Jules Dickinson is a BSL/ English interpreter, consultant, trainer and practitioner-researcher based in the East Midlands. She has a strong interest in office/ Access to Work interpreting, which led to her PhD research at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, completed in 2010. The research takes a Community of Practice approach to examining the ways in which signed language interpreters impact on the interaction between deaf and hearing employees in workplace settings, focusing specifically on humour, small talk and the collaborative floor.
In Part One, I highlighted the feelings of depersonalisation and objectification I had experienced whist working as a ‘staff’ interpreter. I referred to two of the unique features of workplace interpreting, namely the regularity and consistency of the contact we have with deaf and hearing clients, and the shift in the power dynamic from deaf ‘client’ to deaf ‘boss’. In Part Two, I want to consider how interpreters can change their practice to ‘humanise’ their role in workplace interpreting and how we can begin to open out the issues for discussion with deaf and hearing clients.
Not being ‘seen’ or ‘heard’- the tension created by ‘being invisible’
In his recent article on Educational Interpreters Doug Bowen-Bailey talks about interpreters stepping out of the shadow of invisibility and maximising their effectiveness by bringing their ‘full sense of humanity’ to their work. He asks us to think of a situation where there is a greater power imbalance than when one deaf student is in a mainstream school totally designed for English speaking students who cannot sign. I suggest an equivalent is where there is one deaf employee in a workplace entirely staffed by hearing people. It therefore seems appropriate to echo Doug’s call for interpreters to be more active and visible- the question is how can we do that without impinging on the relationship between the deaf and hearing client?
One way is to consider what Robert Lee and Peter Llewellyn Jones (2011) refer as the interpreter’s role space, this being the degree to which an interpreter is present in any interaction. They describe role space as being a combination of three elements, namely:
• presentation of self (behaviours where the interpreter speaks/acts for and/or about himself/ herself)
• interaction management (behaviours that the interpreter uses to manage the interaction)
• participant alignment (the extent to which the interpreter directs their communication to, or seems to identify with, a particular participant/ group of participants. This can also include how the interpreter reacts to utterances made by a participant)
They state that these dimensions of the interpreter’s role space will contract or expand according to the setting and participants. This idea of being able to maximise and minimise our presence according to the situation in which we find ourselves is helpful in allowing us to break away from rigid role descriptions. It enables interpreters to begin to explore what they can do, rather than focus negatively on what they feel they shouldn’t be doing. For example, in a situation like a team meeting, the interpreter may need to accentuate the elements of interaction management and presentation of self, and devote less energy to the element of participation alignment. By managing turn-taking more ‘overtly’ and by projecting more of their ‘self’ into the meeting the interpreter may be able to register their presence and reduce their objectification. This in turn may enable more effective turn-taking, thus allowing the deaf employee to participate on an equal footing with their hearing peers.
In some situations the interpreter may need to increase the extent to which they align with individuals. Hauser and Hauser (2008), refer to the designated interpreter’s role, describing someone who is a dynamic and active participant in the deaf professional’s environment. The designated interpreter is both interested in and committed to the deaf professional’s work (Cook, 2004), and positively aligns themselves with the goals and aims of the deaf professional (Hauser & Hauser, 2008). This is a fairly large step away from our understanding of our role as impartial and neutral, and may initially make us feel uncomfortable. However, if we can understand and reflect on our rationale for this shift, with a focus on the successful outcomes of the interpreted event, then we can begin to move away from a fixed view of our role.
Understanding the system we work in
Interpreters can draw on the concepts and approaches described above in order to bring a more human presence to their workplace role, but they also need to contextualise their position in the workplace environment. One way of doing this is to gain a deeper understanding of the ‘system’ (Bowen-Bailey, 2013) they are working in. Peoples’ behaviour in the workplace environment is underpinned by a vast tract of unwritten rules and norms. As interpreters, we need an in-depth awareness of these norms and must continually make decisions about the extent to which we can or cannot accommodate them in our role. Deaf and hearing clients will have certain expectations of how the interpreter will behave. Hearing employees may expect us to relate to them as fellow employees, whilst the deaf employee may expect an interpreter who is ‘on their side’. It seems clear that if we continue to operate in the workplace according to the conduit model we will continually run into conflict with these expectations. We therefore need a much clearer and detailed awareness of the norms of the environment we work in, so that we can adjust our role accordingly.
Making changes
Interpreters need to think about how they can work more positively with both deaf and hearing clients, moving away from the old disengaged, non-involved model to begin to open up new working practices. We can effect some change ourselves:
How we talk about ourselves- if you continually refer to yourself as either ‘the interpreter’ or ‘just the interpreter’ then that is how you will be treated. Experiment with different ways of emphasising your presence, e.g. ‘My name is Erica and I will be interpreting this meeting today’ has a different impact compared to ‘I am the interpreter today’.
