TOP NOTCH INTERPRETINg
EDITORAL ARTICLES
On Becoming a True Profession
The interpreting profession has been around for just over half a century since its formalization from an all-volunteer activity. Interpreters have desired for the job of ASL / English interpreting to be recognized as a valid profession. To make that desire a reality interpreters have gathered together and created organizations, tests, and codes of ethical behaviors. If we compare interpreting to other professions that provide direct services to people we find some glaring omissions. Other professions like physicians, social workers, police officers have: an Oath, non-discriminatory policies, and zero tolerance for harassment / abuse policies. Instead of following suite Interpreters actually pride them selves on an attitude that accepts harassment and abuse by continuing to pass on to future generations of interpreters the myth that interpreters need "a thick skin".
Lets examine each of the three things other professions have and interpreters don't.
Regarding an oath.
Interpreters are taught the code of professional conduct (CPC) and are tested on their understanding of the CPC via RID written test and the NIC performance exam however interpreters are never asked to publicly make an oath that s/he will follow the CPC. Some may say that it is irrelevant that there is no oath because there is the CPC. This attitude ignores research into the psychological impact on individuals when they take a public oath. Yes, there will always be people who ignore an oath as well as interpreters who disregard the CPC and requiring interpreters to take an oath will not change those interpreters' behavior. An oath serves several functions. An oath becomes known to the people who are served by the profession and gives them confidence, peace of mind, and a feeling of empowerment because they can confront a person who is violating the oath. An oath also causes practitioners to behave better when in the presence of a coworker because they know that each other has taken the oath and are aware of it's meaning. An oath is more succinct and cogent way to express the over arching requirements, beliefs, and expectations of a profession. Interpreters or consumers rarely memorize the CPC and each may hold a different understanding of the meaning and scope of the CPC. Some may think that you can't require interpreters to take an oath because they are all independent people. The profession uses the term “freelance” to describe the way most interpreting service is provided. It is easier to understand if the actual business term is used. Interpreters are sole proprietor businesses. Recent research has found the majority of interpreters are sole proprietor businesses and even interpreters who are employees of another institution still do some part time interpreting as a sole proprietor business. Many physicians and social workers are also sole proprietor businesses as well as working in partnerships and as employees. The type of business a professional is engaged in does not affect a profession from requiring its practitioners to take an oath. Individuals cannot create, disseminate, and be held accountable to a public oath only a profession can.
Regarding a non-discriminatory policy.
Individual interpreters will have their own prejudices and attempting to change the minds of every interpreter isn't possible. However interpreters work with a very diverse group of people and should endeavor to examine his/her own prejudices with the goal of elimination or reduction of prejudicial attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Cultural sensitivity training can be easily obtained on line from credible resources. A non-discriminatory policy is more of an organizational activity. Since the membership of RID and NAD are very diverse every attempt should be made to ensure the full spectrum of members feel welcome at any and all organizational activities. Some may argue that enforcement of a non-discriminatory policy is impossible so therefore it is a waste of time to implement one. As with an oath an institutionally implemented non-discrimination policy will influence the public's perception and the membership's behaviors.
Regarding harassment and abuse.
Historically members of RID have promoted the concept that all interpreters need to “develop a thick skin” which can mean, be brave and deal with difficult situations however many interpreters misunderstand “have a thick skin” to mean accepting harassment / abuse while working. This misunderstanding of harassment / abuse and the confidentiality aspects of the CPC cause interpreters to accept harassment and abuse by consumers and fellow interpreters.
There are two components to the "thick skin" issue.
One is the emotional experiences an interpreter may have while working with consumers. The emotional experiences can be from harassment / abuse by consumers or via vicarious traumatization. The term vicarious trauma (Perlman & Saakvitne, 1995), sometimes also called compassion fatigue, is the latest term that describes the phenomenon generally associated with the “cost of caring” for others (Figley, 1982). Other terms used for compassion fatigue are: secondary traumatic stress (Stemm, 1995, 1997) secondary victimization (Figley, 1982) Vicarious trauma is the emotional residue of exposure that professionals have from working with people as they are hearing their trauma stories and become witnesses to the pain, fear, and terror that trauma survivors have endured. Interpreters need to be educated that it is not only not a breach of the CPC to seek a licensed counselor to help him/her deal with vicarious trauma or abuse experienced while interpreting, it is also a much healthier approach to the trials and tribulations of interpreting than just suppressing emotions.
The second component is interpreter on interpreter harassment / abuse. If you ask any interpreter who has had several years of experience if s/he has felt picked on by another interpreter the answer may likely be yes but they may not be sure if s/he was harassed or abused. It has become an industry standard that we just need to put up with "those kind of interpreters". To help interpreters understand the difference between harassment / abuse and other actions reading the definition created by Dr. Riddle may help.
(The following was created by Dorothy I. Riddle, Ph.D., CMC Service-Growth Consultants Inc. riddle@servicegrowth.com used with permission)
Harassment is defined as any unwanted physical or verbal conduct that offends or humiliates the recipient, that interferes with their ability to work and learn or leads to adverse work-related consequences, and that any reasonable person ought to have known would be unwelcome. It may include direct or implied threats of loss of work, loss of fair compensations for services provided, or may create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work setting. Examples of harassment include, but are not limited to, racial or sexual slurs, name calling, racist or sexist jokes, negative stereotyping, physical assault, bullying, threats, demeaning pictures, posters and graffiti, demeaning comments of a fellow interpreters abilities, or ethics.
Harassment includes the following categories of behavior, whether the behavior occurs once or many times:
a) Discriminatory behavior
Discrimination refers to treating people differently, negatively, or adversely because of one or more of the following prohibited grounds of discrimination: race, color, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, or pardoned criminal conviction.
b) Personal harassment
Personal harassment includes objectionable conduct, comment, or display made on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment on the part of the recipient. It may or may not be linked to discriminatory behavior.
c) Sexual harassment
Sexual harassment refers to any conduct, comment, gesture, or contact of a sexual nature, whether on a one-time basis or a series of incidents, that might reasonably be expected to cause offense or humiliation or that might reasonably be perceived as placing a condition of a sexual nature on work, an opportunity for training or promotion, receipt of services, or a contract.
Examples of behavior that can constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to: unwanted touching, patting or leering
sexual assault
inquiries or comments about a person’s sex life
telephone calls with sexual overtones
gender-based insults or jokes causing embarrassment or humiliation
repeated unwanted social or sexual invitations
inappropriate or unwelcome focus/comments on a person’s physical attributes or appearance
d) Bullying
Bullying consists of behavior to attack and diminish another by subjecting the recipient to unjustified criticism and trivial fault-finding, humiliating the recipient (especially in front of others), and/or ignoring, overruling, isolating and excluding the recipient.
e) Abuse of authority
Abuse of authority refers to an individual improperly using the power and authority inherent in a position to endanger a person’s ability to find work, undermine the performance of that work, threaten the person’s economic livelihood, or in any way interfere with or influence a person’s career. It is the exercise of authority in a manner that serves no legitimate work purpose and ought reasonably to be known to be inappropriate. Examples of abuse of authority include, but are not limited to, such acts or misuse of power as intimidation, threats, blackmail, or coercion.
f) Poisoned work environment
A poisoned work environment is characterized by an activity or behavior, not necessarily directed at anyone in particular, that creates a hostile or offensive workplace. Examples of a poisoned work environment include but are not limited to: graffiti, sexual, racial or religious insults or jokes, abusive treatment of an others, and the display of pornographic or other offensive material.
