warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications

Manuscript version: Published Version The version presented in WRAP is the published version (Version of Record). Persistent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/122308 How to cite: The repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing citation guidance from the publisher. Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: Please refer to the repository item page, publisher’s statement section, for further information. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: wrap@warwick.ac.uk

2015CONFERENCEPROCEEDINGSEditedbyIsabelleHeyerickandSuzanneEhrlich

ISBN 978-0-646-97018-9

TableofContent

PRESIDENT'SFOREWORD 3

EDITORS'NOTE 5

CONTRIBUTORS 7

EXCUSEME,THEIMAMSAIDWHAT?GAININGCOMMUNICATIONACCESSTO 11ISLAMCHERYLRINGEL,MALLERIESHIRLEY

EXPECTATIONSOFDEAFPROFESSIONALSUTILIZINGDESIGNATED 26INTERPRETERSKATHERINEW.VANCE,LINDSEYC.NICKELS

THEDEAFASAVULNERABLEGROUP:AREINTERPRETERSEQUIPPEDINADVOCATINGFORTHEHUMANRIGHTSOFDEAFINDIVIDUALSANDTHEIRINTERPRETERS 43JEFWAG.MWERI

THEIMPACTOFGROUPTHINKWITHININTERPRETERCOHORTS 61CAMBELLMCDERMID,KATHLEENHOLCOMBE,CYNTHIACOLLWARD

WORKINGINJORDAN:THEEXPERIENCESOFAJORDANIANSIGNLANGUAGE 83ARABICINTERPRETER

ERINETRINEANDDAREENKHLIFAT

INTERNATIONALSIGNINTERPRETERPREPARATIONSFORHIGH-LEVEL 95EUROPEANASSIGNMENTSMAYADEWITANDIRMASLUIS

AIIC:WHATDOESITSTANDFOR,ANDWHATCANITDOFORYOU? 109MAYADEWITANDELISABETTISELIUS

THELEGISLATIONOFKENYANSIGNLANGUAGEANDITSIMPACTONSIGN 117LANGUAGEINTERPRETINGPROFESSIONINKENYA

LEONIDATAUSIKAULA

ForewordDebraRussell–WASLIpresident

ItisanhonourandprivilegetointroducetheConferenceProceedingsofourfourth

WASLIconference.FromourfoundingconferenceinWorcester,SouthAfricain

2005,toour2007conferenceinSegovia,Spain,followedbyourreturntoSouth

Africain2011wherewemetinDurban,andfinallytoourexcitingeventheldin

Istanbul,Turkeyin2015,wehaveenjoyedtremendousconferencepresentations

thatrepresentthediversitythatisourglobalinterpretingcommunity.Each

conferenceoffersitsownenergy,andthefollowingpapersrepresentsomeofthe

talentedpeoplewhosharedtheirenergy,time,andtalentinordertoenrichour

conferenceparticipants.

OursincerethankstoSuzanneEhrlichandIsabelleHeyerickforchairingthescientific

committee,andbringingussucharichandvariedconferenceprogramthatwas

enjoyedbyover298attendeesfrom53countries.Wealsoappreciatetheireditorial

workthathasresultedinthisinterestingvolume.

Toeachofthecontributors,thankyouforsharingyourpapersothatthoseofyou

whodidnothavetheopportunitytoattendtheconference,oryourpresentation

canbenefitfromyourknowledge.

Ihopeyouenjoyreadingeachofthepapers,beginningwiththeworkofCheryl

RingelandMallerieShirley,whodrawourattentiontointerpretingforMuslim

events,andtheimportanceofensuringdeafMuslimscanaccesstheirreligion.We

movefromreligiontoexploringdesignatedinterpreterpractice.KatherineVance

andLindsayNickelssharetheirresearchconductedwithDeafprofessionalsandthe

expectationstheyhaveofdesignatedinterpreters.

Ourconferencethemeaddressedhumanrightsandthewaysinterpreterscan

supportDeafpeople.JefwaMweriasksimportantquestionsabouthowready

interpretersaretodealwithhumanrightviolationsthatDeafpeopleexperience.

3

CampbellMcDermid,LisanneHoukes,KathleenHolcombe,andCynthiaCollward

introduceustotheimpactofGroupthinkwithininterpretereducationcohorts,

heighteningourawarenessofthisphenomenaandtheinfluenceitcanhaveon

interpretersandthecommunitiesthatweserve.

Ourconferencebroughtusresearchandtheprogramalsoincludedpresentations

basedonthecurrentrealitiesthatinterpretersexperience.Anexampleofthisis

foundinthepaperbyErinTrineandDareenKhlifat,whoofferusvaluableinsights

intotheexperiencesofArabic/JordanianSignLanguageInterpreters.

Increasingly,InternationalSign(IS)Interpretersareworkingatinternational

conferencesandhigh-levelmeetings.MayadeWit,thefirstaccreditedsign

languageinterpreterwiththeInternationalAssociationofConferenceInterpreters

(AIIC),andIrmaSluissharetheirinsightsaboutthepre-requisitesneededforIS

interpretersinEuropean-contexts,offeringacareerpathforthoseinterestedinthat

work.TheirpaperleadsnicelytoaninformativepaperfromMayaandElisabet

Tiselius,whodescribetheAIICSignLanguageNetworkandwaysinwhichitsupports

signedlanguageinterpretersperforminghigh-levelconferencework.

Finally,WASLIConferencesareanopportunitytolearnaboutthewaysinwhich

interpretingisdevelopingincountriesthatmaybeunfamiliartothoseoutsideof

thatregion.LeonidaKauladescribesveryinterestinglegislationinKenyathatis

shapingthedevelopmentofthesignlanguageinterpretingprofessioninthat

country.

Maythesepapersinspireconversationsamongyourlocalcommunityofinterpreters,

andwithinourinternationalnetworkofpractitioners,consumers,andeducators.

And,maybe,justmaybe,theywillalsobeamotivatingfactorinyourplanningto

attendaWASLIconference.

Withwarmregards,

DebraRussellWASLIPresident

February2017

4

Editors’NoteIsabelleHeyerick&SuzanneEhrlich

Itisourpleasuretopresentyouthe2015WASLIConferenceProceedings.This

collectionofpapersoriginatedfrompresentationsatthe2015WASLI

Conference,heldinIstanbul,TurkeyonJuly22nd–25th,2015.

AschairsoftheScientificCommitteewehadthehonorandprivilegetobe

involvedinthefullprocessofpresentationsselections,developmentofthe

conferenceprogram,witnessingtheexceptionalpresentationsinIstanbuland

lastly,compilingandproducingthispublication.Eveninthefaceofoccassional

challenges,ithasbeenanincrediblyrewardingjourney.Letitbenotedthisisatask

wecouldnothavedonewithoutthesupportofourcolleaguestowhomwewish

toextendourgratitudeandthanks.

First,thankyoutotheWASLIExecutiveBoardandtheWASLIConferenceChair

foryourtrustinourabilitiesaschairsoftheScientificCommitteeandeditorsof

theproceedings.Yourpatienceandsupportisgreatlyappreciated.

Wewouldalsoliketoextendourgratitudetothereviewers,whoselectedthe

presentations,reviewedthepapersandadvisedusalongtheway.Theyinclude:

• OnnoCrasborn,NL

• TrudieTheunissen,SA

• AdamSchembri,UK

• HeidiSalaets,BE

• SujitSahasrabudhe,IN

• JosephHill,USA

• LorraineLeeson,IRL

• ElisaMarroney,USA

• RobertAdam,UK

• RachelMcKee,NZ

5

• ThierryHaesenne,BE

• TessaPadden,UK

• MichelleAshley,AUS

Ourgratitudeandappreciationisextendedtotheconferencecontributorsfor

theirtimeandeffort.

TheConferenceProceedingswillrevealtoourdedicatedreaderswhataWASLI

conferencerepresents:globaldiversity,valuableresearch,communityvoiceand

enhancedpracticeandaboveallastrongsenseofcollaborationacrossvaried

nations,backgroundsandcommunities.

Thankyouallforjoiningusonthisincrediblejourney.

IsabelleHeyerick&SuzanneEhrlichConferenceCo-ChairsandCo-EditorsFebruary2017

6

ContributorsCherylRingelbeganinterpretinginMuslimsettingsaftermarryingintoa

Pakistani-Muslimfamily.She’sinterpretedlocally,nationally,andinternationally

forMuslimevents/conferences.HerMAininterpretationisfromGallaudet

UniversityandshelivesinWashingtonDCwithherhusbandAmirandtheirson,

Bilal;workingasafreelanceinterpreter.

MallerieShirleyisaMuslimAmericanSignLanguage/Englishinterpreterwho

learnedsignlanguageasachild.MallerieinterpretsatMosquesandIslamic

eventsacrossNorthAmerica,andoccasionallyworld-wide.Theinspirationfor

thisworkwasseeingtoomanyMuslimsmissoutonthereligionshevaluesso

much,includingherownbrother.

KatherineW.Vance,MS,NIC,SC:ListheSupervisorofCARTandInterpreting

ServicesattheUniversityofCincinnatiwheresheisalsoanadjunct

professor.HerstudieshavebeeninASLinterpretingandinterpreting

pedagogy.

LindsayCNickelsisasignlanguageinterpreterattheUniversityofCincinnatiin

Cincinnati,OH,USA.Shehasbeeninterpretingfornineyearsandhasearned

degreesinsignlanguageinterpretingandappliedlinguistics.Sheiscurrently

pursuingaPhDinappliedlinguisticsatLancasterUniversityintheUK.

