to action is “but how?” The response is usually that action requires self-analysis and reflection. Often the answer is “Create relationships or partnerships.” If that’s the case, do some self-analysis and reflection, create relationships and work with your partners. OK? Great, that’s it for my presentation!

My point is that that’s truly where the work begins. Someone once said “be careful of your thoughts, because your thoughts become your words. Be careful of your words, because your words become your actions.” There is much emphasis on taking action, but the words and thoughts behind the actions deserve a deeper look.

When you leave today you may find yourself with more questions than answers. For now, I want to share some views on what may hinder our ability to look critically at our thought to action process and reasons behind those barriers. Despite our best efforts, that analysis remains a difficult task. I’d like to highlight three such barriers and the causes behind each.

External Bias

First, I’d like to look externally. If I were to ask you to tell the person sitting beside you about something in the news that held bias, perhaps a negative view of a particular group or event, you could do it easily. That’s an example of bias coming from an outside source. But biases and judgments originate within communities of which we’re a part. No community is immune to that dynamic. We carry and internalize the larger world’s paradigms within us, and they, in turn, affect our relationships.

This phenomenon is not unique to sign language interpreters, although it happens to be our focus today. We must remember that there is diversity in every interaction we have throughout our day, in every person with whom we have contact. For every relationship that we have, don’t have, or desire, appearances may be misleading. A seemingly pleasant relationship, even with those we love, could conceal issues below the surface. In that vein, I’d like to return to addressing the three barriers.

Slide: “The DEPTH of the unconscious effect on each of us from our communities is the proverbial iceberg”

We need to understand our unconscious selves at the deepest level, and that depth of analysis requires a lot of work. Despite it being a sensitive topic, we must proceed regardless.

“Groupishness”

The first of the three unconscious barriers we face comes from a book called “The Righteous Mind.”¹ Even the best of individuals still may heartily disagree on issues such as religion and politics. The reasons behind this are numerous; however, one, in particular, can be referred to as “groupishness.” [Slide at 6:50 on video.] This refers to the fact that people tend to gather and align themselves with one another. This is not in and of itself a negative thing, but we should be cautious of that behavior then leading to the gradual widening of the gap between affiliated versus non-affiliated groups. Studies have shown that the tighter-knit a group becomes, the more likely members are to dismiss and discount views that differed from their own. [Slide at 7:48 on video.] I’ll pause a moment; it seems the audience wanted more time to read the previous slide. All set? The wall projection takes longer to load than my teleprompter.

The Dangers of “Only”

So, the slide says that groups become so entrenched that members are unable to even understand opposing views. This is significant. Often it leads such groups to the next point, which is “only.”[ Slide at 8:50 on video] This is a dangerous place to be. As an example, my mother and I once were walking to the mall, chatting as we went. All of a sudden, a man passing by stopped in front of us and forcefully ordered us to “speak English!” I was in disbelief. What would lead him to do that? He was obviously speaking from an entrenched group perspective where only one view existed.

This manifests in ideas like “only the wealthy allowed here,” “only people from this certain family,” “only Whites,” “only oral-educated,” and “only English.” Such homogeneity can be a comfort to some, but be careful: allowing the practice of “only” creates walls dividing groups even further. Those who wish to connect across the divide must work even harder to bridge the gap, and once dismantling one wall and connecting to a new group may find they have alienated themselves from their original affiliation. In aligning to one group, one loses ties to others. This is one example of a barrier.

Emotions vs. Reason

Emotions overpower rational thought. Despite our best intentions to be thoughtful in emotional situations, studies have shown that this is the case. When in a confrontational situation, we may automatically make assumptions about the person based on our emotional reaction. Past events are triggered when we become emotional, and we unconsciously and mistakenly can tie memories to our current experience to form a judgment on what’s happening.

Angela Roth

Picture entering a room where you must speak with a receptionist. She is currently on the phone and gestures for you to wait a moment. One person in that situation may be nonplussed while another might take great offense at being ignored. An explanation for the difference between the two reactions could be that the offended person had had a negative formative experience with a classmate with red hair, made a snap judgment based on emotion, and was now projecting that experience of humiliation onto the current situation. Whether you agree or not, there’s more evidence of this happening than you may think.

Another example of premature judgment occurred in a room where I sat with another White interpreter. A man came in briefly and asked the White interpreter about a word he wasn’t familiar with. The interpreter shrugged, and the man left without asking me if I knew. He had assumed by looking at me that I would not have known–that I had a deficiency in some way. Remember that as much as we may stand by our initial reactions, our emotional memory is sloppy. Therefore, our reactions may be inaccurate.

The Case for Further Conversation about Diversity and Inclusion

The third kind of barrier to self-awareness relates to conversation. As much as lip service is paid to the desire to foster open dialogue on critical issues, this cannot occur without the potential for barriers. The compulsion to be seen as correct for reasons of personal security can be strong, as can be the narrow, limited or “local” lens some take on issues being discussed. Still others might attempt to dismiss the need to discuss issues at all and silence debates with what they may view as high-minded logic. The consequences of the conversational barrier results in either one-sided doctrinal rhetoric or a shutting out of minority views completely.