Many institutions in the USA have established zero tolerance policies relating to harassment / abuse for all employees regardless of position. RID is a member driven non-profit organization which is slightly different from companies / institutions however RID does hire the director of the national office as well as elect and appoint individuals to positions perceived to be of power / prestige within the organization.
Interpreters may feel that harassment / abuse is more of a personal issue and therefore does not require any actions by RID. However a zero tolerance policy creates a profession wide expectation that can strongly affect peoples behaviors.
By establishing RID non discriminatory and zero tolerance for harassment or abuse policies within RID it causes the national office to adopt and maintain the policies as well as to influence the culture of the interpreting profession. RID should follow the societal norm of having non discriminatory and zero tolerance for harassment or abuse policies.
Some may ask, “Doesn’t the CPC cover abuse”? If an interpreter is physically or sexually assaulted by a consumer (deaf or hearing) or by another interpreter then he/she has legal rights to deal with that abuse. However if an interpreter is sexually or emotionally harassed there is no legal course he/she may take because he/she is not an employee of a company with non-discriminatory and zero tolerance of harassment policies. The CPC does clearly state that an interpreter should make judgments in accepting assignments, which means an interpreter should not work with interpreters or consumers who have harassed or abused them in the past. This does not give interpreters recourse to do anything about the past event only prevent a future event. This allows abusers to continue to receive work and compensation and penalizes the abused. The CPC does not cover the institution of RID and its policies of hiring, electing, appointing, promoting, or selecting people for positions of power / prestige.
A zero tolerance policy is not geared at consumer’s rights to not be harassed or abused because that is protected under criminal statutes, by filing complaints against interpreters, or filing lawsuits.
Members of RID need to have a healthier concept of what it means to develop a thick skin, by being able to identify the difference between difficult situations and harassment or abuse, as well as how to deal with both difficult situations and abuse. Clear policies by RID encourages interpreters to analyze actions and make determinations whether events s/he experienced require further actions.
Psychological research has found that abused individuals often blame themselves for the abuse and strive to find solutions by modifying their own behavior. Ex: If I don’t do… or make sure I always do…. then the abuser will stop the abuse. People in general tend to view verbal / emotional abuse as less severe than physical or sexual abuse. Brain research has found that the same area of the brain is affected when a person is physically or emotionally abused. The pain and scars of all types of abuse are the same in the abused persons brain. Degree and duration of abuse determine depth of injury and emotional abuse can be severe in degree and long in duration. It has been a common misconception that abused people deserve it. Commonly called slut shaming for sexual assaults. Interprets have their own version of this by blaming the abused for not standing up for themselves or not having a thick enough skin for this profession. Another misconception and cultural norm is; women, individually and as a group, are of less value and therefore should accept abuse. Yet another common misconception is; If a person doesn’t abuse me then he/she is not an abuser and the person making the accusation is overly sensitive or needs to stand up for themselves. Abusers do not abuse everyone but select whom they will abuse based on perceived power structures. Abusers will continue to abuse someone even after that person has clearly stated his/her boundaries and explained to the abuser how he/she crossed those bounds.
Current brain and psychological research has found that abusers tend to abuse those whom they perceive as being weak, often have been abused when younger, and will continue to abuse if no interventions are initiated. Abusers also tend to seek positions of authority / prestige from whence they can find others to abuse or to use the position to justify their abusive actions. Brain research has identified the area of the brain that is stressed when a person is abused. This area of the brain is proximal to the area of the brain used for high-level decision-making. This results in an abused interpreter not being physiologically capable of maintaining his/her normal level of proficiency while interpreting. This results in a less than optimal interpretation as well as giving the abuser more fodder for their abuse.
RID should also be more proactive by formally teaching, as part of ethical decision-making, how to deal with abuse while interpreting. Helping interpreters identify the difference between a subjective feeling of being hurt and the repetitive degrading actions of abuse.
RID must take a firm stand against interpreter on interpreter harassment / abuse. When an interpreter is abusive to another interpreter there is a great likelihood that the abusive interpreter may abuse consumers and other interpreters later on.
The looming question not answered by establishing these policies is how it is to be enforced. One blanket method of identifying harassment or abuse and dealing with abusers cannot be applied to each level of the organization of RID. Each level will have to develop their own methodology preferably based on sound psychological, ethical, and logistical knowledge of the phenomenon of harassment / abuse and the environment in which it takes place. Many institutions provide workshops and online training in harassment and abuse.
Some members of RID may argue that we are powerless to do anything about abusive interpreters because any interpreter who is angry, holding a grudge, or wants to punish another interpreter will make a complaint against the target interpreter and accuse him/her of being an abuser. This is a common misconception. Interpreters who are abusive have a reputation of being abusive and there will be many complaints against them all containing statements of ongoing or repeated abusive actions. When an interpreter receives one complaint they should not have the full power of this proposal enacted however the interpreter receiving one complaint should want to know that someone has viewed his/her behavior as harassing or abusive in order to do self-reflection and evaluation to see if he/she should make any modifications in how they interact with others. It also gives the accused an opportunity to make amends to anyone he/she identified during the process of self-reflection they may have harmed. This kind of behavior leads to an open and forgiving atmosphere, acknowledging that we are human and make mistakes and broken relationships can be healed. When a pattern of complaints emerges then it is clear that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. (An accused interpreter should not be given the accusers name) The interpreter with multiple accusations of harassing or abuse needs to be informed, encouraged to seek professional help, and be banned / removed from positions of authority until he/she can show they have undergone treatment and have permanently changed their behavior.
Some may argue not to ban interpreters from teaching because some of the known abusers are “great presenters”. By allowing known abusers to teach at RID functions we are placing vulnerable students in the presence of a know abuser as well as giving a known abuser prestige within RID. Collectively RID must decide if the value of a workshops content is greater than the value of a culture, extolling a safe harassment and abuse free workplace. Abuse begets abuse.
If RID would act on this idea it would not seek to remove membership, credentials, certifications, or impose financial punishments on interpreters who harass or are abusive. Establishing a policy seeks to protect the integrity of RID and the interpreting profession, promote safe environments for members to work and learn, and encourage interpreters who have physiological issues that cause them to be abusive to seek treatment.
Burring ones head in the sand benefits no one. For far too long RID has buried its collective head in the sand and ignored this issue. Some may argue that it isn’t a big issue because there aren’t many interpreters who are abusive. I agree that there aren’t many abusive interpreters that is why this is called a zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy identifies that even though a problem isn’t large or systemic it is never acceptable under any circumstance. RID would never ignore physical or sexual abuse of an interpreter by another interpreter just because it happens rarely. There fore RID should never accept interpreter on interpreter harassment or abuse of any kind, ever!
RID oath, non discrimination and non abuse policies
An oath would need to be developed by a committee within RID and voted on by the membership however the basic concept of an interpreter oath would contain a pledge to: respect the consumers we work with, interpret to the best of our abilities, continue to grow and improve, and to adhere to the CPC. All people engaged in interpreting would be required to take the public oath created by RID to be considered a professional.