Dr.JefwaMwerihasbeenassociatedwiththeDeafsince1991whenhejoined

UniversityofNairobi–KenyaforhisMAdegreeinLinguisticswherehemet

PhilemonAkach(nowDr.)whowastheworkingforKenyaNationalAssociation

ofthedeafasprogrammanagerandinterpreter.SincethenDrMwerihasbeen

involvedinmanyactivitiessuchastrainingInterpreters,teachingKSL,HIVand

AIDSawarenesscreationamongtheDeaf,productionofKSLeducational

materials,ResearchinKSL.Dr.Mwerihaspublishednumerousarticlesin

reputablejournalsonKSLinterpretation,sociolinguisticandgrammaticalissues

onKSL.Dr.Mweri’sPhDthesisisentitled:RegisterVariation:AComparative

StudyofPlannedandUnplannedDiscourseinKenyanSignLanguage(KSL).Dr.

7

JefwaisalecturerattheUniversityofNairobidepartmentofKiswahiliand

director’sTechnicalassistantattheKenyanSignLanguageresearchproject

(KSLRP)since1991.HeismarriedtoDr.JudithJefwaandtheyareblessedwith

twoboys.

CampbellMcDermid,PhDisanAssistantProfessoratNTID.Hisresearch

interestsincludepragmaticsandcohesion.

CynthiaCollwardholdsaCSCandhasbeeninterpretingsince1984.Sheis

currentlytheCoordinatorforprogramsandservicesattheNationalInstitutefor

theDeaf.

KathleenHolcombe,MAisaninterpretereducatorinWesternNewYorkand

VietNam.Herresearchinterestsincludereflectivepracticeandtheapplication

ofDemandControlSchemetotheinterpretingfield.

LisanneHoukesisacandidateintheMastersofEducationprograminthe

FacultyofEducationofHogeschoolUtrecht.Sheisaninterpretereducatorand

practitioner.

ErinTrineisacertifiedinterpreterandinterpretereducatorfromtheUnited

States.Sheisdedicatedtoadvancingtheinterpretingfieldbothlocallyand

internationallysothatconsumersarebetterserved.Shecurrentlyteaches

interpretingatWesternOregonUniversity.

DareenKhlifatisaninterpreter,mentor,andadvocatefromJordan.Shehas

beeninterpretingfor15yearsinawidevarietyofsettings.Dareencontinuously

workstosupporttheprofessionalizationofinterpretinginJordanandtosupport

theDeafcommunity.Shesupportshighstandardsininterpretingandinclusion

fortheDeafcommunityinallaspectsofsociety.

Maya de Wit was the first accredited sign language interpreter with the

International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC). She works as a

Dutch & American Sign Language and international sign interpreter and is an

accreditedInternationalSignInterpreterwiththeWorldFederationoftheDeaf

(WFD)andtheWorldAssociationofSignLanguageInterpreters(WASLI).Maya

8

is also an international trainer and independent researcher, publishing since

2000 every four years a comprehensive status update on the sign language

interpretingprofessioninEurope.Sheservedfrom2006–2012aspresidentof

theEuropeanForumofSignLanguageInterpreters(efsli)andwasamemberof

the board of the European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association

(EULITA). In 2011Maya obtained their master’s degree in the first European

Master of Sign Language Interpreting (EUMASLI). You can reach Maya at

maya@tolkngt.nl.

IrmaSluisreceivedherdegreeasaDutchSignLanguageInterpreter

(BA)in2001andissincethenregisteredattheDutchRegistryofSignLanguage

Interpreters.IrmainterpretsbetweenspokenEnglish,Dutch,DutchSign

Language(NGT),andInternationalSign.Shehasgainedexpertiseindifferent

specialties,includinginternationalsettings,conferenceinterpreting,academic

andhighereducation,TVinterpreting,andlinguistics.

InSeptember2011shefinalizedherMAintheEuropeanMasterinSign

LanguageInterpreting(www.eumasli.eu).Herthesisexploredtheperspective

ofthedeafconsumeronsign-to-voiceinterpretingandhowtousethisto

improvethequalityoftheinterpretationintospokenlanguage.Thedeaf

perspectiveisalsothebasisofherlatestresearchonthequalityofsignlanguage

interpretersintheNetherlands,whichisco-authoredwithMayadeWit.

YoucanreachIrmaatirmasluistolkngt@ziggo.nl.

ElisabetTiseliusistheDirectorStudiesforinterpretingatStockholmUniversity

(Sweden).ShehasbeenamemberoftheInternationalAssociationofConference

Interpreters(AIIC)since2000,whereshehasservedasregionalsecretaryforthe

NordicCountriesandisamemberofitsSignLangaugeNetworksince2011.At

StockholmUniversity,Elisabetisinvolvedinprogramsforsignlanguage,community

andinterpreting.ShehasaPhD(2013)ininterpreting,andhasbeenaninterpreter

since1996.ElisabetisanaccreditedinterpreterfortheEuropeaninsitutions,

interpretingfromEnglish,FrenchandDanishintoSwedish.Sheisalsostatecertified

interpreterforSwedishandEnglish.Elisabet’sresearchinterestscoverexpertisein

alltypesofinterpreting,childlanguagebrokeringandtrainingofDeafinterpreters.

9

Heronlinepersonablogsandtweetsaboutresearchandpedagogyininterpreting.

YoucanfollowheronTwitter@tulkur.Youcanalsoreachherat

elisabet.tiselius@su.se.

Maya de Wit was the first accredited sign language interpreter with the

InternationalAssociationofConferenceInterpreters(AIIC).SheworksasaDutch&

American Sign Language and international sign interpreter and is an accredited

InternationalSignInterpreterwiththeWorldFederationoftheDeaf(WFD)andthe

World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI). Maya is also an

international trainerand independent researcher,publishingsince2000every four

yearsacomprehensivestatusupdateonthesignlanguageinterpretingprofessionin

Europe.Sheserved from2006–2012aspresidentof theEuropeanForumofSign

LanguageInterpreters(efsli)andwasamemberoftheboardoftheEuropeanLegal

Interpreters and Translators Association (EULITA). In 2011 Maya obtained their

master’s degree in the first European Master of Sign Language Interpreting

(EUMASLI).YoucanreachMayaatmaya@tolkngt.nl.

LeonidaKaulaholdsaMastersofArts in interpretation fromtheUniversityof

Nairobi and Bachelors in Communication and Sociology. She have been a

freelanceinterpreterforthepast18yearsworkingindiversesettings,currently

interpreting on television for the Kenyan parliament during the National

AssemblyandSenateproceedings.Leonidateachesacomponentofinterpreting

incorporatedinthesignlanguagetrainingprogramattheKenyaSignLanguage

ResearchProjectandisalsoanadjunctlecturerforSt.PaulsUniversityandMoi

University respectively. She is the current chair of the Kenya Sign Language

InterpretersAssociationsinceFeb2012andwasre-electedforthesecondterm

inJanuary2016.

10

“ExcuseMe,theImamsaidWhat?”:GainingCommunicationAccesstoIslam

CherylRingel&MallerieShirley

Abstract

DeafMuslimscontinuetostruggleforbasiccommunicationaccesstotheirreligion,with

IslamlaggingbehindJudaismandChristianityinsupportingtheirDeaffollowers.Itwas1846

whenanEpiscopalChurchofferedsignedministrytotheirDeafcongregants.In1907and1911

twoassociationsofJewishDeafgatheredforsocialandreligiousfunctions(Costello,2009).

However,itwasnotuntil2005thataDeafMuslimorganizationemerged,GlobalDeafMuslim,

withthepurposenotofofferingreligiousteachingdirectlyinsign,butrathertobeginan

organizedefforttoobtaincommunicationaccessinIslamviasignedlanguageinterpreters--an

effortthatcontinuestothisday.

ThispaperpresentsfindingsfrominterviewsconductedwithDeafMuslims,Deaf

Muslimleaders,parentsofDeafMuslims,ImamsandMasjidofficials,andinterpretersworking

withDeafMuslimsintheUSAandCanada.Thestudyisaqualitativelookatthebarriersto

Islamidentifiedbythesegroups.Fifty-nineindividualsfromfourmetropolitanareashometo

largecontingenciesofDeafMuslims(Atlanta,Minneapolis,Toronto,andWashington,DC)were

interviewed.Semi-structuredinterviewswereconductedinspokenEnglishorviaanAmerican

SignLanguagetranslationoftheinterviewprotocolaccordingtoeachrespondent’spreference.

ThegoalwastogatherinformationaboutDeafMuslims’experiencestryingtogain

communicationaccesstoIslamandspecificallytoidentifysuccessfulstrategiesthatcouldbe

replicatedelsewhere.Strongagreementaboutbarriersandsuccessfulstrategieswasfound

withingroups,butbetween-groupdifferenceswerenotable.Thedifferencesinperspective

11

couldinformthepartiesinvolvedandallowforamoresuccessfulapproachinthefuture.All

DeafMuslimsinterviewedindicatedtheextremepositiveimpactgainingaccesstoIslamhadon

theirlife,highlightingtheimportanceofsucceedingintheirquest.

Introduction

Freedomofreligionasahumanrightisrootedinancienttimesasreligioustolerance

(ReligiousFreedomProject2011)andhasbeeninternationallyrecognizedviatheUN’s

UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(1948).Specifically,article18addressestheserights,

statingthefollowing:

“Everyonehastherighttofreedomofthought,conscienceandreligion;thisright

includesfreedomtochangehisreligionorbelief,andfreedom,eitheraloneorin

communitywithothersandinpublicorprivate,tomanifesthisreligionorbeliefin

teaching,practice,worshipandobservance.”(UnitedNations2015,pageXX).

However,ifonecannotaccessone’sreligion,onecannotexercisethepursuanthumanrightof

religiousfreedom.