This kind of barrier is of course not unique to me or my experience. It can occur anywhere in our lives and work, on any level from interpersonal interactions to our agencies, organizations and in wider society. It is a common thread woven among all with minority status.

Reality, Respect and Responsibility

I want to talk now about three people who exhibit the following qualities: Reality, Respect, and Responsibility. One individual expressed that when they started learning American Sign Language, they experienced judgment from a CODA for not being a native user. When that person chose not to attend an interpreter training program they were judged as unprofessional. But the Deaf community beckoned to that person regardless.

I remember when I was a new, awkward signer and still wet behind the ears as an interpreter. An old Deaf woman asked me if I was a CODA, and I ducked my head and shook it, “no.” She looked at her daughter and said that I signed like family. I will remember that incredibly touching comment until the day I die, because you see, in my culture we equate the concept of family with a deep cultural understanding, much as Deaf culture defines it.

I remember a situation at a past RID conference where, long story short, there was a strong effort made to at last have more diversity represented among interpreters- because of course, sign language interpreter demographics are notoriously and unceasingly White. One of the coordinators was MJ Bienvenu. There were unending announcements and comments emphasizing the efforts toward diversity. I decided to approach two of the coordinators and expressed that if the only reason that I was present at the conference was because of the color of my skin and not due to my skill as an interpreter, then I didn’t want to be there. I saw in MJ’s eyes her solidarity with and deep understanding of my words, and in that moment we connected completely. I can understand how if the response to my comment was instead deflecting to my feelings of discomfort, life for me might have looked totally different. But because of the intense emotional connection I experienced, I’m still here today. Thank you, dear MJ.

The third person in our field I want to mention is Bonnie Kraft. I remember that I was offered an opportunity to interpret at what I saw was a very important conference, and I was incredibly excited to have merited an invitation. During one session, I was interpreting for a very fast speaker and was, therefore, signing very quickly. Upon seeing my team’s strategy, I realized I was using the wrong approach. My team eliminated some affect in favor of signing clearly. Seeing the “game” for what it was, I decided to follow suit. You must understand, however, that in my culture, we value a person’s style and affect highly, so I naturally prioritize incorporation of a speaker’s personality into the interpretation. But most of the White Deaf audience did not prefer that and instead favored an approach that prioritized the content. I was very receptive to that feedback and understood that perspective entirely. Unfortunately, before I had a chance to modify my work, it was arranged that another interpreter replace me for the next segment. I was unhappy and tearful, but then my team, Bonnie, responded with “Oh, you’re replacing us? That’s just fine.” As we prepared to leave, the coordinator tried to explain that only I was being replaced, to which Bonnie said “We’re a team. If you replace her, you replace me too.” For her to say that took astounding courage and responsibility.

Why don’t we have the courage to look around and ask ourselves who is not present, and if they were, if they would truly be a part of the group?

In Conclusion

Now, I love sign language for many reasons. I find it very compelling. I speak Spanish, English and a little French and German, but when I discovered ASL I found that I loved the visual medium. I think we can learn a lot from signs themselves if we let them teach us. For example, the sign for DIVERSITY. What do you see in the production of that sign? (Please reference ASL video at 19:37.) There are many equal yet different moving elements in the sign. Now consider the sign for HARMONY. (Please reference ASL video at 19:54.) It also represents many of something, beginning in one place then moving to another, all the while becoming stronger. I’d like to turn to your neighbor now and try to produce the sign HARMONY, each contributing one hand to this two-handed sign. It’s not easy, is it? That means that to have harmony, it takes work- as the last poet- I think it was the poet, right?- mentioned this morning. Next slide.

“Give me the courage to accept the ones I cannot change, the courage to change the one I can, and the wisdom to know it’s me.”

Thank you.

* Are you going to StreetLeverage – Live 2016 in Fremont, CA April 15-17th?

* 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!”

References

¹Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Dave Coyne — Leave a comment

Social Justice: An Obligation for Sign Language Interpreters?

The field of sign language interpreting still finds itself at a very serious and critical juncture as interpreters and educators attempt to put Deaf community members back into its center. Without considering the tenets of social justice and the perspectives of those who aim to proliferate it, sign language interpreters face the reality that they may be contributing to the oppression of Deaf people.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

-Desmond Tutu

[Click to view post in ASL]

A Critical Juncture

The aim of social justice is to prohibit privileged majority members from taking control – accordingly, a significant amount of guidance and support by those in the minority is needed. Social justice permeates daily experiences because practices, policies, and laws perpetuate the very existence of majority members. Though there is little space today for the appreciation of individual efforts toward justice, and perhaps less space to celebrate times of creativity, sign language interpreters need to create the capacity to give meaning to the Deaf experience in socially conscious ways.