A non-discrimination policy can simply take an example policy and modify it to meet the professions needs. EX: The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status, in any of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to, hiring and firing of staff, selection of volunteers and vendors, and provision of services. We are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all staff, members, volunteers, subcontractors, and vendors.
A zero tolerance for harassment / abuse is simple to create.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf establishes a zero tolerance for any form of harassment or abuse. Thereby prohibiting in any of its endeavors and by any of its members behaviors.
RID actions in response breaking of the oath:
RID will follow the same protocol for breaches of the CPC.
RID actions in response to discriminatory actions:
RID will require documentation from any vendors or sub contractors of their established non-discriminatory policy. RID will require it's national office to implement and adhere to the same non-discrimination policy. RID will not select volunteers, vendors, or any entity providing services in the name of RID who behaves in a discriminatory manner.
RID actions in response to harassment abuse:
Interpreters who abuse other interpreters will not be allowed to hold any position of authority in RID on the national, regional, or chapter level. Positions of authority include; national office staff, board, committee, task force, or teaching positions (workshop presenters).
RID should make efforts to instruct interpreters in identifying harassment or abuse and appropriate actions to take in cases of harassment or abuse. Training on harassment provided by experts in the field can be easily provided on line. RID can also require training as one of the CEU requirements for all interpreters next CMP cycle.
Each level within RID should develop its own procedures for dealing with interpreter on interpreter harassment or abuse.
Written December 2014 by Bryon K. Rowe
MOST RECENT TO OLDEST
On Becoming a True Profession
The issue of interpreters having an oath, non-discrimination policy, zero tolerance for abuse policy.
To Speak or Not To Speak!
the issue of speaking English in the presence of Deaf people.
Interpreting With a Deaf Heart
The issue of interpreters having sensibilities to the people they interpret for.
Hybrid Hood
Deaf people have Deaf Hood CODAs have their Identity in the Deaf world can hearing people immerse themselves enough to be part of the Deaf community?
Issues With Continuing Education for Interpreters
Does the CEU system help, hinder, or have little impact on the ability of interpreters to improve.
To Speak or Not to Speak That is Still the Question!
2014
I didn't think language use was an issue at interpreter gatherings. Sure, I saw people speaking English only and sometimes even when Deaf people were around. I never really took the time to contemplate the issue. Then I attended the president's forum at RID region I conference. Attendees expected a discussion about goals for the future of RID. However, a slide came up during the PowerPoint with one simple word on it, "Language." A long discussion, and somewhat heated exchange, ensued over RID language "policy." This article isn't to recap what was said at the forum but rather to examine why the use of language is still an issue at interpreter gatherings. To be precise, the issue around language is; should hearing interpreters be speaking English (without signing) with each other at interpreter gatherings where Deaf people are in attendance.
The words "interpreter gatherings" or "gathering" is being used in this article to broaden its scope to include all events interpreters attend whether sponsored by other organizations or RID, as well as to include all different kinds of gatherings associated with RID. RID has official meetings, conferences, and social gatherings both planned and spontaneous, all at national, regional, and local levels. The broadening purpose is to shift focus to interpreters behavior and away from any particular organization.
RID and other organizations business meetings can establish a formal language policy and due to their official nature can enforce those policies. However, RID business meetings at all levels do not have the same standardized policy nor is it required that all business meetings follow one set protocol. At the national, regional, and local level policies can and have been set independently. Some levels within RID worked hard at implementing a policy that was carefully considered whereas others just fell into a policy without debate or deliberation. There is no standard language policy followed by all the different organizations interpreters may attend, even though the different organizations gatherings have similar events and issues regarding language.
At conferences a variety of languages are used during presentations, which causes attendees to become accustomed to the language of the presentation and carry that language with them outside of the presentation. If the presentation is in English and audience members can respond in English then human nature causes the communication norm of the presentation to be transferred to the next environment. The next environment may have both hearing and Deaf people present and no designated interpreters. One example is in the hallway outside of a workshop. RID conferences have been struggling with a language policy and have yet to come up with an across the board standard for all conferences. One issue under discussion is whether conference workshops, forums, meetings should be presented in ASL only, English with interpretations, or ASL with interpretations. The discussion focuses on whether or not there is a language policy that will solve the issues of language like, carry over, unintended exclusion, as well as others.
One situation where interpreters have expressed strong opinions about language use is at social gatherings. If a group of interpreters goes out for a drink after a conference to the hotel bar and all choose to talk instead of sign, what should the hosting organization do, if anything, about the situation? These impromptu events are taking place within the confines of the organization's conference / meeting that is supposed to be accessible, respectful and accepting of all it's members. Which means we want Deaf people to feel at home at these gatherings. If a Deaf interpreter or presenter who may not be known to a group of hearing interpreters passes by them while they are using only English, he / she is immediately excluded and may no longer feel at home. Deaf people in their gatherings have historically modified their communication to help hearing people who want to associate with them. However, interpreters at their gatherings do not always provide the same respect and accommodation for the Deaf.
When anyone mentions to interpreters that they aren't behaving inclusively, often the first knee jerk reaction is to "explain the reason" for the behavior, which I am translating to "making excuses." (this shows the authors bias)
What are the excuses?
It has been said, “Oral transliterators who don't know ASL will be excluded.” “Student interpreters who don't know ASL well will be excluded.” “Signing is work and when I'm relaxing (Ex: at a bar) I don't want to have to work.” ” It's silly or insulting for two people who both hear and speak English to sign to each other.” “I need to use my native language to communicate my ideas because I struggle with how to express them in ASL.”
There are also the unexpressed excuses: “RID has a history of snobbery related to ASL and if I sign in an English manner then I will be ridiculed either overtly or covertly.” “I don't want other interpreters evaluating me constantly on every sign choice I make.” “If I can't express clearly what I mean in ASL I will be judged to be an inferior interpreter.”
This list of "reasons" is not meant to be exhaustive but representative of the ones the author has heard used by interpreters. When contemplating reasons used by interpreters that are not listed above, the best course of action is to apply logical reasoning strategies to them as this article attempts to do in the following paragraphs.
Is there validity to the reasons / excuses?
Regarding the oral transliterator reason. There are about 150 RID certified oral transliterators, according to RID's membership online database. Of the 150 transliterators only 11 do not hold another certification requiring proficiency in ASL. The number of certified Deaf interpreters is close to 140 according to the same RID database (Aug 2014). The exact numbers will vary in the future but the ratio of people who only know English to Deaf people within RID and potentially attending any interpreter events is approximately 1:14. (These numbers only includes interpreters not presenters / friends) Why is it that interpreters default to using English to include the 1 transliterator yet ostracize the 14 interpreters who are Deaf? Formal and ad hoc interpreting activities can easily include the one transliterator.
Regarding the student reason. Students, we must remember, learn from making mistakes and to deny students the opportunity to make (sometimes very embarrassing) mistakes is to rob them of an opportunity to learn and grow. Frustration is a motivator. Students attending RID events should be fully informed that they will encounter language that they will not understand. This is part and parcel of the life of an interpreter. As an example; interpreters working at government sites are thrown into acronym soup and either sink or swim. Interpreters will always be confronted with language they don't understand so why shouldn't RID give students a real life experience by allowing them to be in an environment that may be linguistically overwhelming for them however at the same time is a safe place to be overwhelmed. Back in the day, wanna be interpreters would go to the Deaf club and have a similar experience. Being exposed to language that they couldn't understand in a friendly loving environment that told them it's OK not to know. "We love you for trying and we will help, just ask." This kind of challenging environment is a more effective way to learn than coddling.
