Interpreter needs your advice, please!

[deafbajagal]

Interpret. Do your job. If someone says something tell them you are doing your job. I've been in this spot before. You are not there "for the deaf.". You're the middle of two languages or modes. It is up to the individuals if they choose to utilize you or communicate directly with one another. Even if no one is looking...keep interpreting.

 

[deafbajagal]

There was a scene with Marlee Matlin...I.cannot remember the name of the movie ...but the other character told her interpreter to leave because he wanted to talk to her privately...of course he didn't know sign. I was pissed!!!

 

[Mountain Man]

Interpret. Do your job. If someone says something tell them you are doing your job.

That's actually a rather irresponsible and potentially unethical way to behave. The "job" of the interpreter involves more than just interpreting, and conflict resolution is a significant part of the profession. If it has been requested that the interpreter not interpret for whatever reason, and if there is no ethical reason why they shouldn't comply, or if there is an ethical reason but they haven't taken time to make their case in an appropriate way, then it would be unethical to insist on doing their "job" and continuing to interpret.

Any interpreter who justifies their actions by saying, "I'm just doing my job," is, in fact, doing their job very poorly.

 

[deafbajagal]

I was referring to #2 in the op...which implies that deaf people are not getting access to communication because of the dirty "A" word.

 

[Mountain Man]

Still, it may not be appropriate, even in that situation, to continue interpreting under the pretense of and with no other justification than "I'm just doing my job." The thing with any interpersonal conflict is that you can't make a blanket decision of "I will always do X" because there are any number of factors that could make that decision inappropriate or ineffective in a given scenario.

But looking at your Marlee Matlin example (and this strategy could also apply to the OP's question), I think an effective control could be to interpret the hearing client's request and give the Deaf person a chance to respond. If they agree then leave the room immediately. If they disagree then continue to do your job as a cultural and linguistic mediator. If they don't say anything then explain to them (meaning both parties) that as a professional, you are ethically bound to maintain confidentiality but that you would be willing to leave if both parties agree. If the Deaf person doesn't agree then continue to interpret. If they do agree then leave the room immediately.

Of course things are rarely as simple as that, and I haven't even touched on the consequences and possible resulting demands of each choice.

 

[Reba]

...Of course things are rarely as simple as that....

That's right. These situations can even include legal ramifications.

Again, there is a difference between client and consumer.

Also, is the decision to request the terp leave done freely by all parties or is there intimidation involved?

 

[Jiro]

I would agree with MM- what you do should be based on the d/Deaf clients wishes. I would connect directly with them.

according to terp's post -

Because of the nature of this situation I am not able to ask deaf participants if they would like interpreting or if they want the hearing people to continue signing themselves.

sounds like this terp was forbidden or prevented from communicating with clients.

 

[deafbajagal]

according to terp's post -


sounds like this terp was forbidden or prevented from communicating with clients.

Exactly!

 

[Jiro]

Hello, Everybody,

I'm a interpreter who needs your advice (I am certified). Thank you for taking the time to read this post!

I'm working in an environment that is different than any interpreting that I've been involved in before. Here is some background:

1. Mixed group of deaf and hearing participants, most hearing. All participants have been sent to this group and *must* attend -- they can't get out of it.
2. Hearing people are in power positions. Other hearing and deaf are young adults.
3. All hearing know some sign language -- fingerspelling or SEE sign mostly.
4. The group dynamic is relationship based -- relationships must be in place for work to be accomplished.
5. Hearing are very very proud of the fact that they know sign.
6. The agency where this group takes place has never had experience with a certified interpreter before, they always used signing staff to "interpret."
7. They have an unwritten rule that during groups everyone must sign and speak at the same time.

My problem is that, because of this signing and speaking rule, the hearing in the group don't want me to interpret. Like I said they are very proud of the fact that they "know sign." They feel that interpreting interferes with their relationships with deaf participants because they are not communicating directly. They are not accepting my information: you can not sign and speak at the same time and be understood clearly by someone whose language is ASL.

Because of the nature of this situation I am not able to ask deaf participants if they would like interpreting or if they want the hearing people to continue signing themselves. So I am asking you:

What would you want?

Please give me some guidance so that I can provide the best services possible, respecting all individuals involved but supporting the mission of the agency so that the deaf people can achieve their goals and go on with their lives.

Thank You!

Elizabeth

what's going on with your agency reeks of possible legal violations. I'm beginning to wonder if deaf clients have requested for terps because hearing counselors' limited signing skill (I'm assuming their job position is counselor or agent or similar) and their requests were "gently denied" because they can "sign".