Typically,whentalkingaboutaccessibilityforDeafpeople,accessiscomparedtothe

situationofnon-Deafpeople.WhenlookingatDeafMuslims’communicationaccessthereis

alsoanawarenessofdifferentlevelsofaccessbasedonwhichreligiononefollows.Islamseems

tolagbehindbothJudaismandChristianityintermsofcommunicationaccess.Researchand

literatureconcerningChristianityandJudaismshowsadvancedaccommodationactivitiessome

beginningdecadesago,aswellasaholisticviewofintegration–havingfullservicesofferedin

signedlanguages,ratherthanhavingcommunicationthroughinterpreters.Severalexamples

canbefoundintheliterature:ChristianEpiscopalianwomanenrollshersoninaSundayschool

fortheDeaf(Bouman,2003);aWashingtonDCCatholicparishincorporatessignlanguageinto

theirservicesimplybecausenearbyGallaudetUniversitybringsalargeDeafpopulationtothe

area;

“Wedon'thaveanybodyinchurchrightnowwhoisfullydeafandapartofthedeaf

community.Butwetriedtointegratesigning…It’slikeifyoubuildit,theywillcome.”(US

12

Catholic2014,18)

InJudaism,accessibilityofsynagoguesisframedasahumanright;

“…accesstosynagogueenvironmentsmustbeviewedasanentitlementratherthan

causeforafundraisinginitiative.Itisonlywhenthestruggleofdis/abledJewsis

understoodinahumanrightsframeworkratherthanoneproposingtzedekah[charity],

thatwewilltakeourplacewithintheJewishcommunity.”(Finkler2011,38)

In2012aVatican-levelconferencewithDeafpresentersaddressingauthenticsignlanguage

translationstookplace(NationalCatholicReporter2012,1).

Meanwhile,in2011,anIslamicjournalreportedthat

“Mostmosqueshavetocomplywithlocallawsrequiringthatbuildingsbewheelchair

accessibleviarampsandelevators.Beyondthis,however,itisaveryraremosquethat

willhiresignlanguageinterpretersforkhutbahs[Fridaysermon]orprovideaccessible

Eidprayerlocations.”(IslamicHorizons2011,3)

OneresultofdifferentreligionshavingdifferinglevelsofaccommodationforDeaffollowersis

theissuesofproselytizationandconversion.TherewasanumberofDeafMuslimyoungadults

whoindicatedtheyhadeitherleftIslamoratleasthadseenconversionasanappealingoption

eveniftheydidnotfollowthrough.OneyoungwomanrecalledbeinginvitedtoherChristian

friend’schurch—whereserviceswereinterpreted—andaChristianyouthgroupwhere

everyonewasDeafand/orsigned.ThisphenomenonisseenastrueforDeaffollowersacross

religions,“…deafJewsarebeingheavilytargetedbyChristianmissionarieslookingforconverts.

BecausemanydeafJewslacksolidknowledgeoftheirreligion,theyaremoresusceptibleto

outsideinfluences…”(Stutz1996,20).

Throughouttheinterviews,respondentsreportedtheextremeimpactthatthelackof

accesstoIslamhadonDeafMuslims.Anecdotally,DeafMuslimsrecallednotunderstandingthe

mostbasicelementsofIslamuntilattendinganeventwhereinterpretingserviceswereoffered

alongsidetheImamwhoexplainedthebasicsofIslamicprayers.OneDeafrespondentwas

struckwhenrealizingthatinhismid-thirtieshewasgettinginformationtypicallyobtainedbya

youngchild.Giventheseriousconsequencesthatnon-accommodationcanleadto,itis

imperativetoaddressthebarriersthatstillhinderDeafMuslimsfromaccessingIslam.This

13

researchlooksatthecurrentobstaclesandexaminescaseswherethesehavebeensuccessfully

overcome.ItseemstocomeatatimewhentheMuslimUmmah(community)isreadytobetter

accommodateDeafMuslims.

ThestruggleforaccommodationinIslamforDeafMuslimsmaybeatatippingpoint.

Withinthepastdecade,anumberofhappeningsatnationalandinternationallevelbrought

attentiontotheplightofDeafMuslims.In2005GlobalDeafMuslim(GDM),anon-profit

organizationwasestablished.GDMisanorganizationrepresentingandrunbyDeafMuslimsin

theUnitedStates.GDMcurrentlyhaschaptersinatleastsixstatesaswellastwointernational

chapters.TheGDMvision,asstatedontheirwebsite,isthefollowing:

“AMuslimUmmahthatrecognizestherightsofDeafMuslimsandactivelystrivesto

ensurethatitisaccessibleandinclusiveofallMuslims.”

(http://globaldeafmuslim.org/index.php/about-3/mission/)

GDMhasspentmuchtimeandeffortorganizingreligiousservices,celebrations,andQuran

classesthatareinterpretedintoAmericanSignLanguage(ASL).Theyalsosupportthe

developmentofanASLtranslationoftheQuran.InternationalconferencesspecificallyforDeaf

MuslimshavebeenheldinIstanbul(2006)andDoha,Qatar(2013),andKualaLumpur,Malaysia

(2016).Oneissueofthe2013conferencewastheintroductionofasignlanguagedictionaryin

ordertostandardizecommonIslamicterms—e.g.,thosetermsthatarespokeninArabicby

non-DeafMuslimsregardlessoftheirnationalityorlanguage.In2014thebook“DeafMuslims

SearchingforIslam”writtenbyMahmoodwasinitiallyonlysoldasane-bookpublication,but

followingmajorinterestbecameavailableinhardcopy.Theinternationalmedianetwork,Al

Jazeera,interviewedthepresidentofGDM,whoisDeaf,inASL,ontheTalktoAlJazeerashow

in2014.AnASLinterpreterappearedon-screenasapost-productionelementforthespoken

EnglishthusbringingthestoryofthestruggleforaccesstoDeafandnon-Deafaudiencesalike.

Withthesenationalandinternationalhappenings,itseemsthatperhapsweareseeinga

tippingpointinthequestforcommunicationaccessbyDeafMuslims.

14

Methods

DuetothedisenfranchisednatureoftheDeafMuslimpopulationinourareas,weused

apurposivesnowballsampleforourinterviews.Individualsineachcategorywhowerealready

knowntotheresearcherswereinterviewedandthenaskedtosuggestfurtherrespondents.

ThetworesearchersareinvolvedatdifferentlevelsintheMuslimcommunitythatwas

approachedforthisresearch.BothareinterpreterswhoworkinMuslimsettings.Oneis

marriedintoaMuslimfamily,butisnotaMuslim,andtheotherconvertedtoIslamatayoung

age.Thisgivestheauthorsbothinsightintoandaccesstothespecificpopulationrepresented

intheresearch.Theresearchersinterviewedfivedifferentgroups:DeafMuslims,DeafMuslim

leaders,parentsofDeafMuslims,ImamsandotherMasjidofficials,andinterpreterswhowork

withDeafMuslims.Thetotalsamplesizewas59intervieweeswiththefollowingn-sizeforeach

group:DeafMuslims,30;DeafMuslimleaders,6;parentsofDeafMuslims,8;Imamsand

Masjidofficials,5;andinterpretersworkinginMuslimsettings,10.Theseparticipantswere

locatedinthemetropolitanareasofAtlanta,Minneapolis,Toronto,andWashington,DC.

BoththeconsentformandtheinterviewprotocolwerepresentedinspokenEnglishor

inadigitalformatasanASLtranslation,basedontheinterviewee’spreference1.Semi-

structuredinterviewswereconducted,withallorpartoftheinterviewbeingrecorded(when

permissionwasgrantedbytheinterviewee).

ContentanalysisofthedatawasconductedusingconceptualanalysisandKeyWordsIn

Context(KWIC)recordingonlytheexistenceoftheconcept,notitsfrequency.Thisallowedfor

thediscoveryoftrendsbothwithinandacrossgroups,aswellastheexistenceofnotable

differences.InterviewswereKWICanalyzedinformally(seeBernardandRyan,2010)tofind

repeatedthemes.Nocountwaskeptofthenumberoftimesasalientwordwasfoundinany

1Itshouldbenotedthatalthoughthisresearchwasnotconductedundertheauspicesofaninstitution,

theinformedconsentformdevelopedbytheresearchersiscomparabletothoseusedunderuniversityIRBdirection

15

giveninterview,butifamajority,oralargeminorityofrespondentsinonegroupmentioned

thatsameconcept(evenonce)itwasnotedasatheme.

Results

Severalofthequestionsontheinterviewprotocolyieldedpronouncedthemesthat

wereconsistent—andattimesunanimous—withingroups.Severalkeybetween-group

differenceswerefound.

BarrierstoAccess

Respondentswereaskedtoidentifybarrierstoaccess.

HearingrespondentsfromboththeMasjidofficialsandImamsgroupandtheparentsofDeaf

Muslimsgroupnotedfinancialresources,literallymeaningtheydidnotknowwheretogetthe

moneytopayinterpreters.Althoughsomeeventswereinterpretedwithpro-bonoservices,not

allwere.Thesegroupsalsomentionedlogisticsintheirresponsesacrosstheboard(detailson

what‘logistics’meantcanbefoundinthediscussionsection).

AmajorityofDeafMuslimsandinterpretersmentionedfinancesandlogisticsaswell,butalso

notedattitudeorphilosophyofnon-DeafMuslimsasabarrier.

Additionally,severalDeafMuslimleadersnotedsomeformofpoliticsorpowerasabarrier.

InterpretersreportedalackofawarenessonthepartofMuslimleadersandorganizationsasa

majorbarrier.

GainingAccess

Respondentswereaskedhowtheywentabouttryingtogainaccesstotheirreligion.