Regarding the using ASL is work reason. Using ASL for non native individuals is work! Attending an interpreting gathering, such as a meeting or conference, is work! RID meetings, conferences, and social events involve both work and social / enjoyment components, however they are all part of our chosen profession and a profession is work. It is true there is more to interpreter gatherings then just work. There are opportunities to reconnect with friends and colleagues, entertainment opportunities, and opportunities to explore new places and meet new people. There is a danger of allowing the fun parts of interpreter gatherings to overshadow or take precedent over the working / professional aspects of the event. If an interpreter truly doesn't want to "work" at an interpreter gathering and only wants to have fun then he /she should take a vacation and not go to the professional event.
One reason RID instituted CEU requirement for interpreters was to weed out the interpreters that refused to, or were not interested in, continuing to develop. Interpreters simply must be motivated to pursue lifelong learning. On a side note; brain research shows people with an attitude of lifelong learning suffer much less degeneration in brain function during old age. ("Cognitive Benefits of Participation in Lifelong Learning Institutes." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.) Look on the bright side. Being an interpreter means having to always learn and, yes, go to interpreting events where work is required (even when not interpreting) but you could be sharp as a tack in your old age. One other misconception people in the USA have, is that learning is a passive action. People erroneously believe teachers give knowledge to students. Again, brain research disproves this notion. (Petress, Ken. "What Is Meant By "Active Learning?." Education 128.4 (2008): 566-569. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.) Learning is a cognitively taxing activity. People have to put effort in (work) to get benefit out (learn)! Chatting at the bar at the end of a long day at a conference is also a learning activity whether or not people choose to believe it. Other professions hold conferences and have gatherings at the bar at the end of the day. There is still an expectation that bar behavior will not reflect badly on the profession / company.
The unexpressed excuses can be basically described as natural human responses to fear. Many Interpreters have expressed innate fear of other interpreters. Some fear what other interpreters think, say, and feel about them. To put the blame on the organization of RID is not fair. RID is a member driven organization and some of RID's members have behaved badly in the past, and will probably do so again in the future. To say that RID is the cause of the fear is unfounded. Proof for this idea comes from other interpreter events like those hosted by Street Leverage and TerpExpo which have; Deaf people and hearing interpreters at them, have educational activities, and want to create an environment where Deaf people are included by the use of ASL. Interpreters have been observed at both Street Leverage and TerpExpo events choosing to speak English to each other in various settings and sometimes in the presence of Deaf people. If interpreters attend events such as these where there is no history of oppression, criticism, or snobbery, yet still exclude Deaf people by using only English then there is something more than just fear motivating the interpreters.
The ASL sign for policy and the English word policy to many peoples thinking implies a law. If a law is established it therefore follows that there will be punishments for breaking the law as well as the requirement to have enforcers of the law. (ASL COPS) Many interpreters have taken the policing of a perceived language policy at conferences into their own hands, resulting in alienation of the one policed or of the policing interpreter. New Jersey's affiliate chapter conference in 2013 decided to have all workshops and forums taught and lead by Deaf people using ASL. This decision resulted in a very large number of Deaf people in attendance during the whole conference. Many interpreters picked up on this fact and used ASL. However, even with the high percentage of Deaf people in attendance, interpreters still spoke English (not simcom) to one another in some situations at the conference.
Why is it that interpreters who are fluent in ASL and English default to English when they are at events where Deaf people are in attendance? Is it a malicious act to oppress Deaf people? I hope not and don't believe my fellow interpreters would do that. The reason could be that interpreters have an incorrect understanding of what interpreter gatherings entail. Some may unconsciously think only hearing people populate interpreter gatherings. There is also the accidental lapse into English in an environment where Deaf people are present. Accidental lapses should be able to be corrected by gentle reminders without shaming.
Could the reasons interpreters behave this way be due to internalized unevaluated audism? That explanation holds more water. If a person does something because it is just natural for them and they don't think how his or her actions will affect others, is a passive form of discrimination. The USA tried to inculcate its people into the belief that the USA is a homo-lingual society. Some localities actually codified into law that English is the one and only official language. Interpreters, as people raised in the USA, held the concept of English being the one, the only, and the best language embedded within their psyche, until they actively seek to remove it.
As interpreters who have learnt that many languages are used in the USA and as people who have learnt another language (or several) and have been exposed to different cultures we should be aware that the USA is in reality hetero-lingual. Awareness of the truth does not mean that indoctrination received while growing up has been magically removed. We still do things because "we've always done it that way." We have not been taught to recognize and realize that our natural tendencies can cause us to act in discriminatory ways, which are detrimental to others. When our natural tendencies oppress Deaf people it is the result of internalized audism. When we realize our actions hurt those whom we love, all the excuses we make for our actions become trivial. When, with full knowledge Deaf people are or could be present, and we choose to use a language that excludes Deaf people, we are oppressing them. When we realize our unconscious tendencies oppress others we need to alter our behavior.
Note: Audism is a term coined by Tom L. Humphries. Audism means a discriminatory nature as applied to the ability to hear.
The USA went through a turbulent period in the 60s and 70s attempting to deal with racism. The USA enacted laws in an attempt to control or eradicate racism. The laws gave oppressed minorities some power and helped reduce overt oppression but did little to combat racism. Today the USA is still a very racist country. The racism is only more subtle and covert than it was in the past. If RID and other interpreter organizations want to deal with the language issue they could follow the example of the USA and create policies in an attempt to force people into behaving appropriately. However, no one should be surprised when the results turn out to be the same as the continued prevalence of racism in the USA. If interpreters really want to solve the language issues when they gather together then they need to get at the heart of the matter. The internalized audism that interpreters have and aren't even aware that they have. This can only be done through education offered in a loving way to all.
Some leaders in the interpreting community may, in the past or in the future, try to solve the issue by enacting policies. For example: using SimCom at events, or providing closed loop listening devices to hear an English interpretation, or posting signs, or wearing badges that indicate language preference, or any number of ingenuous strategies. Each and every approach can be evaluated for effectiveness. SimCom has been found through scientifically supported research to not work yet proponents still swear by it. (Tevenal, Stephanie, and Miako Villanueva. "Are You Getting the Message?: The Effects of SimCom on the Message Received by Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Students." Sign Language Studies 9.3 (2009): 266-86. Web.) Interpretation approaches often result in complaints about effectiveness. Posted signs mandating behavior and badges identifying language preferences often cause people to feel insulted or oppressed.
Let's take a lesson from the people we owe our profession to. Deaf people (although not perfect) were confronted with language issues when they began to gather together for organizational meetings and conferences (oral deaf, Deaf blind, ASL, Signed English, etc.). They pointed the way to how to deal with language issues. Respect each and everyone’s language abilities and preferences. With a brave heart and openness, share how audism is in us and affects us all. With love, help any and all who seek to communicate to do so effectively. Providing access via interpretations. This Deaf culture collectivistic approach may not have solved all the problems but it has made great strides in areas where interpreters are stagnating.
Sept 2014
This author asks each and every interpreter to ask themselves a few questions before attending any interpreter related event.
Have I done any self-examination of internalized audism?