Embracing social justice and incorporating its tenets at the center of interpreters’ practice moves professionals away from explanations that people’s outcomes in life (more specifically minorities’ lives) are merely results of their good and bad choices toward a position that highlights the strength and conviction required to create opportunities for positive change. Social justice works to include the experiences of others that showcase both social injustices as well as how to move us toward equality—in the case of sign language interpreters, this process is about keeping or changing behaviors that are supported by Deaf people and support their desires and goals to achieve autonomy.

What is Social Justice?

While the United States Government is responsible for ensuring basic quality of life for all citizens, interpreters know too well that people’s reactions to injustice in situations differ depending on their political background, media influences, and affiliations. Often we use the same terms to talk about differing scenes of injustice (political, social, economical, and the like). We find that these terms can be vague, meaningless, and often leave us with our wheels turning, but going nowhere. Although the terms justice, e.g., political and social justice, are often seen as interchangeable and often used synonymously, but they can also be defined as distinct terms concerning various inequalities experienced by minority groups.

But do not allow all of this wordsmithing to stop you—minority groups’ injustices (regardless of the realm they fall within) are about being targeted, discriminated against, and oppressed; often concerning power rooted in the social order of our society.

An important component of any social injustice is that conversations about minority lives are happening.

Maintain Fairness

Discussions guided by the uses of status, meaning the effects of today’s socially constructed hierarchies (i.e., social ordering), are real and important pieces in sign language interpreters’ productions of interpretations. Taking types of social ordering into account within interpretations can show us how status affects people (their views and how they are represented in the eyes of others, both individually and systematically). We are talking about reading between the lines of language use to show prestige, respect, and esteem for individuals. In addition to this, those working with hearing interpreters are often from very different communities. To articulate accurate messages, we must consider the real challenges of attempts to maintain fairness based on the myriad relationships (which are symbolic of status used within the exchange) possible within situations. Status can be used to maintain, leverage, and define the types of relationships between people, e.g., best friends, teachers and students, employees and managers.

Advocacy

Social justice is also a concept that deals with people’s actions to craft equitable opportunities for positive change (Rawls, 1971), so it is vital that interpreters work closely with Deaf community members to support equitable experiences. These practices can include sometimes-controversial behaviors, yet are critical interventions of oppressive acts found within our professional role, e.g., advocating, supporting, educating. The more we shift control of our field to the hands of Deaf leaders, the less controversial our behaviors will become because appropriate actions will carry the Deaf community’s seal of approval.

On the other hand, pausing or avoiding behaviors that intervene oppression may actually prohibit various forms of respect for individual autonomy. The explanation behind such pauses/avoidance may be due to our understanding of ethical relativism, whereby those experiencing the injustice may have the right to determine right and wrong behaviors based on their cultural norms and individual contexts within situations. Perhaps some of us are too worried about doing wrong that we perpetuate current habitual patterns that support the status quo, and thus, inadvertently contributes to injustices.

Similar worries have given rise to growing public controversy surrounding political, social, and economic institutions, which have centered conversations on social justice since the late 19th century. Though these conceptions related to justice have been formulated and reformulated over the years, we realize that political justice generally deals with equality, while social justice addresses freedom (Rawls, 1971). These forms of justice are actually elements of each other and represent unique challenges of those experiencing injustices.

Because inclusion related challenges exist (which many minorities experience) the Deaf community faces similar challenges about involvement in conversations about roles of social structures. Special attention to the needs of those we serve, as professionals providing a service, is vital. These needs are a part of an overarching holistic understanding, not solely based on communication exchanges, because majority members (yes, even sign language interpreters) lack full awareness of experiences of Deaf community members.

So, while sign language interpreters work, they permeate participants’ experiences during the communication exchange. Working between two or more people communicating makes the use of status and its social roots (that are often unfamiliar to the parties involved) visible to the interpreter. All injustices are social in nature, even those within political situations, and are based on the relationships among those involved. This makes interpreter’s positions in the interaction between people useful in working toward social justice (e.g., addressing, supporting, opposing). Again, most injustices experienced by Deaf people are types that interpreters will never fully ‘get’, because as hearing individuals, hearing interpreters may only have secondary experiences to associate with individuals who experience our world differently.

Social justice emphasizes that privileged majority members do not have full understanding of minorities. This makes minority groups’ involvement, guidance, and support with professionals serving them imperative.

Community Involvement

Of course both social and political justice need to occur under the eyes of the law, but we are far from achieving equality; social justice exposes social deficits and injustices that bring Deaf people’s experiences to the center. The social injustices experienced by the Deaf community create a call to action for everyone, reminding us that we are all part of a much larger battle. Liberating actions cannot be successful without true community involvement because no one can liberate themselves by their own efforts or solely by the efforts of others (Freire, 1971). Interpreters’ community involvement should include being a part of a force attacking the social injustices experienced by Deaf community members.

This support is pertinent in the lives of those we serve, and for most interpreters, this is as personal as it gets.