It's too bad that you cannot inquire about this with deaf clients because that's outside your job parameter. There's really nothing you can do about it unless.... you're willing to be a whistleblower and you have documented evidence that the counselors routinely denied clients' requests for terps.... which is not really recommended. What I can think what you can do is simply bring it up to supervisor/director and express your concern. Other than that.... there's really nothing you can do about it.

 

[Jiro]

I didn't realize this thread was bit old. OP hasn't made any response :roll:

 

[Mountain Man]

according to terp's post -


sounds like this terp was forbidden or prevented from communicating with clients.

The problem is that we really haven't been given enough information to decide which control would probably be most effective in this situation (for example, what did La Terp mean when she said that she was not able to ask the opinion of the Deaf participants?), and since the original poster hasn't responded since the opening post, all we can do is speculate. Also with this thread being several weeks old and the situation likely resolved one way or another, this is all theoretical at this point.

 

[Jiro]

The problem is that we really haven't been given enough information to decide which control would probably be most effective in this situation (for example, what did La Terp mean when she said that she was not able to ask the opinion of the Deaf participants?), and since the original poster hasn't responded since the opening post, all we can do is speculate. Also with this thread being several weeks old and the situation likely resolved one way or another, this is all theoretical at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that she wants to get involved and make sure that deaf participants' needs are met by asking them - "you don't need me to terp for you? you sure?" because we all know that there's a likelihood that some deaf clients were "nudged" or perhaps intimidated into communicating with them directly without terp involved as mentioned in Reba's Post #7 and #26.

I'm sure that LA Terp is feeling that they were perhaps cutting corners or perhaps the agency is not formally operating on par with regulations.

When an agency has a loose policy or "unspoken policy" like this... it's an automatic red flag to me. No business or agency should ever operate like this. It's a surefire way to get into a big legal mess. Everything must be clearly stated in the policy so that their ass is covered just in case somebody sued or filed a complaint.

 

[Mountain Man]

It's pretty obvious to me that she wants to get involved and make sure that deaf participants' needs are met by asking them - "you don't need me to terp for you? you sure?" because we all know that there's a likelihood that some deaf clients were "nudged" or perhaps intimidated into communicating with them directly without terp involved as mentioned in Reba's Post #7 and #26.

I'm sure that LA Terp is feeling that they were perhaps cutting corners or perhaps the agency is not formally operating on par with regulations.

When an agency has a loose policy or "unspoken policy" like this... it's an automatic red flag to me. No business or agency should ever operate like this. It's a surefire way to get into a big legal mess. Everything must be clearly stated in the policy so that their ass is covered just in case somebody sued or filed a complaint.

Again this is all speculation based on incomplete information. I really don't like to assume that one or the other party was clearly in the wrong when we don't have all the relevant facts. Just to give you an idea of how complicated these things can get, when we did case studies of real-world ethical dilemmas in my practicum class, our analysis would take several pages. The OP is a little too light on details for a meaningful analysis.

 

[Jiro]

Again this is all speculation based on incomplete information. I really don't like to assume that one or the other party was clearly in the wrong when we don't have all the relevant facts. Just to give you an idea of how complicated these things can get, when we did case studies of real-world ethical dilemmas in my practicum class, our analysis would take several pages. The OP is a little too light on details for a meaningful analysis.

my experience is based on real life though but I do see where you're coming from.

I can feel OP's hesitation to put out more detail because she can lose her job over it.

 

[Reba]

Again this is all speculation based on incomplete information. I really don't like to assume that one or the other party was clearly in the wrong when we don't have all the relevant facts. Just to give you an idea of how complicated these things can get, when we did case studies of real-world ethical dilemmas in my practicum class, our analysis would take several pages. The OP is a little too light on details for a meaningful analysis.

I'm all for learning how to analyze ethical dilemmas. However, I'm sure you realize that in real life, you don't always have the luxury of knowing all the details of a situation, or having the time to do pages of analysis. Sometimes situations pop up and need to be resolved in just seconds of time amidst confusing, emotional, and hectic activities.

Of course, training and practical exercises of potential situations will help make those ethical decision making processes become more like second nature.

 

[Mountain Man]

I'm all for learning how to analyze ethical dilemmas. However, I'm sure you realize that in real life, you don't always have the luxury of knowing all the details of a situation, or having the time to do pages of analysis. Sometimes situations pop up and need to be resolved in just seconds of time amidst confusing, emotional, and hectic activities.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But even in this case, there are many relavant details left out that make it impossible to really answer the OP's question, details that one would have access to if they were in the situation themselves. For instance, some people here are assuming that the Deaf individuals were given no opportunity to respond, or that they were being intimidated in some way when that may not be the case. Even the OP saying that the "Hearing people are in power positions" and that they "are very very proud of the fact that they know sign" is evaluative rather than factual giving us less information to work with than one might realize. For instance why does the OP assume they're in power positions, and why does she assume they're "very very proud" of their signing ability? What behavior is she observing that's leading her to those conclusions? Same with her evaluation that "They are not accepting my information". Again, what behavior is she observing?