Have I consciously decided to help make the event accessible to all (including the Deaf)?
Am I willing to strive to open my mind to all things other interpreters share?
Am I willing to leave any unhelpful "baggage" (like my fears) at home?
Will I mentally rehearse how to share insights or opinions with respect?
Will I actively train myself in ways to lovingly help others with language issues or needs?
Interpreters need to create a culture where language use is not a divisive issue but a source of growth and enrichment. That culture begins with each and every one of us not something prescribed by those in authority and handed down in an edict.
Interpreting With a Deaf Heart
(Where Anxiety Meets Oppression)
Currently the sign language profession is asking itself what does it mean to have a “Deaf Heart”. This question is complicated and nuanced. This article attempts to look at one small aspect of the question. How interpreters through their own anxieties can oppress Deaf people.
Discrimination vs. Oppression
Discrimination is defined as: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things. While oppression is defined as: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. One key word in the definition of oppression is “control” due to the fact that interpreters are often attempting to control communication while interpreting.
Most people would differentiate between discrimination and oppression by degree and intent. The connotative meaning most people believe, is that discrimination has a more purposeful and deliberate intent with greater severity in degree, while oppression is usually viewed as being less deliberate and severe. In reality both discrimination and oppression have varying degrees of intent and severity.
Most interpreters view themselves as not oppressing Deaf people because of a lack of intent to oppress. However all people have behaviors that adhere to their culture’s inculcated norms without being aware of the oppressive nature of those behaviors.
When an interpreter follows the norms of the majority culture while interpreting without incorporating cultural mediation techniques then he / she may oppresses the Deaf participant(s).
An example of oppression via lack of mediation becomes obvious when analyzing communicative norms. The majority hearing community has established registers in English that are applied to specific situations. If a person is giving a lecture from a stage (high register) the hearing norm, for the audience, is to NEVER question, comment, interject, or discuss amongst themselves, during the presentation. Deaf communication norms are very different. Although the degree of question, comment, interjection, and discussion vary with register in ASL all of these behaviors are more prevalent in each register of ASL than in English.
One might ask why are hearing and Deaf communication norms different.
It is human nature to give greater value to anything that is scarce or in short supply, gold and diamonds for example. For hearing people clear, effective, and readily available communication is in abundance. For Deaf people clear, effective, and readily available communication is a more rare event. It makes perfect sense sociologically that Deaf people would cherish clear, effective, and readily available communication more than hearing people do. This attitude of cherishing every occasion for communication has lead Deaf people to employ a more collaborative communicative style and to use it in more settings than hearing people do.
There are a few commercially available curriculum for teaching ASL to adult second language learners, some based on a vocabulary approach, some based on traditional methods of teaching a second language to someone who has a well established first language. School districts do not, as a rule, have any established curriculum for teaching first language learners ASL. Without a curriculum and clearly established guidelines delineating the differences between modeling (with natural correction) and teaching, can an interpreter who may be highly proficient in ASL but is not a native user effectively provide a Deaf / HoH student with a solid enough foundation in ASL?
Deaf communicative norm is collaborative where hearing peoples communicative norm is deferential. (Norm meaning what is employed most frequently but does not mean that other communicative norms are never employed) Hearing people will employ a collaborative communicative form on occasion, however it tends to be used in more intimate situation (aka, lower register utterances) and often accompanied by jokes to ensure that the speaker is aware there is no intent to insult or degrade him / her. In contrast, Deaf people will employ a variety of collaborative communicative techniques in a broad range of registers.
When observing Deaf people communicating with each other in groups an observer will notice that the “audience” will correct an error the “speaker” makes. Deaf audience members will interject related material or ask for clarification. This is a collaborative approach to communication. People who are not fully versed in Deaf cultural norms might label the observed behaviors as being blunt and disruptive (connotatively implying a lack of sophistication and / or rudeness). For example: Two Deaf people were asked to tell stories to a group of interpreting students. One Deaf person was telling her story while the other was watching. The storyteller signed “YOU KNOW, WEST AREA, THREE FACE MOUNTAIN. I TOUCH FINISH”. The observing Deaf person interjected “FOUR PRESIDENT FACE MOUNTAIN, MT. R-U-S-H-M-O-R-E”. In this example of collaborative communication the storyteller did not request help, however it was given. The storyteller felt no disrespect or rudeness from the interjection.
When a group of Deaf people are viewing a lecture, sermon, etc. (high register) brief conversations will happen between two or more audience members for the purposes of; clarification, explanation, or adding supportive detail. If hearing audience members engaged in similar actions they would be viewed as rude and disrespectful.
Interpreters are trained in register norms for hearing people and sometimes to a lesser extent the register norms for Deaf people, and to an even lesser extent that the two norms are not the same. Where the education of interpreters tends to be severely lacking is in the factors that influence interpreter’s choice of which norms to follow or how to mediate the differences, and crucially how their choice can be oppressive to Deaf people.
The communicative norm differences between Deaf and hearing people coupled with the lack of interpreter training; with the addition of anxiety on the part of the interpreters create a fertile breeding ground for oppression. I remind the reader this is not a treatise on conscious, deliberate oppression but one how a confluence of circumstances can lead to oppression and what interpreters can do to prevent themselves from engaging in oppressive behaviors.
There are many factors that contribute to interpreter anxiety; stress, lacking in skill(s), interpretation errors, being confronted by disparate norms, and others not included in this article. How an interpreter copes with his / her anxiety will directly affect choices made. Without conscious training to make appropriate decisions under duress interpreters will default to what is most comfortable for them, which tends to be to follow the hearing majority cultural norms thereby oppressing the Deaf people being served.
Anxiety from stress.
The interpreting profession is inherently stressful. From the commuting to multiple sites during a day, meeting new people at each assignment, to being blindsided by requirements not told to the interpreter in advance. Interpreters may not view their job as inherently stressful because they receive enjoyment and a sense of satisfaction from their chosen profession. However stress is a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse of demanding circumstances. All interpreters will agree that interpreting happens in adverse and demanding circumstances. Driving in any city’s traffic is stressful, meeting people you don’t know is stressful, and having demands made on you is stressful.
Researchers Wallace & Truelove* trying to determine stress’ influence on performance did an experiment on school children taking a test. The students were divided into two groups. One group sat quietly for 10 minutes prior to taking a test while the other group was given paper and pen and asked to write about their feelings for 10 minutes before taking the test. The students who wrote about their feelings were able to relieve some of their stress (in the form of test anxiety) and consequently received an average of 10 points higher on their test results. This brain research found that the region of the brain that deals with stress, anxiety, and strong emotions is located below and adjacent to the region of the brain tasked with higher cognitive functions (the part interpreters need to interpret). Stress robs the brain of energy to do higher cognitive tasks.
It is natural for interpreters to experience anxiety in their everyday work environment. How interpreters deal with this stress can be a major source of Deaf oppression. The chain of events can go like this: stressful commute, no mitigating activity to relieve stress, less cognitive energy to interpret, more errors, more reliance by interpreter on ingrained tendencies, less cultural mediation, oppression of the Deaf.
Interpreters can break that example chain of events in several places. One way is to find some means of relieving stress like the researchers of test anxiety gave the students time to write about their feelings. Another is to actively seek training and activities that purge oneself of ingrained tendencies that could be oppressive. Yet another can be to actively seek training on cultural mediation techniques so that they become inculcated in your subconscious thereby becoming a default activity not one requiring a lot of cognitive energy to do.