How others talk and interact- Helen Gillespie and Caron Wolfenden (2012) refer to the need for the interpreter to ‘integrate’ themselves into the specific work culture of the deaf professional, blending in so as to provide access for the Deaf professional to do their job to the best of their ability. This is not possible unless interpreters are fully cognizant with the environment in which they are working. So, observe how other employees relate to each other. Consider their vocabulary, register and tone. Note the patterns of behaviour in a particular Community of Practice or workgroup and try and mirror some of these behaviours yourself.
How we talk with each other- we need to start that conversation! If we want to address some of the uncomfortable tensions that exist as a result of deaf people moving into positions of power, we must acknowledge those tensions and begin discussions with deaf clients. We have to be open and honest about what affects us and how it impinges on our work. We also need to be talking with hearing employees, explaining both the flexibility and limitations of our role. Appropriate training about working with interpreters would benefit both deaf and hearing employees.
Finally, interpreters need to be talking to each other, exploring the difficulties (and positives) of interpreting in the workplace, and working together to devise better, ethically-sound practices suited to this specific setting. One way of doing this is through the ‘professional’ supervision process whereby practice and decisions can be explored, challenged and reflected upon in a safe and supportive space.
Moving forward
This discussion is just the beginning and hopefully will raise more questions than provide answers. How do interpreters create ‘space’ for themselves? What does an ‘interpreter/ employee’ shape look like? How do freelance interpreters manage some of the issues experienced by staff interpreter colleagues? Let’s start that conversation.
References
Bailey-Bowen, D. (2013) ‘Ethical Choices: Educational Sign Language Interpreters as Change Agents’ (Street Leverage Blog) http://www.streetleverage.com/2013/04/ethical-choices-educational-sign-language-interpreters-as-change-agents/
Cook, A. (2004) ‘‘Neutrality? No Thanks. Can a Biased Role be an Ethical One?’ Journal of Interpretation, pp. 57-74
Gillespie, H. & Wolfenden, C. (2012) I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’, In Dickinson, J. & Stone, C. Developing the Interpreter; Developing the Profession, ASLI Conference Proceedings, Doug Mclean Publishing: Gloucestershire, England pp. 118- 140
Hauser, A. B. & Hauser, P.C. (2008) ‘The Deaf Professional- Designated Interpreter Model’, in Hauser, P.C., Finch, K.L., and Hauser, A.B. (eds.) Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters: A New Paradigm, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 3-21
Lee, R.G. & Llewellyn Jones, P. (2011) Re-visiting Role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour, Supporting Deaf People online conference 2011
role
There are 2 posts tagged role (this is page 1 of 1).
The Access to Work ‘staff’ interpreter – we need to start a conversation! (Part One)
Jules Dickinson is a BSL/ English interpreter, consultant, trainer and practitioner-researcher based in the East Midlands. She has a strong interest in office/ Access to Work interpreting, which led to her PhD research at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, completed in 2010. The research takes a Community of Practice approach to examining the ways in which signed language interpreters impact on the interaction between deaf and hearing employees in workplace settings, focusing specifically on humour, small talk and the collaborative floor.
Can a ‘staff interpreter’ [1] ever fully integrate into the workplace and be treated as a real employee…or even as a human being? Having worked in this particular domain for over 10 years, this is a question which has been on my mind for some time. I have often struggled with what feels like a lack of basic recognition of my needs as a fellow employee. Sometimes, just getting my presence acknowledged is a challenge. If asked to describe my stint as a staff interpreter I would say that I have often felt as though I have been treated as a ‘robot’, a ‘commodity’, or even as a ‘dog’- these descriptors might seem a little harsh, but from discussions with other colleagues I am aware that such experiences are common in this setting. It seems unlikely that deaf and hearing colleagues are treating interpreters this way intentionally, so we need to look closely at where this issue is originating from. Is it just a lack of awareness about our role? Are we, as interpreters, projecting a message of invisibility? Do we direct the focus of hearing people to the deaf client to the detriment of representing ourselves and our needs? Does this relatively new domain bring with it a need for a redefined, more visible role? Do we need to expand our ‘role space’? (Lee & Llewellyn-Jones 2011). Let’s consider some of the issues in more detail.
