Interpreter needs your advice, please!

[La Terp]

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

 

[Etoile]

I guess what confuses me is why you're unable to ask the deaf clients what they prefer. Without divulging more about the situation itself, can you explain why you can't ask the clients for their preference?

You might also point out to the hearing people that you were hired to be an interpreter, and your role is to interpret what you hear. Because they are using sim-com with "bad" signing, you can say that you are just interpreting the voice part of their message. Odd that they have an unwritten sim-com rule. Perhaps it was set up that way because they haven't had an interpreter before, and now that they do, they can do away with that rule.

If they're relying on fingerspelling and SEE, maybe just say that your interpretation will make everything go faster because they can speak at a normal pace?

 

[Reba]

MODS:

This is a duplicate thread. Please merge them together.

 

[Mountain Man]

You said, "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."

Is this your opinion or an observation based on the group's interaction? In other words, is there clear evidence of communication difficulties between the hearing signers and Deaf consumers that can not be resolved without an interpreter, or are they able to negotiate any miscommunications on their own? Have the Deaf consumers expressed the desire to use an interpreter? If yes then why aren't their wishes being respected? If no then why haven't they? Would it be acceptable for you to serve in a support capacity and only interpreting when greater clarity is desired by either party?

Without having more information, my gut says that this is the call of the Deaf consumers, and you shouldn't force yourself into this situation.

 

[CSign]

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

 

[Reba]

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

Just some clarification.

The one who pays the terp is the client. The ones who use the terp are the consumers. Sometimes the client and consumer are one and the same.

For example, the college/hospital/business owner/government agency is the client (payer) for terp services. The student/patient/employee/agency client is the consumer (user) of terp services.

I agree that the language-related desires should be determined mostly by the deaf consumers. Sometimes there are other factors, such as logistics, that require modifications of those desires.

 

[Reba]

One other thing. Sometimes deaf consumers are either too intimidated or not empowered enough to make their desires fully known in front of the hearing consumers. When that happens, terp diplomacy comes into play. Get what the deaf consumer wants in ways that don't put the deaf consumer on the spot. The terp knows that the requests from the deaf consumer are reasonable but the hearing people often don't.

No matter what butt-heads you have to deal with, grin and bear it. You can scream on the drive home.

 

[Speedy Hawk]

If it was me I much rather have interpreter interpret what others saying even hearing using sign and it not clear.

There was one time I had to do group work with hearing people and they 'know' some signs and are quite proud of it and I had BSL interpreter. Hearing didn't want interpreter to interpret what they are saying and want me to LEARN to communicate with them without BSL interpreter but I only got half what they saying cos signing so poor. I really wanted BSL interpreter to sign but wasn't too confidence to say so because those hearing people was quite forceful and lucky I know this BSL interpreter well and she knows me well and she managed to find way round it and did interpreting anyway. She had to explain to them why I NEED BSL interpreter and I don't need to learn how to communicate with hearing people cos I do that day in and day out every day!

 

[CSign]

Just some clarification.

The one who pays the terp is the client. The ones who use the terp are the consumers. Sometimes the client and consumer are one and the same.

For example, the college/hospital/business owner/government agency is the client (payer) for terp services. The student/patient/employee/agency client is the consumer (user) of terp services.

I agree that the language-related desires should be determined mostly by the deaf consumers. Sometimes there are other factors, such as logistics, that require modifications of those desires.

Good point Reba. Let me clarify my previous post. It should be left up to the deaf consumers wishes, not the classmates or client.

 

[jillio]

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

Personally, I think you need to explain to whoever can change policy that speaking and signing together is contrary to the proper use of sign, as well as to speech. Explain the role of the interpreter in facillitating communication, and explain that the use of SEE is very confusing to the Deaf because of cognitive processing issues that vary between stimulus intended for aural processing and stimulus intended for visual processing. If all attempts at reasonable change fails, throw the ADA at them. "Qualified interpreter" applies here.

 

[Berry]

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

Both NAD and RID have policies that cover just about everything. I believe they both provide assistance to their certificants on matters concerning CODE of ETHICS in oddball situations.

Both codes are pretty similar, though not exact.

I personally think the rule, "Everything signed is said and everything said is signed" would apply here.

The Deaf are entitled to an interpreter who knows and uses ASL.

If I remember correctly unwritten rules aren't worth the paper they are written on.

 

[Smithtr]

Both NAD and RID have policies that cover just about everything. I believe they both provide assistance to their certificants on matters concerning CODE of ETHICS in oddball situations.

Both codes are pretty similar, though not exact.

I personally think the rule, "Everything signed is said and everything said is signed" would apply here.

The Deaf are entitled to an interpreter who knows and uses ASL.