DeafMuslimleaderssaidthatorganizingwastheapproachmostusedtoassertinfluenceon

gettingtheaccommodationsneeded.Parentsaddressedorganizingaswell,butmorefor

informationsharingandsupportratherthantryingtoapproachtheproblemcollectively.

Parentsalsonotedthattheytookituponthemselvestobothrequestandsometimespayout-

of-pocketforinterpreterswhenthefamilywantedtoattendreligiousceremoniesorevents.

TheinterpretersnoteditwasimportanttorepeatedlycontactMuslimorganizationswhen

eventswerependingtobesuretheyprovidedinterpreterstomakeaneventaccessible.Deaf

16

Muslimsalsonoted,thoughnotunanimously,thattechnologywasusedinsomecasesfor

access,includingvideosofinterpretedIslamicclassesthatcanbefoundonYouTube.

Therespondinginterpreterswereaskedtodetailtheactionstheytookinsecuring

accommodations.Theteninterpretersinterviewed,reportedavarietyofstrategies.Each

interpretermentionedhavingusedatleastone(andinmostcasesall)oftheseapproaches:(1)

offeringpro-bonoor“lowbono”(i.e.reducedrate)servicesevenwhenthejobwasgoingtobe

challengingandarduous;(2)assistingtheprocessbyofferingtocoordinatethehiringand

schedulingofinterpretersatnoadditionalcost;(3)beinganadvocatebypersonallymaking

contactwhenDeafMuslimswerenotgettingaresponseaboutinterpretingservices;(4)

spendingtimeexplainingtheneedforaccommodationsaswellasstandardpracticesforsign

languageinterpretingsuchas;workinginateam,needingpreparationmaterials,etc.

Solutions

Whenaskedtoconsiderwhatcouldsolvetheproblemofnothavingcommunication

accesstoIslam,theresponsesfromDeafMuslims,DeafMuslimleadersandinterpretersshared

acommontheme.Thesegroupsnotedthatmoreinterpreters—moremaleinterpreters,more

Musliminterpreters,andinaperfectworldmoremaleMusliminterpreters—wereneeded.This

isbecauseofteninMuslimsettingsthemenandwomenareseparatedanditisunorthodox

and/orsometimesuncomfortableiftheinterpreterandtheDeafconsumerarenotofthesame

gender.BothgroupsalsoidentifiedthatiftherewerenoMusliminterpretersavailable,non-

Musliminterpretersneededtobetrainednotonlyinthecontentofthereligion,butalsointhe

cultureoftheMuslimcommunity.Itshouldbenotedthat--truetothisissue–nineoutofthe

teninterpretersinterviewedwerefemale,andsevenwerenon-Muslim.

Beyondthisacross-grouptheme,DeafMuslimleadersalsoreiteratedtheneedto

organizeinordertocollectivelymakeMasjidofficialsrespondtorequestsforservices.Deaf

Muslimsrespondedwiththeneedfortransportationandforadvertisingtoensurepeopleare

awarethatinterpretingwillbeprovided.

Anadditionalthemefromtheinterpreterrespondentswastheneedforrespectfor

interpretersandtheinterpretingprocess.

17

Discussion

BarrierstoAccess

BycollectingdatafromavarietyofstakeholdersinvolvedinmakingIslamaccessiblefor

DeafMuslims,wewereabletoseesomedivergencebetweenkeyplayers.Forexample,both

thehearinggroups(Masjidofficialsandparents)andtheDeafMuslimsnotedlogisticsasa

barrier.However,theirdefinitionsofthoselogisticswerenotsimilar.Forexample,Masjid

officialsspoketologisticalbarriersasbeingunfamiliarwithfindingandhiringinterpreters.An

exampleofalogisticalbarriernotedbytheDeafMuslimrespondentsincludedlogisticsduring

anevent,e.g.,dealingwithgenderseparationwhichleftafemaleinterpreterunabletostandin

thelocationwhereshecouldbeseenbyalloftheDeafMuslims.

Further,thefactthattheDeafMuslimsincludedtheissueof“attitude”intheir

responsestowhatbarriersexistisinterestingaswellastroubling.Onethoughtisthattheslow

responseonthepartofImamsandtheMasjidcommunitytranslatesasattitudinaltoDeaf

Muslimswhenitcouldbelinkedtoanissueoflogistics,suchasnotknowingwheretobegin.In

contrast,perhapstheperceivedattitudeissuegoesunnoticedbyMasjidofficialsbecauseitis

partoftheprivilegeofdirectaccessthathearingMuslimshavebyvirtueofbeinghearing,a

privilegeofwhichtheymaynotevenbeaware.

DeafMuslimleadersweretheonlyrespondentstomentionpoliticsandpowerissues.

Thepowerissuewasdefinedinlightofthegeneralneedtoorganize(strengthinnumbers),but

therewerealsotwodistinctpoliticalissuesmentioned.ThefirstwasthepoliticsoftheMasjid.

DeafMuslimleadersnotedtheimportanceofknowingwhomtoapproachabout

accommodations.OnerespondentsharedabouthavingworkedwithanImamforsometime

whoexpressedbeingsupportiveofprovidinginterpretersforDeafMuslims.Astimewentby

nothingevercameoftherequestsforinterpretingservices.Eventuallyitwasdiscoveredthat

whiletheImammayhavethefinalword,therewasanotherofficialwhohadservedatthe

Masjidformanyyears,andhewasthepersonwhohadthepowertoactuallymakethings

happen.

18

AsecondfacetofthepoliticsmentionedbyDeafleaderswasonamoreglobalscale.

TheynotedthatwhentryingtogetfundingforinterpretingservicesintheMasjidortryingto

securefinancialsupportforDeafactivities,theywerevyingforattentionamidstchallenging

worldpolitics.OnecouldwonderiftheMasjidandtheindividualMuslimswhoaremembersof

thecommunitywillgivemoneyinordertoaccommodatetheneedsoftheDeafMuslim

communitywhenpressinginternationalissuescommandtheirattention,suchascivilwar,

militarycoups,orothersituationsaffectingMuslimsasawholeacrosstheglobe?

GainingAccess

ThoughDeafMuslimleadersandsomeDeafMuslimrespondentsnotedorganizingasan

approachtogainingaccess,theysawthisondifferentscales.Deafleadersbelievedintheneed

foranorganizationwithasmanyDeafMuslimsinvolvedaspossible,toshowacollectiveneed.

WhilenotnotedbyamajorityofDeafMuslims,severaladdressedhowjustbandingtogetheras

agroupoftwo,three,orfourcouldaccomplishthegoalofaccess.ADeafMuslimcollege

studentsharedhisexperienceofestablishingachapteroftheMuslimStudentAssociationon

campus.Later,thissamestudent,withthehelpoftwofriends,approachedanImamand

securedinterpretingservicesforJummah(Friday)prayersatthelocalMasjid.Thisrespondent

proudlynotedthatinterpretingservicesarestillbeingofferedatthatMasjidmorethanten

yearslater.

Relatedtotheapproachoforganizingandcollectiveeffort,hearingparentsofDeaf

Muslimsindicateditwouldhelptohaveanetworkofparentswhosharethesameconcern.In

thiscase,organizingtousenumbersasaforcewasnotthegoal.Rather,organizingwasseenas

awaytoshareinformationandoffersupporttooneanother.Parents,whenansweringhow

theygainedaccessfortheirchildren,mentionedthattheytookituponthemselvestorequest—

insomecasesdirectlycontactinganinterpreter—andpayforinterpretersforeventsthefamily

wishedtoattend.Alloftheparentswhowereinterviewedwereimmigrants,andperhapsthe

ideasofcollectivelyfightingforaccessrightsandofensuringthatthepartyresponsibleforthe

accommodationpays—bothdistinctivelyAmericanideas—werenotapartoftheirschema.

Wheninterpretersmentionedaccessbeinggainedthroughpersistenceingetting

Muslimorganizationstoprovideinterpreters,apersonalanecdoteortwomostoftenfollowed

19

thecomment.OneinterpreterrecalledinterpretingataneventfeaturingdistinguishedMuslim

scholars.Attheendoftheprogram,ayoungDeafwomanwantedtoapproachoneofthe

scholars,presumablytoaskaquestionordiscussapointfromthethought-provokinglecture.

Theinterpreterwassurprisedwhen,instead,theyoungwomanaskedtheSheikhifhewouldbe

attendingorpresentingatanupcomingnationalMuslimconference,andifsocouldheplease

contactsomeoneaboutprovidinginterpretingservices.Sheexplainedthatshehade-maileda

numberofindividualsinvolvedincoordinatingtheconferencebuthadneverheardbackovera

numberofweeks.SeveralinterpretersindicatedtheyhadbeenapproachedbyDeafconsumers

inthiswayandhadacceptedtheroleofco-advocatingforDeafMuslims’attemptstoget

interpretingservices.Oneinterpretersharedthatshehad,onbehalfofDeafpotential

conferenceattendees,requestaccessibilityviathe“contactus”e-maillinkonthewebsitefor

anupcomingMuslimconference,buttonoavail.AfterDeafMuslimsindicatedtheywantedto

attendbutweregettingnoassuranceofinterpretingservices,theinterpreterthentriedto

advocatebymakingdirectcontactwiththeconferenceorganization,startingtheconversation

tobehiredasaninterpreterattheevent.

Allinterpreterssharedtheirviewsabouttheirrole,notingthatitinvolvedahighdegree

ofadvocacywheninterpretingforDeafMuslims.Someinterpretersadmitted,abashedly,that

theyhadgonebeyondwhattheyfeltwasbestpractice,perhapsbendingtheirownethics.