Anxiety from errors:
“Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly” John F Kennedy.
Sign Language interpreting is a performance profession. This means that there is no one right way to create an interpretation. Unlike making a watch from standardized parts in a pre-established order interpreting is highly subjective. Being a performance profession also means it is done in the presence of other people. Combining the subjective nature and the public nature of interpreting adds to the stress interpreter’s experience. Interpreters may not think they are experiencing stress however it is normal to have increased stress when one’s life’s work can not be empirically determined to be correct but is subjectively analyzed to be acceptable and one is being judged in a public arena. There for a performance profession is inherently stressful and inherently stressful activities cause people to make mistakes as show by the research of Wallace & Truelove.
All interpreters will make errors. How interpreters respond to the errors and corrections given to them have a great impact on the interpretation and as described before can lead to oppression.
The kind of attitude an interpreter has when involved in the art of interpretation will influence the outcome.
Entering into any interpreting event with and adversarial attitude among any of the participants (Deaf, hearing, team interpreter, setting) will increase anxiety, decrease effectiveness by increase errors, and most importantly increase the likelihood of oppression to the Deaf participants.
Misunderstanding of the collaborative communicated norm of Deaf people and their intentions behind corrections will cause a domino effect of increased anxiety in the interpreter which leads to more errors and decreased self-confidence culminating in a downward spiral and a negative feedback loop resulting in a less than ideal interpretation. Entering into an interpreting event with an attitude that collaboration among all participants is the norm will encourage others who may have an adversarial attitude to change, will show participants the interpreter has respect for all members present, and willingness to make the interpreting event as successful as possible.
Anxiety from level of skill:
RID / NAD code of professional conduct tenet 2 “Interpreters possess the professional skills and knowledge required for the specific interpreting situation”
Whenever interpreters gather there will always be stories shared of “interpreters” who accept assignments that they should not have due to not having the necessary skills required to adequately interpret the event. This article is not a discussion of unethical behaviors of non-certified interpreters or of certified interpreters who behave unethically. This section is focused on a qualified interpreter who in good faith accepted an assignment and is qualified to do the assignment, however something is added to the assignment that the interpreter’s current skills are not adequate to meet the challenge.
When an interpreter finds themselves in a situation where they do not have adequate skills to do the job there are several normal human responses; Self-deprivation, blaming of others, defensiveness and attempts to cover up or smooth over the resulting errors.
There can be a fine line between accepting appropriate responsibility and self-deprecation. Apologies for errors ones commits are common courtesy but should be kept to a minimum and applied only to errors one has control over. Some people emphatically apologize for things beyond their control and repeatedly apologize. Self-deprecation is in actuality not an attempt to apologize but an attempt by the self-deprecating person to manipulate others into not assigning blame to himself / herself. (If I beat myself up enough you won’t have the heart to say anything bad about me.) Behaving in a self-deprecating way can rob the Deaf person of his / her legitimate right to give feedback. Although it is understandable for an interpreter to not want his / her errors scrutinized in public, attempting to quash the Deaf person’s feedback can be oppressive.
In this age of great access to information it is disconcerting that due of the structure of how interpreters are assigned to provide services, vital information the interpreter needs to know in order to effectively interpret is often not provided them. Interpreters placed in a situation where they cannot provide adequate services will feel guilty, even though it is not their fault and they would have declined the assignment had they been properly informed. How the interpreter deals with his / her feelings of guilt and inadequacy can either lead to a successful outcome or oppression of the Deaf person. In this situation which would a Deaf person prefer to have? An interpreter wasting precious time berating an agency or hiring entity or an interpreter ready and willing to be a colleague working with them to advocate for appropriate services?
When I was a teenager my family moved to a new state. On the occasion of my first visit to the local Deaf club I was asked by a woman “ WANT PLAY ?-?-?-?-?”. (? represents fingerspelled letters) She had severe arthritis and I didn’t understand her fingerspelling. After two attempts at trying to understand I gave up and shook my head yes. Another Deaf woman who was at the table with us exuberantly educated me that it is wrong to just shake your head and agree when you don’t understand. As a kid it was my norm to try to hide or cover up my lack of skill. Interpreters raised in American hearing majority culture have the same gut response.
April 2012
Deaf cultural and communicative norms are not based on saving face but are based on the preciousness of all communication. When interpreters follow hearing norms and try to save face or cover up they are in danger of oppressing Deaf people.
Viewing a situation where skills are lacking as a failure versus as an opportunity to learn and grow can also have oppressive effects. It is easy to feel failure and it is a natural response to become introspective however there is an appropriate time for introspection and a time for action. Deaf people’s right to improve their lot in life via feedback is important to respect. When an assignment goes awry and a Deaf person has feedback to help you improve your skills it may be hard to take at that moment but remember the collaborative nature of the Deaf community and take the feedback as a positive attempt to help even if the Deaf person is angry while giving it. (Don’t shoot the messenger just heed the message) We all have the right to feel frustration. After this kind of event interpreters need to find a way to release their anger and frustration in a non detrimental or destructive way, as well as taking time to make sure the feedback given is analyzed and incorporated into the interpreters set of skills. Dismissing feedback because of the manner in which it was given or because of the state of mind of the interpreter when it was given is oppressive to the Deaf community.
Anxiety of breaking social norms:
Hearing interpreters will be very aware of the norms expected in settings where hearing people are the “speaker”. If an interpreter fears the social repercussions of breaking the hearing norm for the situation then he / she will subjugate the Deaf person(s) norms thus oppressing the Deaf.
A classroom is a good example of established norms that differ between hearing and Deaf. In a classroom with a Deaf teacher and all Deaf students there is much more a give and take, discussion, and collaboration. In a classroom with a hearing traditionalist educator the students are expected to sit quietly while the instructor imparts his / her wisdom. What happens when a traditionalist teacher has Deaf student(s) and an interpreter in the classroom? The interpreter knows there is a difference in expected norms. What does the interpreter do? If the interpreter simply follows the teachers norms because he / she does not want to challenge the authority of the teacher or change the status quo isn’t he / she oppressing the Deaf student by siding with the teacher? In this scenario an interpreter can actively focus on cultural mediation in BOTH directions. Allowing both parties to follow their own norms and mediating between them via expansion, explanation, turn taking, etc.
In conclusion, here is a question to ponder. Can Sign Language interpreters, inculcated in hearing peoples communicative norms, while under duress, encumbered by his / her own guilt from making errors during a communication event, hope to defy the odds and render a non-oppressive experience for Deaf people? I would love to answer this question with an unequivocal yes but I can’t. Interpreters can however continually self-evaluate their skills, errors, stress levels, inculcated norms and continue to learn about Deaf culture, norms, and communicative styles. Ever striving to divest themselves of oppressive tendencies.
Wallace, Beverly A., and James E. Truelove. "Monitoring student cognitive-affective processing through reflection to promote learning in high-anxiety contexts." J Cogn Affect Learn 3.1 (2006): 22-7.
Hybrid Hood
I have seen the Deaf community transition through several expressions of what it means to be Deaf / deaf / Hard of Hearing, in my over 40 years of associations. From NAD meetings, Deaf clubs, Deaf churches, the burgeoning communication via mailbox sized TTYs, Deaf Way, DPN, Sidekicks, VP, to Deaf Hood.