The Examination of Power

A multitude of personal and institutional concerns surround a fear that the behaviors of sign language interpreters’ will remain static despite the shifting needs of the Deaf community. One example may be the identified need to establish ASL as the language used at interpreting-related conferences as a norm and the historic struggle to achieve it. In the big picture, static and indifferent stances can stymy efforts to overcome systemic injustices (not that they need interpreters, but working both with and beside them supports their efforts tremendously). This makes social justice even more important. A position of indifference creates a critical need to examine the power, inequality, and transformational opportunities central to our work as interpreters in mastering language and culture.

This examination allows for the formation of a bridge between the need of social justice in the lives of minority groups and the practice of sign language interpreting (a significant influence within Deaf people’s lives). This bridge only holds if stakeholders are involved in its design. Grassroots reform movements have historically relied on strong collaborations among members of various groups that come and go from the lives of minority groups. Unfortunately for the Deaf community, interpreters’ involvement in grassroots reform movements are not a given; views of such involvement differ widely from interpreter to interpreter. Even interpreter organizations and educators vary widely in their stance on such involvement.

Both the positive and negative affects relationships have on experiences dictate one’s unique understanding of the world (Fairclough, 2001). Thus, the relationships that sign language interpreters maintain make their positions on issues of social justice even more vital because power struggles are bound to arise among participants who require negotiations through interpreters (this includes relationships between Deaf individuals and interpreters).

Therefore, an interpreter’s understanding of the Deaf community must extend beyond their own experiences, thoughts, and actions (majority-centric) in a way to support their overall wellbeing based on their understanding (minority-centric). The potential to build the bicultural attributes needed to promote the wellbeing of others lies within the social rules, experiences, and signed language of Deaf people, especially in matters highlighting social justice itself. Social justice begins by upholding the belief of minority groups on matters of equality.

A Conscious Choice

Exploring a sign language interpreter’s cultural competencies challenges them to understand their own position within situations as well as the positions of those involved. Critical language study expert Fairclough (2001) indicated that for groups to make real progress toward their liberation, social emancipation of minority cultures is essential. The first step for interpreters to support the progress of the Deaf Community toward equality is to openly evaluate and strengthen their own behaviors. Locations are already being created and discussions are taking place all over the country: Jean Miller’s TerpTalk or as suggested by Damita Boyd in her article, Cooperation Strengthens Sign Language Interpreter Education Programs.

The need to change the collective stance of interpreters has become a moral imperative today more than ever—this change begins individually. Sign language interpreters cannot expect those we serve to believe that change can occur for the Deaf community if we are not sure ourselves that such change is actually possible. We must ask ourselves what we truly believe and understand that social justice leaves us with a choice.

We have to choose to do something about how we position ourselves as professionals.

How can Deaf individuals trust that there is a modest level of integrity in interpreters if they do not see us learning and emulating models that aim to eradicate stereotypes, prejudices, and the discrimination of Deaf people? Exploring the dynamics of relationships among all ages, abilities, religions, races, ethnicities, social classes, sexualities, and genders is more crucial than ever to tackle the current injustices these members face; simply put, we should do this because it is the right thing to do.

Social justice moves us toward supporting autonomy and allows people to one day live in a world that provides unique spaces for minority groups to flourish. Understanding how Deaf individuals view social justice issues allows for majority members to begin looking at the unique needs of individuals, rather than viewing the whole community as another alternative group based on memorized knowledge about minorities in general (although important parallels between minority groups do exist).

The Prism of Social Justice

The concept of social justice wills interpreters to address current social challenges posed by policy, growing inequality, and social exclusion. Many sign language interpreters strive for social justice because of our unique position to witness injustices experienced by Deaf individuals. Examples of how unfair and avoidable differences lead to disparities in the lives of those we serve include how insufficient support and education in our country affects those who use sign language. I sometimes feel we fail to truly recognize and account for how Deaf people experience the world.

Delivering actions through a prism of social justice creates opportunities for positive change. When interpreters lack personal understanding—experience with and knowledge of Deaf culture—they tend to perpetuate, normalize, and widen the divide between hearing and Deaf communities. To avoid this, a framework of social justice minimizes disconnects between communities and positively influences the relationships between Deaf Community members and sign language interpreters.

If interpreters work in a dysfunctional manner (i.e., working passively and remaining unconcerned about personal involvement with Deaf individuals), they are likely to block the grassroots collaborations necessary for change to occur. If this happens, it means interpreters can become a social justice issue themselves. This brings the need for individuals in the interpreting field, and its organizations, to advocate for the equal treatment of Deaf Community members, and recognize their impact on the lives of Deaf Community members: civic, academic, and otherwise.

Continue the Discussion

Social justice is a part of on-going discussions about shifts in our work as scholars, practitioners, teachers, and policy makers. These shifts, in turn, will improve the lives of oppressed people—in this case the Deaf Community. Scholar Rabbi Tarfon perhaps best articulates the nature of this call to action, our task to join Deaf people in a wider battle toward equality for all communities, “you are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it”.