And now that I take a closer look at this, I think the whole problem with the OP's question is that it is highly evaluative, so we're trying to provide advice based on her biases rather than facts. Granted, the ability to observe rather than evaluate is a learned skill, but it's an important one.

Of course, training and practical exercises of potential situations will help make those ethical decision making processes become more like second nature.

Yes, that's the point. It also gives you a framework to start from when you face a similar situation in the future as well as gives you the tools to analyze your choices after the fact as a way to self-check yourself.

 

[Jiro]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But even in this case, there are many relavant details left out that make it impossible to really answer the OP's question, details that one would have access to if they were in the situation themselves. For instance, some people here are assuming that the Deaf individuals were given no opportunity to respond, or that they were being intimidated in some way when that may not be the case. Even the OP saying that the "Hearing people are in power positions" and that they "are very very proud of the fact that they know sign" is evaluative rather than factual giving us less information to work with than one might realize. For instance why does the OP assume they're in power positions, and why does she assume they're "very very proud" of their signing ability? What behavior is she observing that's leading her to those conclusions? Same with her evaluation that "They are not accepting my information". Again, what behavior is she observing?

And now that I take a closer look at this, I think the whole problem with the OP's question is that it is highly evaluative, so we're trying to provide advice based on her biases rather than facts. Granted, the ability to observe rather than evaluate is a learned skill, but it's an important one.



Yes, that's the point. It also gives you a framework to start from when you face a similar situation in the future as well as gives you the tools to analyze your choices after the fact as a way to self-check yourself.

lol... you're thinking wayyyyyyyyy too much into it

 

[Reba]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But even in this case, there are many relavant details left out that make it impossible to really answer the OP's question, details that one would have access to if they were in the situation themselves. For instance, some people here are assuming that the Deaf individuals were given no opportunity to respond, or that they were being intimidated in some way when that may not be the case. Even the OP saying that the "Hearing people are in power positions" and that they "are very very proud of the fact that they know sign" is evaluative rather than factual giving us less information to work with than one might realize. For instance why does the OP assume they're in power positions, and why does she assume they're "very very proud" of their signing ability? What behavior is she observing that's leading her to those conclusions? Same with her evaluation that "They are not accepting my information". Again, what behavior is she observing?

And now that I take a closer look at this, I think the whole problem with the OP's question is that it is highly evaluative, so we're trying to provide advice based on her biases rather than facts. Granted, the ability to observe rather than evaluate is a learned skill, but it's an important one....

Some of it may be the OP's opinion or bias but some may be fact. Power positions may be their actual positions in the organization. The relationships could be teacher/student, supervisor/employee, counselor/client, doctor/patient, or parent/child, for example. Those power relationships in themselves could be intimidating to the deaf consumers.

In real life, I've met deaf consumers who "don't want to make waves" or offend the hearing power-holders. Those consumers often put aside their real language preferences in order to not make negative vibes with the hearing "bosses." It doesn't even matter what the ADA says; they simply don't want anything confrontational to happen. Of course, that behavior only confirms to the hearing power people that their communications are "fine" and that there's no need to rock the boat with outside terps.

Real world interpreting involves dealing with so many different personalities, egos, emotions, organizational politics, and interpersonal dynamics it can make your head spin.

 

[Mountain Man]

lol... you're thinking wayyyyyyyyy too much into it

Actually I'm not.

 

[Mountain Man]

Some of it may be the OP's opinion or bias but some may be fact. Power positions may be their actual positions in the organization. The relationships could be teacher/student, supervisor/employee, counselor/client, doctor/patient, or parent/child, for example. Those power relationships in themselves could be intimidating to the deaf consumers.

In real life, I've met deaf consumers who "don't want to make waves" or offend the hearing power-holders. Those consumers often put aside their real language preferences in order to not make negative vibes with the hearing "bosses." It doesn't even matter what the ADA says; they simply don't want anything confrontational to happen. Of course, that behavior only confirms to the hearing power people that their communications are "fine" and that there's no need to rock the boat with outside terps.

Yes, but getting back to the OP, we don't know what the case is in this situation simply because we haven't been given enough information, and it's generally a bad idea to make uninformed assumptions.

Real world interpreting involves dealing with so many different personalities, egos, emotions, organizational politics, and interpersonal dynamics it can make your head spin.

You're not kidding. You don't know how many times a student has asked, "What do you do in situation X?" and the instructor can only answer, "Well, it depends..."