However,theybelieveditwastherightthingtodogiventhebarriersDeafMuslimsareup

against.Oneinterpreter,whoisMuslim,notedthatwhensheseesanannouncementofan

eventintheMuslimcommunitythatshethinksDeafMuslimswouldbeinterestedinattending,

shecontactstheeventorganizerandinquiresifinterpretingserviceswillbeprovided.When

theorganizersaystobewillingtoprovidesuchaservice,shealertsthelocalDeafMuslim

communityabouttheeventandencouragespeopletoattend.Whileitisnotagiventhatshe

willbeinterpretingtheevent,thatisoftentheoutcome.Likewise,iforganizersofanevent

reachouttosecureinterpretingservices,shedoesallshecantoensurethatDeafMuslims

20

attend.ThishasincludedofferingtocarpoolwithDeafMuslimattendeesifthisincreasesthe

likelihoodthattheywillattend2.

Solutions

TheDeafMuslims,DeafMuslimleaders,andinterpretersalladdressedtheissueof

needingmoreMusliminterpreters.Morethanonerespondentjokedaboutthefactthat

sometimesImamswillsaytheinterpretermustbeMuslimandmale,acommentattimesmet

withlaughterbyDeafMuslims.Imamsdonotrealizethepaucityofmalesignlanguage

interpretersintheUSorthedearthofMusliminterpretersontopofthat.

DeafMuslimslistedadvertisingofinterpretedeventsasonesolution.Thisisactuallyin

linewiththeunorthodoxbehavioroftheinterpreter3wholooksoutforeventsofinterestand

alertsDeafMuslims.

BeyondalertingtheDeafMuslimcommunityaboutinterpretedevents,morethanone

(thoughnotamajority)oftheDeafMuslimssuggestedtheMasjidshouldoffertransportation

tointerpretedevents.Theynotedthatlocalpublictransportationwasinadequateandthatthe

MasjidshouldunderstandthatDeafMuslimsaredisenfranchisedandgeographicallydispersed

acrossthemetropolitanarea.Theserespondentsfeltthatbecausetheyoftenstruggle

economically,theMuslimcommunitycouldmakeitpossibleforthemtoattendinterpreted

eventsviatransportation.

BothImamsandDeafMuslimleadersraisedthetenetsofIslamthataddressrightingthe

injusticesandinequalitiesintheworld.Though,notthematic(basedonourconceptualcontent

analysisandKWIC–seeMethodssection),suchissueswerenotedastoolsfornegotiating

access.Theissueofothermajorreligions—namelyJudaismandChristianity—beingfaraheadof

IslamintermsofincludingDeaffollowersintheirreligiouscommunitieswasbroughtup

repeatedlyininterviews.Thiswasnotinanswertoanyquestion,butratherofferedwithinthe

environmentofthesemi-structuredinterviews.Theideathatotherreligionsmightproselytize

2IntheUnitedStatesitwouldnotbeethicalforaninterpretertoseekoutpaidworkbyencouragingDeaf

peopletoattendaneventthats/hethenofferstointerpret.Likewise,itisagainstbestpracticetoshareridesbetweentheinterpreterandtheDeafconsumer.

3Asnotedabove,forsignlanguageinterpretersintheUnitedStatesto“drumupbusiness”foroneselfbyinquiringaboutinterpretingservicesthatyouthenoffer,andbeingsureDeafpeopleattendsothatservicesareofferedandyouarepaidcouldbeconsideredunethical.

21

todisconnectedDeafMuslimswasseenasbothatragedyandanincentive.Deafleadersused

thisfacttoemphasizetheurgencyofwelcomingDeafpeopleintotheMasjidandtheUmmah.

Whetherornotitisanurbanlegend,severalrespondentscitedsituationswhereMuslimshad

convertedtoChristianityduetohavingeasieraccesstothereligion.Indeed,severalDeaf

MuslimssharedstoriesofhavingattendedinterpretedChristianservicesandjoinedyouth

groupsofDeaforsigningChristiansandevenrequestingtheirparents’permissiontoconvert.

Conclusion

Theinterviewsconductedaspartofthisresearchrevealacomplexsetofbarriersand

strategiesinvolvedinthemovementforDeafMuslimstogainaccesstoIslam.Someofthe

differencesinviewpointsbetweengroupsmaybehurdlesiftheyremainunknownor

misunderstood.Forinstance,thefactthatDeafMuslimsfeelthereisanattitudeonthepartof

theMuslimcommunitythatisatthecoreoftheirstruggle,anattitudetheMuslimcommunity

apparentlydoesnotrecognize.Hopefully,theresultsofthisresearchwillcreateanopportunity

toaddressthisissue.

Asdiscussedabove,theproblemofDeafMuslimsaccessingIslamcurrentlyseemstobe

atatippingpoint.TheprimarystakeholdergroupsrelatedtoDeafMuslimsaccessingIslamare

awareofthebarrierstheyface.Thereisin-groupagreementonthesebarriers,butdefinitions

differamongstthevariousgroups.Likewise,differentgroupsseedifferentstrategiesastheway

tosuccess.Oneissuenotedbyallthegroups—withunanimityamongDeafMuslims,Imams,

parentsofDeafMuslimsandinterpreters—istheneedformore,andmoresuitable,

interpreters.Thisisadauntingtask,andonethathasnotbeenaddressedtodatewithany

globalapproach.

Anadditionalnote:WhenthisresearchwaspresentedattheWorldAssociationofSign

LanguageInterpretersconferencein2015,thepresentationwasattendedbyinterpretersfrom

anumberofcountries,noneofwhomwereMuslimbutallofwhomwereinterpretingin

Muslimsettingsandwereengagedinsimilarstrugglesandeffortstoalleviatethem.Again,the

factthattheissueofaccessisbeingaddressedinanumberofnationsshowsthatperhapsDeaf

22

MuslimsareonthevergeofachievinggreateraccesstoIslam.Giventhepositiveresponseto

thepresentation,oneoftheresearcherssuggestedtheuseofsocialmedia,inthiscasea

Facebookpage,tosupportoneanotherinternationally.

ThismomentumforDeafMuslimsgainingtheirhumanrighttofreedomofreligionis

goingtorequireactionsonthepartofallstakeholders.DeafMuslimorganizationscanworkin

partnershipwithinterpreterstoputtogetheramoreformaltrainingforinterpreterswhoare

interestedininterpretingMuslimeventsbutneedknowledgeofcontentandculture.In2014a

leadingDeafnewsandDeafblogsite,TheLimpingChicken,notesthatamodelhasbeen

developedbyTariqMahmoodwhotrainsinterpretersinthiswayacrosstheUK4,sothereis

roomforinternationalcollaboration.

DeafMuslimorganizationsshouldalsocontinuetheirworkasacollectiveexpressionof

theDeafMuslimcommunity’sneeds.DuringinterviewsmanyDeafMuslimsnotedtheiraccess

toIslamthroughsuchorganizationshadbeenlifechanging.

MasjidscouldtakethesuggestionsofferedbyDeafMuslimsandbesuretoadvertise

wheninterpretationwillbeprovidedandalsoworktoprovidetransportationifthatisabarrier.

Beyondthat,MasjidscouldlooktotheirownDeafcommunitytoseewhatneedsarelocally

unique.

ParentsofDeafMuslimscantrytonetworkwitheachotherviatheDeafMuslim

organizations,andmaybefindsolutionstotheissuestheyface.

InterpreterswhointerpretinMuslimsettingsneedtoworktoeducatetheMuslim

community,Masjidofficials,andthosewhoplanMuslimeventsaboutstandardpracticesfor

providingaccessiblecommunication.Perhapsthismeansdevelopinga“howto”checklistthat

canbekeptatthelocalMosquereadyforusewhenaneventisbeingplanned;orsenttothe

plannersofmajorMuslimconferencesatthestartoftheirplanningseason.

Stakeholdergroupsallworkingtogethermayleadtowhatisontheothersideofthe

tippingpoint—aclearpathforDeafMuslimstoIslam.

4http://limpingchicken.com/2014/07/10/tariq-mahmood-deaf-muslims-searching-for-islam/

23

AcknowledgementsWeofferourwarmestgratitudetotheDeafMuslimorganizationsthatallowedusto

infiltrateandinterview—GlobalDeafMuslimnationalofficeandchaptersandMinnesotaDeaf

MuslimCommunity.ThanksalsotoalloftheindividualDeafMuslims,parents,interpretersand

Imamswhowerewillingtocooperate.

References Bernard,RussellH.andRyan,GeryW.2010“AnalyzingQualitativeData:Systematic

Approaches”.SagePublications

Bouman,StephanPaul.2003.“LivingbytheWord.”TheChristianCentury:120/20;

pp.18-19.

Costello,Elaine.2009.“ReligiousSigning:AComprehensiveGuideforAllFaithsRandom

HousePublishing

Finkler,EvelynLilith.”ResearchingDisability:SynagogueAccessibilityintheGreater

TorontoArea.”PhDdissertation,YorkUniversity.AnnAbor:ProQuest.(Dissertation/thesis

number:MR62269)

GlobalDeafMuslim.2015.“Missionstatement.”AccessedJuly19th.

http://globaldeafmuslim.org/index.php/about-3/mission/

“LettheSpiritMoveYou.”U.S.Catholic:79no.3(March,2014)18-22.

ReligiousFreedomProject.2011.“ReportoftheGeorgetownSymposiumonWhat’sSo

SpecialAboutReligiousFreedom?”AccessedAugust24th.

http://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/120901RFPWhatsSoSpecialReligiousFreedomS

ymposiumReport.pdf

Ryan,Zoe.“DeafCatholicsseek'fullmembership'.”NationalCatholicReporter:48no.

17(June8–June21,2012)3A.

Siddiqui,Samana.“EmbracingandTranscendingDifferences.”IslamicHorizons:40no.1

Jan/Feb2011)21-26,28-29.