Regular contact
On the surface, the staff interpreter’s role should be no different to the interpreter’s role in other domains. However, there are a number of factors which make working in this setting quite different to other assignments which interpreters undertake. One issue is the regularity of contact with both deaf and hearing clients. Educational interpreting aside, the majority of our assignments in the community do not result in us working alongside the same deaf and hearing people for months (sometimes years) on end. This degree of regular contact we have with all employees can lead to boundaries being less clearly defined. You cannot work in the same team or organisation, day in and day out, without engaging in personal social conversation. In doing so we often form acquaintances and friendships with the individuals with whom we work and this in turn inevitably leads to a blurring of the traditional interpreter/ client boundaries. Through this regular, social contact we effectively become ‘more visible’- we affirm our presence in the workplace. This consistency of contact should result in interpreters being seen very much as human beings, but research findings (see Dickinson, 2010) and anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not the case. For example, in a previous staff interpreter role, I was continually referred to as ‘the interpreter’ by both deaf and hearing staff, despite having worked alongside them on a daily basis for a number of years. This left me feeling depersonalised and objectified, with a strong sense of not being a ‘real’ colleague or fellow employee. Was I the instigator of this objectification? Did I, through my behaviour and my language choice, subtly reinforce the perception that my role as an interpreter precludes my ability to also be a colleague or fellow employee? Reflecting on my practice in this domain I think that I probably did. I believe that the conduit model of interpreting is so deeply entrenched in our psyche that it overrides what we have been taught about being a ‘pro-active third participant’. We are experiencing a tension between how we think we should conduct ourselves (be neutral, be impartial) and how we need to behave in this new domain (be human, make contact, be involved). I believe we unconsciously resist the pull to engage with our colleagues and fellow employees, so as not to undermine our neutral stance.
A change in the power dynamic – from client to boss
Another major difference is the shift in power in the interpreter/ client relationship. Traditionally, in community interpreting, deaf people have been in a relatively powerless position, often the recipient of services from other professionals. This presents a very different power dynamic to a situation where the deaf employee is on an equal footing with both their hearing peers/ fellow professionals and with the interpreter. Often, the deaf person is now our ‘boss’. Whilst on a conscious level, we can understand the change in power and can accept the ‘control’ the deaf client has over us, we may nonetheless experience ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Kushalnagar & Rashid 2008), i.e. a feeling of discomfort, on a subconscious level, with this shift in power. The other side of the coin with this change in the power dynamic is how the shift affects the deaf person. After years of powerlessness, where a lack of control dominates many areas of their lives, how do deaf people manage this new-found power? It is particularly relevant to examine how they manage this in relation to interpreters, given the undisputed powerful positions which interpreters have previously held in deaf peoples’ lives. It is not hard to imagine that for some deaf people there may be a temptation to ‘control’ the interpreter, to exercise this newly-acquired power by treating them as a commodity, as an object.
Starting the conversation
From my perspective then there are at least two areas of tension in the staff interpreter’s role. There is the pull between wanting to engage on a social level with fellow colleagues, both deaf and hearing, and the need, embedded in our understanding our role and enshrined in codes of conduct, to maintain a neutral and impartial stance. There is also the shift in power- the disparity between ‘I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’ as Gillespie and Wolfenden (2012) so neatly put it. The tension in both of these areas will undoubtedly produce some strong emotions and feelings. There is clearly a need to start talking to both deaf and hearing colleagues about our role, to begin what might initially be uncomfortable conversations about how to satisfactorily address these (and other) issues. As interpreters we also need to examine our own behaviour and look closely at what lies at the root of how we conduct ourselves in the workplace domain. In Part Two, I will look at ways of beginning that process of self-reflection and at how we can initiate discussions with our fellow colleagues.
[1] If an organisation has one or more Deaf employees, they have the option of employing an interpreter in a salaried post. This can be arranged with the agreement of Access to Work, and whilst the funding is partly provided through this government scheme, the interpreter is directly employed by the organisation, rather than being contracted on a freelance basis or through an agency. This arrangement is often referred to as a ‘staff interpreter’ post.
References
Bailey-Bowen, D. (2013) ‘Ethical Choices: Educational Sign Language Interpreters as Change Agents’ (Street Leverage Blog) http://www.streetleverage.com/2013/04/ethical-choices-educational-sign-language-interpreters-as-change-agents/
Dickinson, J.C. (2010) Interpreting in a Community of Practice: A Sociolinguistic Study of the Signed Language Interpreter’s Role in Workplace Discourse. PhD. thesis, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt University
Gillespie, H. & Wolfenden, C. (2012) I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’, In Dickinson, J. & Stone, C. Developing the Interpreter; Developing the Profession, ASLI Conference Proceedings, Doug Mclean Publishing: Gloucestershire, England pp. 118- 140
Lee, R.G. & Llewellyn Jones, P. (2011) Re-visiting Role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour, Paper presented at Supporting Deaf People online conference 2011
Kushalnagar, P. & Rashid, K. (2008) ‘Attitudes and Behaviours of Deaf Professionals and Interpreters’, in Hauser, P.C., Finch, K.L. and Hauser, A.B. (eds.) Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters: A New Paradigm, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 43-57.