Let’s work together to get rid of structures of hearing supremacy (e.g., stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination) by ensuring professionals in our field uphold Deaf Community members’ beliefs and thoughts surrounding their own self-empowerment.

* 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

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow, Eng: Longman.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York]: Herder and Herder, 1970.

Rawls, J. A. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Nigel Howard — Leave a comment

Nigel Howard | Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion

“No two persons ever read the same book.” I share this quote from Edmund Wilson with you to highlight a point in this presentation. A reader brings to a book their own experience and understanding in order to create meaning from the story they read. We all approach our work with our own experience and understanding and often ascribe our own to others’ work. In our work with a team, these differences or similarities in how we understand our work become very clear. In order to work through it all we have to keep in mind the goal of the interpreter’s work in the first place…to ensure that people who do not have a common language are able to communicate with each other.

Perceptions/Misperceptions

Many people incorrectly believe that the concept of deaf interpreters is new when, in fact, deaf people have been functioning as interpreters within the community for as long as there have been deaf people. A good example of when this happens is in the classroom when the teacher is not a fluent user of sign language. In this situation, students will ask other students to interpret for them what the teacher is saying. In this situation, the interpreter is functioning as a deaf interpreter. The standardization, training (of which there is currently not enough), and certification of deaf interpreters are more recent developments but the function itself is not a new one.

Another belief many hearing interpreters hold about working with a deaf interpreter is that they will be perceived as unskilled or new in the field. This can lead to a lot of self doubt on the part of the interpreter. The other side of this misperception comes from deaf interpreters themselves when they believe that because know sign language then that automatically means they will be a good interpreter. As a profession we know that interpreting takes more than language fluency.

All of these perceptions play into an interpreter’s beliefs and understanding about their own work and our field in general. Another perceptual layer is added on for deaf interpreters who are interpreting in their own community where they have relationships and shared pasts with the people they are interpreting for. Every interpreter carries around their past with them. For the deaf interpreter, their past can haunt them on the job when they are working with a community member that has shared their past, a fact that can lead to distrust and misunderstanding.

The deaf community also ascribes to a perception about deaf interpreters. Some deaf community members hold a belief that deaf interpreters are useful only for deaf people that have cognitive impairments or have some idiosyncratic language need that calls for it. They don’t yet understand that deaf interpreters could benefit them as well. This misunderstanding could simply be a result of having always worked with hearing interpreters and no experience working with a deaf interpreter. The misunderstanding could be rooted in that shared experience with the deaf interpreter and feeling distrust and lack of confidentiality or a boundary.

The misunderstanding could go back to simply not understanding that deaf interpreters are required to go through training and abide by the same code of conduct that hearing interpreters do. Or they may not trust the fact that the number of hours required for a deaf interpreter to sit for the certification test is currently FAR LESS than it is for a hearing interpreter, lending less credibility to the deaf interpreter. The discrepancy in the amount of study required to sit for a certification test also leads to misperceptions between hearing and deaf interpreters about who is more or less qualified to be working as an interpreter.

Misperceptions abound within the deaf interpreter community as well. Deaf interpreters are often quick to judge other interpreters entering the field based on their educational background, involvement in the community past and present, and their sign language fluency. There are also deaf interpreters who are fluent users of sign language; however, do not have a clear grasp on the task of interpreting. These judgments and perceptions occur regardless of the deaf interpreter’s certification status.

I put the “C” in CDI in quotes because I often see deaf interpreters who have achieved a national certification place emphasis on the fact that they are not just a deaf interpreter but a certified deaf interpreter. I commend the individuals who are able to attain a national certification; however, the label has little meaning for me. If we look at hearing interpreters for comparison, interpreters who have achieved a national certification do not ascribe to the label of certified interpreter. They are simply, interpreters. I believe that the addition and emphasis on certified in labeling oneself is a tacit way of bringing validity and an implication of expertise to one’s work. The current certification systems are developed with a focus on generalist/entry level skills. Having this certification does not make one an expert in all things interpreted and this fact should be reflected in the work a deaf interpreter chooses to do and not do. I argue that deaf interpreters should accept this same model as hearing interpreters and not overly emphasize certification status.

Definition

Before we go any further, I ‘d like to make sure we are all working from the same understanding of terms that are often used when talking about what a deaf interpreter does in their work. We can’t really talk about perceptions until we are using common definitions.

A Relay Interpreter is one that passes the information from one person on to another. I see relay interpreting used often by deaf interpreters. Relaying information is retaining the form of the language in its original state. It is passing the message on to another person without analyzing or unpacking the source text for cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors to meet the goal of the communication in the target language.

A Shadow Interpreter is used in theater settings but can be seen in other settings as well. With this method, the interpreter literally shadows the speaker as they move about.