If I remember correctly unwritten rules aren't worth the paper they are written on.

important to policy code of ethics is very important to strictly ! that is why point on interpreter strict! law is very follow RID and NAD

 

[jillio]

Both NAD and RID have policies that cover just about everything. I believe they both provide assistance to their certificants on matters concerning CODE of ETHICS in oddball situations.

Both codes are pretty similar, though not exact.

I personally think the rule, "Everything signed is said and everything said is signed" would apply here.

The Deaf are entitled to an interpreter who knows and uses ASL.

If I remember correctly unwritten rules aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You are correct. This is one of those ethical dilemas, and I am glad to see that this terp is willing to run the situation by other terps. The Code of Ethics provides a guideline for dealing with situations, but it doesn't provide any hard and fast solutions.

 

[Mountain Man]

You are correct. This is one of those ethical dilemas, and I am glad to see that this terp is willing to run the situation by other terps. The Code of Ethics provides a guideline for dealing with situations, but it doesn't provide any hard and fast solutions.

Hard and fast solutions is actually contrary to practices being advocated by Robyn Dean and Robert Pollard in their current research centered around the demand-control schema which is being widely adopted by interpreters and heavily emphasized in interpreter training programs.

Every response to a problem has a trickle-down affect with inevitable consequences (those things which will happen no matter what; for instance, stopping someone mid-sentence and asking them to repeat themselves always has the consequence that you interrupted them) and resulting demands (for instance, the person might get angry, or lose their train of thought which becomes something new that you have to directly deal with), and so decisions must be made not only with regards to the immediate problem (or demand) but also based on the consequences and potential resulting demands.

Then there's the whole matter of the constellation of demands which is all other relevant factors impacting the current moment in time such that two identical main demands in different situations will require different controls based on factors within the constellation.

It's complicated stuff and takes a bit of time to really wrap your head around, but it's an incredible tool for interpreters to analyze and respond to the ethical dilemmas that they face every day.

 

[jillio]

Hard and fast solutions is actually contrary to practices being advocated by Robyn Dean and Robert Pollard in their current research centered around the demand-control schema which is being widely adopted by interpreters and heavily emphasized in interpreter training programs.

Every response to a problem has a trickle-down affect with inevitable consequences (those things which will happen no matter what; for instance, stopping someone mid-sentence and asking them to repeat themselves always has the consequence that you interrupted them) and resulting demands (for instance, the person might get angry, or lose their train of thought which becomes something new that you have to directly deal with), and so decisions must be made not only with regards to the immediate problem (or demand) but also based on the consequences and potential resulting demands.

Then there's the whole matter of the constellation of demands which is all other relevant factors impacting the current moment in time such that two identical main demands in different situations will require different controls based on factors within the constellation.

It's complicated stuff and takes a bit of time to really wrap your head around, but it's an incredible tool for interpreters to analyze and respond to the ethical dilemmas that they face every day.

Understand completely. In my profession, not a day goes by that I, or a colleague, does not need to discuss an ethical dilema we have encountered. Batting it around the old conference table is such a useful tool to have at your disposal. Especially when the law and ethics are diametrically opposed.

 

[Mountain Man]

The biggest thing I wonder about in this particular scenario is whether or not there really is a significant communication barrier between the Deaf and hearing signers (as in communication is not actually happening effectively and not merely that there are some relatively minor difficulties). If the answer is no then I think doing nothing in this case would be the most effective decision.

 

[jillio]

The biggest thing I wonder about in this particular scenario is whether or not there really is a significant communication barrier between the Deaf and hearing signers (as in communication is not actually happening effectively and not merely that there are some relatively minor difficulties). If the answer is no then I think doing nothing in this case would be the most effective decision.

I can agree with that. Sometimes the best action for the welfare of one's client is no action at all. As long as the clients needs are being addressed, nothing needs to be changed. I operate on the principle that my first concern is my client's welfare, even if making sure that happens is contrary to agency policy or law. Ethics often are contrary to policy and law.

 

[Dillon]

I don't need anyone to help me to talk to the hearing people. When the hearing people start to sign/speak to me, I normally just give them my text number and tell them to just text me than walk away. Easy, no headache.
If they refuse to do that, I still walk away. Their chosie, not mine.

 

[Etoile]

I don't need anyone to help me to talk to the hearing people. When the hearing people start to sign/speak to me, I normally just give them my text number and tell them to just text me than walk away. Easy, no headache.
If they refuse to do that, I still walk away. Their chosie, not mine.

Even if they sign to you? Huh.

 

[jillio]

I don't need anyone to help me to talk to the hearing people. When the hearing people start to sign/speak to me, I normally just give them my text number and tell them to just text me than walk away. Easy, no headache.
If they refuse to do that, I still walk away. Their chosie, not mine.

I bet you are a lonely dude with that attitude.