24

Stutz,Christine.“AVoiceInTheSilence:Hearing-impairedJews,fewaffiliatedwith

congregations,findanewallyinJewishAdvocatesforDeafEducation.”BaltimoreJewishTimes:

230no.1(July5,1996)20.

“TariqMahmood,DeafMuslimsSearchingforIslam,”TheLimpingChicken:Deafnews

andDeafblogsfromtheUK!Layseggseveryweekday,July10,2014,

http://limpingchicken.com/2014/07/10/tariq-mahmood-deaf-muslims-searching-for-islam/

UnitedNations.2015.“TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights”AccessedJuly26th.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

25

ExpectationsofDeafProfessionalsUtilizingDesignatedInterpretersKatherineW.Vance&LindsayC.Nickels

Introduction

Acombinationoflegislativeandeducationalopportunitieshavechangedthe

landscapefordeafprofessionalsanddeafpre-professionalsseekingemploymentincareer

pathspreviouslyunforgedbymembersofthedeafcommunity.Asaresult,theroleofthe

interpreterhaschangedcausingashiftfromamoregeneralizedcommunityinterpreterto

onewhichfunctionscloselywithadeafprofessionalordeafpre-professionalinaspecialized

roleanddesignatedcapacity.Thissmall-scalestudyconsideredthisneedbycollecting

quantitativeandqualitativedatafromdeafprofessionalsregardingtheirexpectationsof

interpretersandhowtheyimplementtheirservicesinaprofessionalcontext.Thisdatawas

collectedinordertoascertainabetterunderstandingofhowtheseindividualsenvision

theirinteractionswithinterpretersandwhattheimplicationsofsaidexpectationshaveon

theroleoftheinterpreter.Thisdatawascoupledwithcomparablequantitativeand

qualitativedatasolicitedfromdeafstudentsinauniversity/pre-professionalsetting.The

purposeoftheseresearchendeavorswastodefineexpectationsofdeafprofessionalsand

toidentifyimprovedwaystotrainandpotentiallyemployfutureinterpretersinauniversity

contextforstudentspursuingprofessionaldegrees.Theresultsofthisresearchsuggesta

revisiontodeafprofessional—designatedinterpreterrelationshipsandanadoptionofa

moreteleologicalethicalstance.

26

LiteratureReview

UnitedStates(U.S.)civilrightslegislationhasbeenmomentousinbreakingdown

barrierstoeducationandemploymentfordeafandhardofhearingindividuals(Americans

withDisabilitiesAct1990;PL-94-1421975;RehabilitationAct1973).Asdeafandhardof

hearingindividualsgainaccesstoinstitutionsofhighereducation,moregraduatesare

receivingmasteranddoctoratedegrees(ChristiansenandBarnartt1995)resultinginhigher

numbersofdeafprofessionals(KushalnagarandRashid2008).Whilethenumberofdeaf

professionalscontinuestoproliferateintheworkforce,thedemandsandfunctionsof

signedlanguageinterpretersworkingwiththedeafprofessionalpopulationarealso

changing.Currently,theseinterpretersonlypossessgeneralcertification,whichonly

guaranteestheymeettheminimumprofessionalstandardsnecessarytoperformin

interpretationassignments.Despitethefactthatinterpretersfunctioninginthecontextfor

adeafprofessionalholdspecializedknowledgeandskillsneededtorendereffective

interpretations,specializedtraining,education,andcertificationrelatedtothisdisciplineare

notoffered.

Anewphilosophicalmodelhasevolvedinthefieldofsignedlanguageinterpreting:

theDeafProfessional-DesignatedInterpreter(DP-DI)Model(HauserandHauser2008).The

DP-DIModelrepresentsadeafprofessional(DP)andasignedlanguageinterpreter“who

haveworkedtogetherforasignificantperiodoftime[and]havedevelopedsomespecific

interpretingtechniques,mostlikelywithoutrealizingit”(HauserandHauser2008,p.3).The

levelsoftrustandfamiliarityintheDP-DImodelvaryquitedistinctlyfromanon-designated

role.Tothoseunfamiliarwiththedesignatedinterpreter(DI)role,itcanbeperceivedas

thoughtheinterpreterismakingethicalviolationsorbreachingconfidentiality(Hauseretal.

2008;KaleandLarson1998).DPshaveshiftedintoapositionofpowerwheretheyare

contentexpertsandarecontrollingthecommunicationevent;thus,alteringthedynamicsof

theDP-DIrelationship(Napier,Carmichael,andWiltshire2008).

ThespecificselectionprocessDPsutilizetoselectDIsisunclear.WhileHauseretal.

(2008)suggeststhatskillisimportant,theauthorsimplythatitisnotthemostimportant

27

trait.Onthecontrary,Stanton(2011)stressestheimportanceofskill;particularlywhile

workingforadeaflawyerwhosepositionmakesitnecessaryforlegalterminologytobe

renderedliterallyinaninterpretation.GeneraltraitsfoundinaDIwhicharenecessaryfor

maintainingaDP-DIrelationshiphavebeenidentifiedthroughanecdotalliterature,(i.e.,

interpretingcompetency,trust,loyalty,respect,teamwork,andknowledgeofthediscipline)

(Cook2004;Hauseretal.2008;KaleandLarson1998),butempiricalstudieshaveyetto

showthepriorityinwhichDPsemploythesetraitsduringselectionofDIs.Furtherresearch

isneededinordertoeffectivelytrainandprepareDIstobemembersofaDP-DIteamthat

canfunctioninamannerthatbenefitstheprofessionalandallowshim/hertobea

successfulprofessional.

Inthecontextofthisstudy,adeafprofessional“referstoanydeaforhardofhearing

employees,trainees,orinternswhorequireinterpretingservicestoaccessthelevelof

communicationneededforthemtolearn,performtheirjobresponsibilities,orboth”

(HauserandHauser2008,p.4).Additionally,inthecontextofthisstudy,adesignated

interpreterreferstoaninterpreterwhohasworkedwithaDPforasignificantperiodof

timeresultinginthefollowingcompetencies:maintainingspecializedknowledgeofthe

contextinwhichtheyfunction,understandingthevariouspowerrelationshipsatwork

betweendeafandnon-deafcolleagues,maintaininghighcompetenciesinAmericanSign

Language(ASL)andEnglish,anddevelopingastrongrelationshipoftrustwhichoftenleads

theinterpreterawayfromapositionofneutrality(Cook2004;Hauseretal.2008;Kaleand

Larson1998).Theresearchquestionforthisstudywas:whattraitsdodeafprofessionals

lookforwhentheyemployadesignatedinterpreter?Thegoalofthestudywasthatthe

findingsmayhavepotentialimpactonthewaythatDIsarehiredbyinterpretingagenciesor

othercoordinatorsandhowinterpretereducationmayneedtobealteredtomeettheever-

growingdemandsofthisparticularpopulation.

Methodology

ThisresearchprojectexplorestheperspectivesandopinionsoftheDPpopulationas

theyrelatetotheselectionofDI.AlthoughourresearchtargetedtheDPpopulation

spanningseveralcountries,ourrespondentswereonlyfromNorthAmericaandassuchthis

28

studyisplacedinaNorthAmericancontext.Groundedintheframeworkofsocial

constructivism(seeCrotty1998;Creswell2003andothers),ourstudyaimstodiscoverthe

variedviewsofourparticipantsinordertogetabetterunderstandingofexpectationsand

desiredtraitsthatarecommonlysoughtafterwhenDPsworkwithDIs.

Chieflyfocusedonexplicatingtheexperiencesandopinionsofourresearch

participants,thedesignofthisstudybeginswithanelementofquantitativeinquiry:the

survey.Asurveywasfittingforourstudysowecouldestablishthetraditionalexpectations

concerningtheuseofDIs,thesetofwhichwehadpreviouslylearnedaboutthroughour

ownexperienceandanecdotalevidencefromotherDPsandDIs.Ingeneral,surveysare

usefulinstudiesthatseektoinvestigatetheverythoughtsandfeelingsweareinterestedin;

however,therigidityofaseriesofclose-endedquestionsdoesnotaffordtheparticipantsan

opportunitytoexpandontheirownpersonalexpectationsorexperiencesthatmayhaveled

themtotheirselectioncriteriaandprocess.Purelyquantitativeelementsofinquiryare

additionallyproblematicinthattheknowledgewehadandusedinthedevelopmentofthis

studyislikelyincomplete,leavingthepotentialforustomissoutonimportantinformation

andconcernsthatwemaynothaveanticipated.

Itisforthesereasonsthatwedecidedtoincludeafairlyrobustelementof

qualitativeinquiryintooursurveydesign.Throughtheinclusionofqualitativeinquiry,

manifestinacollectionofopen-endedquestions(seesectiononsurveydesign),weasthe

researcherswereabletousetheinsightsgatheredfromtheparticipantstonotonlyinform

ouranalysisofthislimitedstudy,buttoalsoinformourfutureresearchendeavorsby

revealingpossiblegapsinoursurveydesign.

Whereasasurveyresearchapproachmaybebestforascertainingtheinformation

necessarytofuelthisandfuturephasesofthisstudy,itisalsoimportanttobecautiousin

drawingconclusionsfromthisdataseeingasself-reporteddataisnotalwaysthemostvalid

orreliablemeansofarrivingatanswerstoresearchquestions.Withthatsaid,self-reported

dataisthebestoptionwehaveforgatheringthetargetedinformationseeingaswecannot

dosothroughothermeanssuchasobservationorethnographyduetoethicalstandards

andexpectationsofconfidentialitywithininterpretingsettings,whichwouldmakegetting

accessquitedifficult.Moreover,wearemainlyinterestedintheinsightsandopinionsof

DPs,datathatisbestsoughtthroughself-reporteddata.