A Mirror Interpreter is useful in settings where there are members of an audience or setting that cannot see the original signed message due to sight line or distance restrictions. This interpreter will employ relay interpreting function by maintaining the form of the source language.

A ‘translation’ according to The Oxford Companion to the English Language is “communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target language text”. With this definition in mind, we can understand what an Interpreter or Translator is doing.

Deaf-Blind Interpreters are often deaf interpreters. People who function as Intervenors/SSPs for Deaf-Blind people may also be deaf interpreters but their role is very different than when they are functioning as an interpreter. Often the terms (and roles) are conflated and I’d like to make clear here that Deaf-Blind interpreters and intervenors serve very different functions even though it may sometimes be the same person doing both.

Calling someone an International Sign Interpreter is a misnomer. There is no International Signed Language, per say, so in looking at our definition of translation/interpretation the word translation or interpreter doesn’t apply in its strictest sense. Deaf interpreters who are providing access for an international audience have developed their communication skills from interacting with many deaf communities in many geographical areas that are not their own. They have learned how deaf people talk about specific concepts and topics in a common and sometimes gestural way and are able to modulate their language used depending on the audience. This is a very specific skill of which some deaf interpreters claim to have but in fact do not because they lack the experience in a variety of international sign language communities.

High Visual Orientation/Gesturing as a form of communication is another function of deaf interpreters and is sometimes used.

More Definition

The term ‘Interpreter’ should conjure some meaning for you since I am addressing an audience of interpreters. I envision your understanding of interpreter is ‘someone who provides equivalent translations between a signed language and a spoken language’. An ‘ASL-English Interpreter’ would be the appropriate term for those of you who work between those two separate and distinct languages.

If we take the basic definition of ‘interpreter’ that I have presented above and apply it to the term ‘Deaf Interpreter’, what is the definition? What languages are deaf interpreters working between? It is not a signed language and a spoken language.

There are some deaf interpreters for whom they view their role as interpreter and advocate. Advocating is a very different function all together and one that should not be confused with the interpreting role. As members of the very community of people we are serving, deaf interpreters need to be cognizant of our role as language and cultural brokers only. Deaf interpreters with little training or experience may be quick to attribute mental health issues that manifest as communication barriers to our function as interpreters and may overstep a boundary. A boundary that is not ours to cross but should instead be conveyed to the provider that is communicating with the deaf person. This mixing of roles by some deaf interpreters may feed into the resistance and lack of trust that some deaf community members feel about using a deaf interpreter.

According to RID’s Standard Practice Paper on Team Interpreting, “Team Interpreting is the utilization of two or more interpreters who support each other to meet the needs of a particular communication situation. Stewart, Schein, & Cartwright define it as “two or more interpreters working together, not just physically but intelligently”. These two definitions get at the fact that while there may be individual members of the team, they are not to work individually. Instead, each member is charged with working together toward a shared and collaborative target language interpretation that is an equivalent to the source language. Truly a team approach.

I have worked as a deaf interpreter in a variety of settings. I have because it is true that a deaf interpreter can and should be used in a variety of settings; including but not limited to medical, mental health, legal and with deaf people who are non-native signers, immigrants and are of any age.

As hearing interpreters yourselves, you may be faced with a situation where you realize that you would prefer to team with a deaf interpreter. A common scenario where deaf interpreters are called in is to work with children or in mental health situations. I advocate bringing one in but you need to also remember that simply because someone is deaf, fluent in sign language and hangs a shingle out calling themselves an interpreter, it does not mean they have the requisite skill set for the situation you are faced with. Keeping in mind that we are all generalists and may not be the best qualified for every situation out there, discretion on the part of all interpreters is paramount to ensuring the best outcome.

It is usually the hearing interpreter that first identifies that a deaf interpreter would be beneficial in any given situation. If an agency has past experience with the deaf person or the situation, they may identify the need ahead of time but usually it falls on the hearing interpreter to make this assessment.

The interpreter may determine that a deaf interpreter is needed as a team for a variety of reasons such as the complexity of the situation. The need for discretion applies to determining when and if a deaf interpreter is needed as well. Careful consideration needs to happen before calling a deaf interpreter in for any and all interpreted situations. A thoughtful weighing of the situation, the environment, and the resources has to be considered along with understanding that calling in a deaf interpreter is a team approach and that, together, each interpreter will remain responsible for the communication that happens.

Benefits

An interpretation of someone else’s thoughts will rarely be error free. With that in mind, 2 heads are better than one. Each interpreter processing the source message and then creating a shared understanding will result in a more accurate target message. A teamed interpretation with both a deaf and hearing interpreter working collaboratively will result in a better overall interpretation that results in a product that provides clarity of ideas and message equivalency for the intended audience.

* 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 site) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on March 6, 2013 by Jennifer Vold — 25 Comments

Deaf Interpreters: In the Blind Spot of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession?

A few weeks ago, I was looking through StreetLeverage posts and as I neared the end- perhaps even after I had looked at all of the titles—I realized that I had not seen anything explicitly about Deaf interpreters.