I have had several opportunities to attend presentations by Deaf people on the topic of Deaf Hood. I fully support each individual Deaf persons exploration of his / her own Deaf Hood and what it means to accept his / her unique journey of understanding. What it means for them to be the unique D/deaf person he / she is.
At RID national conference a motion was passed to begin the process of having a member of the board of directors who has Deaf Parent(s). RID, with the recent change of implementing a permanent seat for a Deaf member on the Board of Directors and the current move to have a person with Deaf Parent(s) on the board (formally called a CODA) is embracing it's heritage and ensuring the perspectives of theses two groups will be encoded in, and ensured to be vital parts of, RID for it's posterity.
I am excited and supportive of both the Deaf Hood concept and RID's move to keep its roots reflected in its Board of Directors but then I asked myself "Where do I fit in? What is my Hood?"
I am not a CODA yet I began learning sign at 8 years of age from my Deaf Cousin. I am not Deaf or even Hard of Hearing, in fact from the medical perspective I am an oddity by having exceptional hearing exceeding that of a person half my age. Even though I "hear" I don't feel a full member of the hearing community. The hearing community has looked me upon with incredulity for my avid support of linguistic minorities, a communal cooperative approach to life's decisions, making my environment visually accessible even when no Deaf people are present and many other Deaf community norms I embody. Those who know me tolerate my idiosyncrasies (as they see them) of occasionally signing when I am speaking, trying to sign to a far away friend who doesn't know sign, my occasional signing in my sleep.... and the list goes on and on. Due to my approach to life I have found myself in heated debates with hearing people that conclude with my feeling I just don't fit within the typical Hearing Community.
My Deaf friends have said to me that I have a "Deaf Heart" yet I am still an outsider no mater how Deaf my heart may be because I cannot experience the totality of what a Deaf person does. I don’t have the same experiences as a hearing person who has Deaf parents. I was not forced into interpreting in family situations I volunteered.
Where do I fit in? Biologically I am hearing but I am much more than my ears. Linguistically I am bilingual however I have strong preferences for using ASL as a more dominant language in my life, for many reasons. Culturally I have been in both the Deaf and Hearing cultures almost all of my life and can identify with both.
Some people have postulated a third culture of "Sign Language Interpreter" which I understand as a person who is in both the Deaf world and Hearing world as well as having their own lingo and culture dealing with the profession of interpreting and associating with other interpreters. Yes, I am part of this "third culture" however I do not culturally identify myself with my profession. I have worked in both Deaf and hearing environments that did not include interpreting. I was a certified Nurses Aid, Pre-School teacher, group home resident advisor, waiter.... and over 20 extremely varied other part time jobs held at the same time as holding down one of my full time jobs some of which I used only ASL others I used only English and a few where I used both. I may not be an interpreter for the rest of my life and I was in this same position straddling two worlds yet not feeling totally included in either, long before I was an Interpreter and it will persist long after I cease to interpret. My self-identification is not dependent on interpreting.
To express this feeling I used the term Hybrid Hood. Hybrid Hood reflects a combination of two or more things and the process of living in and accepting this state.
I am not unique in feeling a Hybrid Hood, however most people who experience this struggle are children raised by parents of a minority culture living within a different majority culture. The isolation I feel stems from my being "almost" accepted in both cultures. Hearing label me as “idiosyncratic” and I am not a CODA so there for not officially part of Deaf world. I can pass for hearing but the hearing community never fully accepts the entirety of who I am. I am loved and embraced by the Deaf community but I am not Deaf and neither are my parents so there are things I can never be part of. The CODA / IDP community do not embrace me because having only a Deaf cousin isn't quite enough.
I do wonder sometimes if there are any other people who have similar life journeys feeling a part of yet not fully embraced by either Culture. Out in the hinterlands without the consolation of others who share your Hybrid Hood. As the number of people involved with the Deaf / deaf / Hard of Hearing communities who are not CODAs or SODAs increase and the length of time they are involved approaches the majority of their lives will there be more "hybrids" seeking their own "hood"? How will the Deaf / Hearing / Interpreter communities embrace them?
All in all, I am actually quite happy in my Hybrid Hood and look forward to the growth and changes that will inevitably be part of my life as I live in this unique mixture of languages, cultures, and beauty that is my life. If there are others out there like me I encourage you to embrace your unique Hybrid Hood and revel in the joy of your specialness.
Oct 2010
RID's Cracked Educational Underpinnings
RID's CEU paradigm has been less than successful! One might even say it has failed. Why would one say the CEU paradigm has failed? First the original goals of the Certification Maintenance Program need to be codified. Then each will be examined.
Professionalism:
Professions often require continued education within the field to ensure practitioners are up to date with current findings, trends, research, etc. RID wants to be viewed as an organization of professionals there for requiring certified members to continue their education was intended to give that impression.
Advancement:
RID has consistently and continually stated that certification is a minimum standard. This is exemplified by the recent attempts to have a tiered certification. Instituting a requirement of continuing education was intended to be a mechanism to help encourage members to advance beyond the minimum standard.
Quality Control:
RID has a problem of having many different exams by which a person could have become certified and a valid question exists as to weather the exams are equivalent to each other. This puts into question if there is any consistency of quality and skill among those holding certification. In an attempt not to alienate interpreters a culture of "grandfathering" all certification exams was instituted. The CEU program was a thinly veiled attempt at weeding out interpreters whose skills were not up to the current acceptable standard. Through the assumption that if an interpreter held an old certification and had not put in the effort to improved over the many years of working that said interpreter would not put forth the work required to maintain the certification. Creating a de facto program of certification revocation.
RID is currently undergoing an exploration of what is its purpose. Is RID a certifying body, a professional organization, or both? RID is clear that it is NOT an educational body. However with instituting the CMP RID has taken on aspects of an educational body. RID established degree and CEU requirements, as well as the requirements for achieving degree equivalence. RID certifies CEU sponsors, evaluates proposed workshops and trainings and in essence accredits them. These are example of RID taking on functions of an educational institution.
Historically RID members gathered together for the mutual enhancement of the profession. Educational activities at the beginning of RID were sometimes formal and often impromptu education through members sharing of their experiences.
As RID grew and matured the membership decided education in a more formal / institutional format was essential to the overarching goal of elevating the field of interpreting into a respectable PROFESSION. RID being aware it is not an educational institution delegated the degree standards to existing institutions however RID did not do the same thing for the CMP / CEU.
Failure of RID's current CEU standards is exemplified by the SEXIST phrase circulating among members, "CEU whore". Firstly the phrase is highly offensive by equating interpreters with whores, which would never have been done in a male dominated profession. Secondly and more importantly is the reason such a phrase was coined and used in RID. The phrase basically describes individuals who seek CEUs based primarily on ease and only for the purpose of satisfying the RID numerical 8 CEU requirements. Ethical interpreters have expressed shock and disquiet that they were awarded CEUs for the second time they taught a workshop, or went to a workshop that they were unaware was almost exactly the same as one they had recently attended. Members receive CEUs for duplicate events regardless of the fact the workshops were basically or exactly the same.