29

SincethenumberofDPsisstillgrowingandisnotnecessarilyconcentratedinone

location,wedonothavedirectaccesstoalargenumberofthem.Therefore,wedecidedto

useasnowballmethodofsampling,whichallowedustogainaccesstoprofessionaland

socialnetworksoutsideofourownpersonalconnectionsthatcontainedindividualswho

wouldsatisfytheeligibilitycriteria.Wedidthisboththroughcontactingpeopleinourown

individualnetworks,aswellasthroughlargerentitiesthatwouldhaveaccesstopotential

participants(i.e.NationalAssociationoftheDeaf(NAD),Deafprofessionalsnetworkon

LinkedIn,etc.).Usingadigitalplatformforthesurveycreationanddistributiongrantedus

theopportunitytoreachamuchlargerpoolofpeopleresultinginamorerepresentative

sampleofDPs.Adigitalplatformcarrieswithitsomepositivesandnegatives,theformerof

whichincludeanincreasedfunctionalityandabilitytotrackstatisticaldata,whilethelatter

referstotheinabilitytotrackwhetherornotthesurveylinkwaspassedontoalargergroup

afterbeingsenttotheinitialcontact.

Opencodingwasusedintheanalysisofqualitativeinquiryelements.Weeachwent

throughthecodingprocessseparately,throughwhichweinterpretedandconceptualized

thedatainawaythatallowedustouncoverrelationshipsintherawdata,makingitmore

statisticallyanalyzable.Individually,wewereabletoidentifyemergentthemesandstriking

elementsintheresponsesandcomparethoseitemswithoneanotherbeforedetermining

howtopresenttheresults.

SurveyDesign

Thesurveyusedconsistedof26questionsintotal(7demographicquestions,6open-

endedquestions,and13close-endedquestions).Twosurveyswereused;thewordingfor

theDPsurveywasslightlyalteredtocreateaseparatesurveyfordeafpre-professionals

(DPPs,whoconsistmostlyofuniversitystudents,especiallythoseinprofessionaltracks,i.e.

medicine,engineering,education,etc.)inorderforthequestionstobemorefittingforthe

pre-professionalsetting.Manyofthequestionsremainedexactlythesame,soinessence,

onlyonesurveywascreated.Throughthesequestions,thesurveygatheredinformation

aboutthefrequencywithwhichtheparticipantsusedinterpreters,askingaboutnumberof

daysperweekandnumberofhoursperdaytheyuseinterpreters,aswellasinwhat

capacity(i.e.renderingfromspokentosignedlanguageorviceversa).Followingthe

questionsconcerningfrequencyofuse,thesurveyaskedaboutpreviouslyidentifiedtraitsof

30

DIs.Respondentswereaskedtoratetheimportanceof16traitsonafive-pointscale(i.e.

notimportant,somewhatimportant,notconsidered,important,orveryimportant)when

selectinganinterpreterforthepre-professionalorprofessionalsetting(16traitscanbe

seenintable1).

These16traitswerethenbrokendowninto4categories(seetable1forcategories

andtheirrespectivetraits)andparticipantswereaskedtorankthe4traitsinorderof

importance(1-4,mostimportanttoleastimportant).Thesecategoriesarerepresentativeof

thelarger,overarchingcharacteristicsexpectedofworkinginterpreters.Subsequentto

rankingsaidcharacteristics,participantsweregivenanopportunitytoexplainwhichtrait

wasmostimportanttothemandtheirreasoningforselectingthattraitthroughanopen-

endedresponse.Thehopewasthatwemightascertainsomefurtherelucidationonthe

responsesgivenintheprecedingsections,orsomeunexpectedinformationforustousein

futurephases.

Category RelevantTraits

Proficiency/Competency • ASLtoEnglishproficiency(orgenerallysignedto

spoken)

• EnglishtoASLproficiency(orgenerallyspokento

signed)

• Specializedknowledge

• Levelofeducation

ProfessionalBehavior • Professionalism

• Teamwork

• Easilyliked

• Trustworthiness

ProfessionalDemeanor • Loyalty

• Respect

• Adaptability

• Positiveattitude

PhysicalCharacteristics • Attractiveness

• Attire

• Gender

31

• Age

Table1:Interpretertraitsandrespectivecategories

Thesurveyalsoincludedashortsectiondescribingcommonscenariosinapre-

professional/professionalenvironment(dependingonwhichsurveytheycompleted)where

thedeafpre-professional(DPP)orDPmaydesiretheuseofaninterpreter.Participants

wereaskedaboutthethreemostimportanttraitsforeachofthesescenarios.Establishing

thesedifferentcontextsandagainsolicitinginformationabouttheparticipants’preferred

traitsallowedustoseeiftherewasanyconsistencyamongpopularchoicesorif,instead,

differenttraitswerechoseneachtime.Wewerealsoabletocomparetheseselectionswith

therankingsectiontoidentifydiscrepancies.Thiswasfollowedbyaseriesofopen-ended

questions(seetable3).

Althoughsimpleinitsdesign,thissurveywasanappropriatestartingpointfora

multiphasicresearchstudy,whichisourintention.Itprovidedagoodbaselinefromwhich

wewillbeablebuildsubsequent,morerefined,stagesofinquiry.Inparticular,theopen-

endedquestionswerehelpfulinuncoveringitemsandconsiderationswemayhavemissed

inourinitialdesignwhilesimultaneouslyretrievingexpansionontheparticipants’choiceof

traits.Thesequalitativeinquiryelementsworkedtoensurethatwewereabletoaccessthe

truefeelingsandopinionsofourparticipantswithouthavingfedthemtheanswerthrougha

setoflimitedoptions.

Data

Ourparticipantscamefromawidevarietyofdemographics.Participantsranged

fromtheir20stotheir50sandresidedallacrosstheU.S.andCanada.Similarly,oursample

ofparticipantsrepresentedagreatdealofdiversityinprofessions:medicine,information

technology,post-secondaryeducation,artanddesign,etc.Whilenotalargeenoughsample

toallowforgeneralizability,thesamplewasatleastdiverseenoughtoprovidean

assortmentofperspectivesonworkingwithDIs.Thedatacamefromatotalof25

participantsoverbothgroups(21DPsand4DPPs),with14completed(11DPsand3DPPs)

surveyresponses.The11participantsmakingupthisdiscrepancyincludethoseindividuals

32

whoeithercompletedthequantitativeportionofthesurveywhileoptingoutofthe

qualitativeelements,orchosetoanswerquestionsatrandombutdidnotcompletethe

surveyinitsentirety.

Analysis&Discussion

Theresultscollectedinthissurvey,whileinsightfultotheprocessemployedbyDPs

andDPPsutilizingDIs,arenotgeneralizableduetothesampleandresponsesize.

Nonetheless,theresultspresentinthecollectedresponsesprovidedtheresearcherswith

empiricaldataabouttheprioritygiventocharacteristicsheldbyDIs.

Demographics

Inordertogetasenseofourparticipants,thesurveyincludedquestionsattheend

askingfordemographicinformation.Participantswerenotrequiredtorespondtothese

questionsinordertosubmittheirsurveyresponses.Thesequestionsincludedthe

participants’genderidentification,themajorityofwhomidentifiedasfemale(64%)andage,

responsestowhichrangedfrom20to‘50s’.Anoverwhelmingpercentageofour

participantsidentifiedas‘Deaf’(82%),andonlyacoupleidentifiedas‘deaf’or‘other.’As

mentionedintheprevioussection,ourparticipantscamefromarangeoflocationsacross

theU.S.andCanadaandfromavarietyofprofessions(includingeducation,information

technology,medicine,andseveralothers).Themajorityofourparticipantshadabachelor’s

degreeasthehighestdegreeearned(55%),thoughwealsohadsomewithmaster’s

degrees,medicaldegrees,andPhDs.ParticipantsmostlyusedASLastheirpreferred

communicationmodeintheworkplace(64%),thoughsomechosetouseanEnglishsign

system,spokenorwrittenEnglish,orothermodes

FrequencyofUse

Asmentioned,respondentswerepolledaboutfrequencyofuseofaDIinthe

workplaceorpre-professionalsetting.Themajorityofrespondentsfrombothsurveys(76%)

notedthatDIswereutilizedformorethan10hoursperweek,withamajority(65%)noting

thatDIswereutilizedonadailybasis.Whileallrespondentsutilizedinterpretersfor

interpretationsrenderedfromaspokenlanguagetoasignedlanguage,theresponsesvaried

33

forhowoftentheparticipantutilizedaninterpretertorenderaninterpretationfroma

signedtoaspokenlanguage,where7%reportedneverutilizinganinterpreterinthis

capacityand21%reportedrarelydoingso.Ananalysisofthedemographicandidentitydata

providedbytherespondentsimpliesacorrelationwithanindividuals’comfortlevelutilizing

hisorherspokenvoiceaswellasmasteryofthespokenlanguage,i.e.English.Frequent

contactandprovisionofinterpretingserviceshasbeenshownthroughthisstudytoimpact

theprioritiesoftraitsinherenttoDIsemployedinthesecontexts.

ScenariosfortheuseofDIs

WhenpresentedwithspecificscenariosforutilizingaDI,therankingoftraitsvaried.

Thetraitspresentedcanbebrokendownintofourcategories(seetable1).Variations

occurredacrossscenariosasexpected;forexample,theprioritizationofagiventrait

differedduringaone-on-onemeetingwithasupervisorcomparedtoapresentationata

professionalconference.Inrespecttothecategoriesfoundintable1above,thehighest

rankedtraitsforbothDPsandDPPs(innoparticularorder)were:interpretingability;

trustworthiness;adaptability;andattire.Worthnotingistheexpectationofadaptabilityin

professionaldemeanor.Boththroughproposedscenariosandself-reporteddatainopen-

endedquestions,respondentsindicatedtheimportanceofadaptabilityasitwasfrequently

mentionedassomethingthatisvaluedinaDI.However,sincenoneofthetraitswere

explicitlydefineditispossiblethatnotallrespondentsview“adaptability”inasimilarway.