Of course, the phrase “sign language interpreters” appeared often, and of course Deaf interpreters are included in that population. Still, I thought, I have read several articles since StreetLeverage began and I couldn’t help but feel like they were written with hearing sign language interpreters in mind. (For the purposes of this post, when I say “hearing” interpreters, I am also referring to coda interpreters; I am using the label to refer to auditory status, not cultural identity.)

I contacted Brandon, asking if this observation was accurate, and he invited me to write about it. (Let that be a lesson to anyone else thinking about piping up—you may have to follow through on your thoughts!)

Are Deaf Interpreters Invisible?

What does it mean that I hadn’t even noticed the absence of posts about Deaf interpreters for a year and a half? Does it send a message, unintentional but unmistakable, that I do not think about Deaf interpreters often; that they are invisible; that they are unimportant to the field?

I am reminded of an observation that was shared with me recently about another instance of the absence of Deaf interpreters. In my area, there is a group of freelancers who run a website for direct contracting of sign language interpreting services. I do not work through this site, but I know many of the interpreters who do. I like many of them, I respect many of them, I have sought many of them out to team with me. When people ask how to find an interpreter, I include this website among my list of referrals. In short, this network of freelancers is by no means new or unfamiliar to me. Yet, I never noticed that there are no Deaf interpreters on their site. What does it say to my Deaf colleagues that I never even noticed—that their presence is not missed?

The Organizational Level: Overt Messages

Upon looking through online resources, Deaf Interpreters are an unmistakable and long-standing part of the profession. Certifications have been offered to Deaf interpreters for as long as they have been offered to hearing interpreters. According to RID’s CDI bulletin, the Reverse Skills Certificate has been awarded since 1972- the same year that certification began for hearing interpreters- and was primarily awarded to Deaf Interpreters. Twenty years later, development of the Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) exam began as result of a 1989 vote that “a generalist Certificate of Relay Interpreting be established for Deaf persons.”[i]

During the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers’ 2005-2010 grant cycle, they “delineated the unique competencies required of Deaf Interpreters in a document titled Toward Effective Practice: Competencies of the Deaf Interpreter (available at www.DIInstitute.org).” In the current grant cycle from 2010-2015, the Northeastern University center (NURIEC) is piloting a curriculum for Deaf interpreter education called Road to Deaf Interpreting. A total of 34 interpreters from two cohorts have already graduated from the program, and the 2012-2014 session is currently underway.[ii]

In 2007, RID assembled a taskforce to revisit the application criteria for taking the CDI exam. In the same year, NCIEC conducted a survey of Deaf interpreters and got 196 responses- a number that surpasses the estimated 162 Deaf interpreters listed in RID.org.[iii] Assuming the number of certified Deaf interpreters is accurate, then Deaf interpreters represent 2% of the 9,846 people listed as certified on RID.org.

On StreetLeverage, when you search the phrase “deaf interpreter” you get 5 results out of the 67 total posts, for a rate of 7%.[iv] Not bad. At the organizational level, then, there seems to be a proportionate level of attention paid to and recognition of Deaf interpreters. What happens at the individual level?

The Individual Level: Covert Messages

Using myself as an example (for better and for worse), I have worked alongside Deaf interpreters in various capacities: in a platform setting as a hearing team, in situations where Deaf interpreters are working with DeafBlind consumers, sometimes from my interpretation and sometimes not, and in situations that involve Deaf consumers with intellectual disabilities. When I began my career, I worked with a deaf independent living center and the deaf counselors often served as de facto Deaf interpreters. I can think of many enriching experiences working with and watching Deaf interpreters at work.

Jennifer Kaika - Sign Language Interpreter — Jennifer Kaika

At the same time, I have been guilty of not asking if Deaf interpreters have been assigned to a job that I’m on, even when I have reason to believe they would be. I don’t always think to share prep materials with Deaf interpreters until the day of an assignment- often not until we’ve all arrived. When I’ve been in touch with hearing teams to prepare for assignment, I don’t always include Deaf interpreters (again, usually because I haven’t asked if they were assigned.) What messages are sent when I consistently forget about my Deaf counterparts? Is there a reason I seem to consistently forget?

Is Frustration the Impetus?

There have been times where I have been frustrated by experiences working with a Deaf team—perhaps because they were new, perhaps because they had a different view of how to approach interpreting or teaming, perhaps because they usually work with DeafBlind consumers but I expect them to excel when working with consumers with different linguistic needs. Is this the reason I forget? If it is, does that mean that I hold Deaf interpreters to a double standard? After all, I have had similar experiences with hearing interpreters.

The range of experience and professionalism I have seen among DIs and CDIs parallels that of hearing interpreters: some are new, some have years of experience, some are certified, some are not, some have specializations, some are generalists, some aim to work at the national and international level, others aim to practice only in their local communities.