Regarding professionalism:
RID established a numerical system of CEUs with two broad and not well-defined categories. Nowhere within the CMP is there a mechanism to ensure interpreters are exposed to current findings, trends, research, etc. or tested to see if they have understood and can incorporate new findings, trends, and research into their work. Construction professionals are required to take training specifically geared to new advances and laws in the field and at the conclusion of the training are tested on the new information presented. This is not a whole new certification test but more like a short quiz on the new information. The failure of RID in this arena can easily be illustrated by the number of interpreters who still use terms like (voicing, role shift, etc.) and whom have no idea what expansion and compression techniques are or what demand and control schema means. Just to provide a few examples. RID requirements of 6 CEUs per 4 (5 for newly certified) year cycle in professional areas and 2 CEUs per cycle in general studies break down education into a simplistic numerical system. The definition of professional and general are not widely understood by RID members as evidenced by interpreters comments at conferences about weather or not a forum or meeting earns CEUs and which kind it can earn.
RID will always (and should always) have interpreters who enter the field because of their childhood association with Deaf people. These interpreters will have a degree of some kind and will have acquired ASL and interpreting skills through non-formal educational means. These interpreters will have the skills required to pass RID certification exams but have not attended an ITP there for will not have been exposed to ASL linguistic language, interpreting concepts and labels. If these interpreters are to become representatives of the professionalism desired by RID they should be educated in the areas they are lacking. Interpreters who have been working for many years (over 15 to 20) may have never attended an ITP yet are certified and perhaps have a bachelor’s degree however they also may be lacking in the same areas.
For RID to be truly professional then forcing all interpreters to take the most recent certification exam is not the only way to ensure all interpreters are qualified. A program of evaluation of minimum standards should be instituted. Educational professionals should be contracted by RID to research, evaluate, and quantify current ASL and interpreting research, trends, and findings. Then the conclusions should be incorporated into training that all interpreters would be required to take. The training should end with a formal means of evaluation to see if the interpreters adequately comprehend the new information. (NOT a certification test but a QUIZ) This process should be repeated on a regular scheduled based on the quantity and quality of new research as well as on the number of interpreters who are lacking in understanding of vital concepts accepted as standards in the field. When certified members are unaware of or unable to articulate the current research, trends, laws, finding, etc. within our field then the goal of greater professionalism has failed.
Regarding advancement:
If RID certification is indeed a minimum standard and interpreters ethically should continue to improve then interpreters need guidance on how to accomplish this. No individual is (or should be) expected to develop his / her own ITP curriculum. RID members are not professional educators and there for do not have the skills required to develop and institute an individual education curriculum. Educational professionals develop curriculum and accreditation standards.
For people thinking of becoming an interpreter there are clear guidelines and requirements developed by institutions of higher education and accredited by the Conference of Interpreter Trainers called ITPs. For certified interpreters wishing to advance beyond the minimum standard of certification there is no institution, program, or body providing guidance other than the very few advanced degree programs. An advanced degree is not always an appropriate or most effective means of advancement for interpreters who want to improve beyond the minimum quality afforded by a certification. An individual educational plan that leads an interpreter beyond certification is what is needed. A plan should help an interpreter identify his / her areas of strengths and weaknesses with corresponding goals and a methodical approach to achieving those goals.
RID's current CEU paradigm enables a haphazard, disjointed and non-comprehensive approach of continued education for certified interpreters.
One glaring example of how members of RID expresses ignorance of the advancement purpose of RID CEU requirements is through their comments submitted at the conclusion of workshops. Members often focus comments on the entertaining nature of the workshop, personality of the presenter, and environmental factors of the location, and other superfluous comments (some required by RID, like advanced advertisement of event) thus showing that the educational purpose of workshops are often not deemed the most significant part of the EDUCATIONAL event in the eyes of the interpreter.
RID's current “figure it out for yourself” paradigm stifles advancement. Interpreters cannot advance when there is no clear identification of, or structure to, advancement.
Regarding Quality Control:
The hope that members with old certifications would all retire or be forced out due to the "hardship" of earning the required CEUs has not transpired. The CMP in not having any structure has created an system that is easy to accumulate the required number of CEU’s thus maintaining ones certification. Evidence for this can be found by doing some simple statistical analysis of RID's public data base. In Nov. 2012 a query of RID membership database showed 6 interpreters (not retired) who hold ONLY an IC, 32 (not retired) who hold ONLY a TC 110 holding IC/TC (IC / TC are the oldest and most incomplete certifications). IC and TC were, when implemented, considered stepping-stones to the minimum quality certification of CSC. Currently 148 (approx. 1.5 %) of the 9694 certified members listed in RID database have certifications that are considered less than the minimum standard to be qualified (this does not mean they are not skilled interpreters only that there is no reliable documentation of their skill). Add to those the 1147 non-certified (not student) members reporting themselves as freelancers, brings the total to almost 12% of working interpreters who are enrolled in CMP / ACET program who do not hold the minimum standard for working interpreters. (These numbers only reflect RID members and not working interpreters who are not members of RID) The 12% of interpreters are basically told by RID through the CEU requirements to "improve" without any mechanism to help them take and pass the current exam, or structure of a series of trainings that if completed with a passing grade would verify an interpreter is not just certified but qualified. The current CMP structure has way to many loopholes making quality control mute.
RID study materials for taking and passing the current written and performance exams are helpful for uncertified interpreters but nothing of the same ilk exists for certified interpreters seeking to advance beyond minimum certification standards.
Some would say this is a mute point because ethical interpreters would not behave in such a manner and an unethical interpreter should be reported. This view is simplistic and naive because it does not take into account the economic and geographic variances among interpreters. Some areas of the country an interpreter can make a decent living as well as being able to afford quality educational opportunities while other areas of the country do not afford economic strength and stability. Some geographic regions are rich with the human resources of highly qualified presenters and offer a wide range of educational opportunities while other regions do not.
How are RID members to become aware of current findings, trends, research, etc.? RID does not have any formal program to disseminate information on current findings, trends, research, etc. How can we hold interpreters accountable for things they are not informed of? RID's publications The Views and JOI are two means to disseminate information however their format does not address the randomness, and non-comprehensive nature of the information interpreters receive.
RID's current CMP does not achieve the goals of professionalism, advancement or quality control due to its weak structure, haphazard and non-comprehensive nature. New Jersey is the only state, this author is aware of, that has codified into law both performance and educational requirements for educational interpreters. Some interpreters complain about New Jersey's educational requirements of five specific college courses not all being appropriate and are not offered often enough or in geographically convenient locations. If RID were to attempt to fix its cracked educational underpinnings it can learn from the errors New Jersey confronts by making sure all content of mandatory trainings is indeed ESSENTIAL, and not something self-serving educators want to teach. Trainings will need to be offered in convenient geographic locations and frequently enough to meet the needs of RID members. Financial support must also be incorporated in the program to even the playing field for interpreters in economically challenging geographic locations.
The CMP has encouraged (not intentionally) a new business model to develop, that of workshop presenters. Perhaps establishing a more formal CMP model geared to measurable and achievable advancements for certified interpreters then another business model of trained educational professionals will be created to meet the needs of certified interpreters desiring to achieve greater than the minimum standard of certification. If RID does ever figure out a way to have verifiably distinct certification levels it will also need to codify what skills each level represents and educational benchmarks needed to achieve them. Without a coherent educational framework just telling interpreters to "go for it, strive to get better" then the membership of RID will be severely underserved and the success of certification levels will be doomed.