Answer to questions (in written English)

Below are the answers to questions in written English

1. While interpreters are expected to be the allies of the Deaf community, we are often engaged in discussion where the Deaf community might NOT be happy with interpreters’ decisions. At one time, I was fighting for the arrangement of team interpreting while the service consumers assumed one hearing interpreter can work continuously for four to six hours without bathroom breaks. Some Deaf people would also consider hearing interpreters’ initiatives a threat to the existing system with comments like “It’s your proposal to the organization that might lead to the deprivation of sign language accessibility”. The tension often lies on how interpreters can really work and how they are expected to work. What are your suggestions to the villages on resolving such a tension?

 

It is difficult to make suggestions without knowing more about your particular situation and the cultural values and laws of your nation.  Resistance to hiring a team of at least 2 interpreters to work an all-day assignment still happens here in the US, but it usually comes from hearing-run organizations and companies who only want to meet the bare-minimum requirement of providing accommodations under the federal Americans with Disability Act.  They typically are forced to hire two interpreters for any assignment over 2 hours because they make requests through an interpreter referral agency and nearly all the agencies have this standard rule.

Here are a few suggestions that may need a lot of time and basic trust-building between villages before people’s perceptions will change:

A.     Intentionally involve Deaf interpreters.  Part of my overall point in my talk is to intentionally include and embed Deaf interpreters into the interpreter profession “village.”  In your context, it appears that there is a basic lack of empathy of what it is like to interpret for more than 2 hours.  And in general, it appears that there is a lack of respect and trust of the opinion of hearing interpreters.  If Deaf interpreters are able to directly experience the fatigue of interpreting for long periods of time, and if these Deaf interpreters’ opinions are more respected by the Deaf community, then there is more hope for the community to trust and respect the opinion of the interpreter village.

B.      Deaf leadership in the profession.  Furthermore, if there is a formal professional interpreter organization in your context and if there are Deaf leaders involved in the decisions of the interpreter organization—even if they are not practicing Deaf interpreters—this may also go a long way to building respect to any declarations of standard practice and working conditions for interpreters.  For example, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in the US has official Standard Practice Papers (SPPs, see: https://rid.org/about-rid/about-interpreting/setting-standards/standard-practice-papers/ ).  Relevant SPPs to your situation are:

• Self-Care (2007)
• Coordinating Interpreters for Conferences (2007)
•  Team Interpreting (2007)

Here is the preamble that is printed at the top of each RID SPP:

“The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc., (RID) Standard Practice Paper (SPP) provides a framework of basic, respectable standards for RID members’ professional work and conduct with consumers. This paper also provides specific information about the practice setting. This document is intended to raise awareness, educate, guide and encourage sound basic methods of professional practice. The SPP should be considered by members in arriving at an appropriate course of action with respect to their practice and professional conduct.

It is hoped that the standards will promote commitment to the pursuit of excellence in the practice of interpreting and be used for public distribution and advocacy.”

These type of documented standards are effective in the US because there is generally a high value here of the “Rule of Law” and the collective power of a professional organization.  Disputes between people in the US are typically resolved when you can defer your opinion to a higher written authority (SPPs or position papers) and/or research results.  Canada’s interpreter organization (CASLI) has similar “position papers” (see: http://www.aslia.ca/position_papers).  Some grassroots Deaf people here in the US may not respect written SPPs, especially if they are not translated into ASL.  But they may still respect the spirit of the profession’s opinions if there is Deaf leadership involved in the profession.

C.     Planning far in advance for a revenue source and budget for a team of interpreters.  It seems that part of the resistance to hiring a team of interpreters is related to the cost.  Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US context, organizations and businesses have learned that they must plan ahead to find the revenues and budget for interpreter service costs.  Some of the costs for interpreters at an event can be spread over the registration fees that all participants must pay, and/or the combination of other ongoing revenue streams within an organization.  It is common here in the US to have the cost of closed captioning of television programs covered by an outside corporate sponsor in exchange for advertising.  Similarly, conferences can have corporate sponsors subsidize the cost of putting on an event, including hiring interpreters, in exchange for advertising space.

2. Both in person and cyber bullying, public shaming and verbal violences from consumers to interpreters have been one of the issues we encountered frequently. Many novice interpreters dropped out from the profession while some of us required life-long psychiatric service support. The hardest part of this is when we tried to have open dialogues, some Deaf interpreters with professional training on sign interpreting would also blame hearing and CODA interpreters with “You are just not Deaf” and “You just don’t understand our Deaf culture at all”. In some cases, some deaf service consumers would also blame the interpreters for the unwanted results or outcomes. In my defence to my fellow interpreters, some of us were also (vicariously) traumatized in those interpreting assignments. The conflicts often lie on systematically oppressed groups and privileged hearing/CODA service providers. How could our villages provide support to the interpreters to avoid being burnt-out? How could we avoid such traumas and vicarious traumatization (also the cycle of them) to occur?

 

A.     Take care of yourself.  I’m sorry that you and your colleagues have experienced abuse from Deaf consumers.  There is never an excuse for mistreating another human being.  Interpreters’ work is very stressful on the mind and body and they often experience vicarious trauma even when consumers are not intentionally being disrespectful or abusive toward the interpreter.  My number one suggestion is to take care of yourself, even if it means you decide to turn down assignments with abusive consumers.  Unfortunately, your decision may mean that you need to find income from another job to supplement your interpreting income.  Or leaving the professional altogether.  If enough interpreters refuse to serve abusive consumers, then these individuals will face the outcome of their behavior.

B.      Licensure law, code of conduct, and a formal complaint recourse.  That being said, I do not have much more to suggest because I don’t know:

• the particular grievances that the Deaf consumers in your context have,
• whether your context has minimum standards for who can legally practice interpreter services,
• whether there is a standard interpreter code of conduct that has been developed in concert with Deaf leaders so that underlying cultural values are articulated, and
• whether there is a formalized grievance process for alleged violations of the code of conduct.

Having a shared set of values and expectations that is embodied in a professional code of conduct may help reduce the cultural conflicts and misunderstandings.  This has been somewhat effective in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky where I live.  Kentucky has interpreter consumer protection/licensure regulations that stipulate:

1. what is required to earn a license to practice as a professional,
2. incorporating a code of conduct for interpreters in the regulations of a licensure law, and
3. establishing a formal complaint procedure that gives consumers the right to air their grievances for any alleged violations of the code of conduct.

See: https://kbi.ky.gov/ 

I honestly believe that reports of consumers being abusive toward interpreters are rare here in Kentucky because there are legal consumer protections in place and there is recourse for complaints to be heard by the state licensure board when violations are observed.  And conversely, this same process can protect the interpreter against frivolous complaints as the board can throw out unsubstantiated complaints.  The licensure board acts as an impartial judge and consumers can feel that they are being heard.  In US states where there is no licensure law, an ethics complaint can still be made to the national Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf organization if the interpreter is RID certified (see information about the complaint procedures to the RID Ethical Practices System here: https://rid.org/ethics/file-a-complaint/ ).

[Author]

Posts