Should this range or these less-than-ideal experiences deter us from working together? Or can they become opportunities for us to talk openly about what wasn’t working? Can they serve as opportunities for us all to be more specific about what skills we possess and what skills we are asking for when making a request to work with a Deaf interpreter?

Group Dynamics: Unintended Messages

Four years into my interpreting career, and only months after becoming a full-time freelancer, I had taken a staff position at Gallaudet University. Not long after coming aboard, discussions surfaced about speaking versus signing around the office and on campus. I had grown up on this campus. As a coda, I was accustomed to talking in front of my deaf relatives—whether to hearing friends or on the phone. All throughout my childhood and into my college years, I knew very few hearing people who could sign; thus, I spoke to hearing people and signed with Deaf people. All of this to say that the issue of hearing people speaking to each other when Deaf people were around was foreign to me. I was in need of an explanation.

Deaf people talked about feeling shut out—that choosing to speak when you could sign was exclusionary. Some hearing people said it was their right to use their first language. Deaf and hearing people talked about incidental learning—the ability to “overhear” a conversation and learn from it in the way you might pick up on the fact that people are talking about a bad storm approaching or some tidbit of news. This was pretty convincing, but still I wondered would it really be that big of a deal if I just talked with a hearing person and started signing when a deaf person came around? Then they could see what we’re saying and join the conversation if they wanted. When someone said that they wouldn’t even join the conversation if I weren’t already signing, I finally got it.

Nobody wants to disrupt their environment, you don’t want things to change just because you’ve walked into a room; you just want to be able to feel like you belong- no matter where you go.

Apply this same thinking to local and national RID conferences. Do we create spaces in the informal areas that send the message that Deaf interpreters belong there? On the organizational level, I would say yes. At the 2011 conference, I believe each Board member signed when they presented on stage. But as I recall, the hallways and social areas presented a different story.

The estimated 162 certified Deaf interpreters mentioned earlier represent 31 states.[v] In the directory on the Deaf Interpreter Institute, there are 35 interpreters listed representing 22 states. Between the two groups, 33 states are represented. If we truly believe that Deaf interpreters are a part of our profession—a long-standing and lasting part, present since the inception of RID, another way to connect to the Deaf community and maintain Deaf-heart, then wouldn’t our actions be aligned with our messages?

Addressing the Fundamental Question

Does the presence of DIs remove our status in the room as the ‘experts’ on sign language and interpretation in a way that is different than working with another hearing interpreter? Does it challenge a hearing interpreter’s ability to be “in control” of the environment? Does it raise questions about the quality of our work? Does all of this (and thus, the presence of a Deaf interpreter) make some of us nervous?

Have you grappled with some of these same questions? Do some of these experiences mirror your own?

I think these are some of the things that Nigel Howard addressed in his StreetLeverage – Live 2012 | Columbia, MD presentation, Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion, in November of 2012, bringing up “the perception that ASL-English interpreters have that requesting to work with a deaf interpreter is an indication of an “inferior skill-set” and the “need to broaden the view of how and why deaf interpreters are used in order to improve their inclusion and contribution to the field.”[vi] I did not go to the presentation, but would appreciate contributions from those who did.

Beginning a Dialogue

I am sharing my own experiences openly in the interest of having an open discussion. Perhaps, though, I am alone in my experiences and the majority of our profession has good working relationships with Deaf interpreters. If this were the majority opinion, not only would I be relieved, I would be prouder of my profession (if not a little embarrassed for admitting my own ignorance.)

* 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 site) and click “Sign Me Up!”

[i] “Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) Examination Information Bulletin.” RID.org. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 24 Sept. 2001. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. <http://www.rid.org/education/testing/index.cfm/AID/89>.

[ii] http://roadtodeafinterpreting.webs.com/rdisstory.htm

[iii] Calculated by adding the total CDIs (139), the total who hold the RSC without certifications that Deaf interpreters are not eligible for (21), and the total of those who hold the CLIP-R without CDI (2). It is possible that some who hold the RSC alone are hearing, which is why I refer to this number as an estimate.

[iv] Trudy Suggs mentions that she is a deaf interpreter: http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/

Brandon Arthur describes Nigel Howard’s presentation “Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion” in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/11/a-salute-to-big-thinking-sign-language-interpreters and http://www.streetleverage.com/streetleverage-live

Robyn Dean says that hearing and deaf interpreters participated in supervision sessions in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/04/ethical-development-a-sign-of-the-times-for-sign-language-interpreters

Debra Russell talks about Deaf interpreters being part of international collaboration efforts in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/03/international-collaboration-should-sign-language-interpreters-do-more

[v] Some states only have one certified Deaf interpreter listed, but again this is only the number of interpreters who hold an RID certification.

[vi] http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/11/a-salute-to-big-thinking-sign-language-interpreters/ Nigel’s talk explored some of the perceptions that challenge better integration of deaf interpreters into the field and into daily practice. Most notably, the perception that ASL-English interpreters have that requesting to work with a deaf interpreter is an indication of an inferior skill-set.