Theidentificationofthefrequencyitoccurredthroughresponseshasledtheresearchersto

determinefurtherresearchisneededtounderstandtheexpectationsofDPsaroundan

interpreter’sdegreeofadaptability.

RankingofTraits

Therankingoftraitsintable2belowwasdeterminedbycalculatingthemeansof

individualtraitsandthenorderingthesemeansfromlowesttohighest,withameanof1

beingthehighestpossibleranking,and4beingthelowestpossibleranking.Sincethe

rankingwasdeterminedthroughmeans,itispossibleinsomecasesthatthetraitranked

highestmayhavealsobeenrankedlowestbyotherparticipants,andviceversa.Asthedata

willshow(seetable2),notraitwasrankedhighestorlowestbyallparticipants;therewas

alwayssomedegreeofvariation.Additionally,themeansofsometraitsweretied,which

34

canbeseeninthetable;however,thosetraitsmoreconsistentlymarkedwithhigher

rankingsweregiventheranksodeserving.

ProfessionalSurveyDITraitRankings

1 2 3 4

Proficienc

y/comp.

Signed

tospoken

(2.18)

Spoken

tosigned(2.18)

Spec.

knowledge

(2.45)

Levelof

education(3.18)

Prof.

behavior

Professi

onalism(1.46)

Teamwo

rk(2.38)

Trustwor

thiness(2.69)

Easily

liked(3.46)

Prof.

demeanor

Respect

(1.69)

Positive

attitude(2.46)

Adaptabi

lity(2.54)

Loyalty

(3.31)

Phys.

characteristics

Attire

(1.73)

Age

(2.64)

Attractiv

eness(2.73)

Gender

(2.91)

Pre-ProfessionalSurveyDITraitRankings

1 2 3 4

Proficienc

y/comp.

Spoken

tosigned(2.00)

Signed

tospoken

(2.50)

Spec.

knowledge

(2.50)

Levelof

education(3.00)

Prof.

behavior

Trustwo

rthiness(2.00)

Teamwo

rk(2.00)

Professio

nalism(2.25)

Easily

liked(3.75)

Prof.

demeanor

Adaptab

ility(1.75)

Respect

(2.00)

Positive

attitude(3.00)

Loyalty

(3.25)

Phys.

characteristics

Attire

(1.50)

Age

(2.25)

Gender

(3.00)

Attractiv

eness(3.25)

Table2:Rankingoftraitsresults

WhilethereissomesimilarityintherankingoftraitsbetweentheDPsandtheDPPs,

theseresultsindicatethattheremaybesomedifferenceinexpectations.Thedifference

presentedinthisdatacouldbetheresultofadifferenceinexperience,whereitwouldbe

assumedthatDPshavemuchmoreexperienceinworkingwithDIsthantheirDPP

35

counterpartsandsotheirexpectations,orpreferredtraits,mayhaveevolved.Ofcourse,

thisisnotnecessarilythecasebutisapossibledeductionbasedontheresults.Perhapsthe

factthattheyaredifferentsimplytellsusthatthereisaneedtoconsidertheneedsofthese

twogroupsseparately;orthatournextstageofresearchshouldseektoinvestigatethe

differencesthatexistbetweenthesetwogroupsintheselectionofDIs.

Oneofthemoreinterestingfindingsfromthisdataisthesurprisinglylowrankof

adaptabilityfortheDPsurveys.Althoughadaptabilitywasnotedasacommontheme

throughoutthissurvey(notedintheothersubsectionsoftheanalysis,i.e.thescenariosfor

theuseofDIsandtheopen-endedquestions),itappearstofallbelowthetraitsofrespect

andpositiveattitude.ThisdoesnotholdtruefortheDPPsurvey,whereitisthehighest

rankedtrait.Thereissomeconsistencyamongtheresponsesforphysicalcharacteristicsand

thelowestrankedchoicesarecomparableaswell.Thosetraitswithameanbelow2.00

wereofthemosthighestranked(meaningmoreparticipantschosethemasthemost

importanttraitinthatcategory),makingprofessionalism,respect,adaptability,andattire

theinterpretertraitsmostlikelytobesoughtafterbyDPsandDPPs,atleastincomparison

withtheothertraitsfromthosecategories.Thecategoryofproficiency/competencyismore

balancedinresponses,likelyindicatingthatallofthesetraitsaredeemedimportant,with

theexceptionoflevelofeducation,whichappearstobethetraitofleastnecessityin

considerationwiththeothers.

Open-endedQuestions

OutlinedinTable1-3belowaretheemergentthemeswhichresultedfromtheuseof

opencodingfortheopen-endedquestionsposedinthesurvey.

SurveyQuestion EmergentThemes

Whatfactorswouldyouconsider

whenselectingone[interpreter]over

[another]?

• Adaptability

• Specializedknowledge

• Proficiency/competen

cy

Whatinfluencesyourdecisiontono

longerutilizeaninterpreterinthe

workplace?

• Situationaldemands

• Lackof

professionalism

36

• Attitude

Whatareyourexpectationsofan

interpreter’sethicaldecisionmakingwhen

workingwithyouasaDIversusacommunity

interpreter?

• Trustworthiness

• Decisionsalignedwith

theDP/DPP

• DP/DPPcentered

decisions

Describethesignificanceofphysical

characteristicsastheyrelatetoyour

selectionofDIs.

• Reflection/representat

iveoftheDP/DPP

• Attire

• Personal

appearance/grooming

• Physicalstamina

Describetheimportanceofthe

personalrelationshipyousharewithyourDI.

• Needforstrong

personalrelationship

• Trustworthiness

• Comfortlevel

Table1-3:Surveyquestionsandemergentthemes

Throughtheanalysisofthisdata,theresearchersfoundthatthedatacollecteddid

notshowthatattitudeandsupportoftheDeafcommunitywereofutmostimportance

duringtheselectionofaninterpreter.Rather,theselectionofaDIisbasedmoreon

qualitiessuchasprofessionalism,proficiency,adaptabilityandthelike.Theopen-ended

responsesreinforcedatacollectedinthequantitativeportionsofthesurveyandsuggest

thattherearedifferencesinDP’s/DPP’sexpectationsofaDIasopposedtoacommunity

interpreter.Whilethesamplepopulationwassmall,theresponsesindicatethattheDP

recognizesanattachmenttotheDI;thisso-calledattachmentresultsinothersviewingthe

DIasareflectionoftheDP,thusrequiringaparticularleveloftrustworthinessand

adaptabilitytobeabletoaccuratelyrepresenttheDPnomatterthescenario.

Interestingly,theresponsesprovidedsurroundingthesignificanceofphysical

characteristicsintheselectionofaDIwereminimalanddidnotsuggestanystrongvaluefor

saidcharacteristics.Inaprofessionalsetting,itmightbeassumedthatphysical

37

characteristicscarrymoreweightespeciallyconsideringthesignificanceourparticipants

placeontheirDIbeinga‘reflection’ofthemself.Self-reporteddataislimitedanditcanbe

inferredthatrespondentswereunabletogiveanunbiasedresponsegiventheformatofthe

surveydesign.However,physicalstaminawasmentionedasadesiredtraitbyoneofthe

professionalsashe/sheprefersaninterpreterwhocan“keepupwith”thephysical

demandsofthework.Thisideaseemstobeindirectcorrelationthatthephysical

characteristicsoftheinterpreterareadirectreflectionoftheDP.

Conclusion

UnderstandingtheexpectationsofDPsseekingDIsisimportantforthefutureroleof

theinterpreter.Theresultsofthisresearchwilltakeusonestepclosertoreimaginingthe

roleoftheinterpreter,affordinginterpretersandinterpretereducatorstheopportunityto

identifyimprovedmethodsoftrainingandemployingfutureinterpretersbothin

professionalcontexts,aswellasuniversitycontextswithstudentspursuingprofessional

degrees.

Theresultsofthissmall-scalestudysuggestthatadaptabilityisahighlyvaluedtrait

intheroleofaDI.Adaptability,appearingintheresponsesforeverysectionofthe

distributedsurvey,isundoubtedlyseenasatraithighlyvaluedbyDPsandDPPs.Withthat

said,itisimportanttonotethatthesurveydidnotprovideadefinitionofadaptabilityandit

wasevidentfromtheresponsesthatmanyindividualsunderstoodthistraitdifferently(i.e.

somereferredtoadaptabilityintermsoflogisticsandenvironmentaldemands,some

referencedlinguisticadaptability,otherswerelookingforinterpreterswhowereadaptable

intermsofcompatibilityandteamwork,whilesomesimplydidnotexplainadaptabilityat

all).Regardlessofthatfact,theubiquityofthistraitintheresponsesisevidenceofits

significance,thoughmoreresearchislikelyneededtofleshoutanexactrealizationofwhat

thisconceptis.

Furthermore,theresultspresentedheresuggestaclarificationtoDP-DI

relationships,favoringtheadoptionofamoreteleologicalethicalstance,whereethical

decisionmakingisdeterminedbythesituationanddesiredoutcomesasopposedtostrict

adherencetorulesortenetsofacodeofethics.Theresponsesfromthissurveyshowedan

38

apparentpreferenceforamore“Deaf-centered”approachtodecisionmakingin

interpretingsettings.Whilearelationshipwithacommunityinterpreterisoftenshort-lived

andcharacteristicofdeontologicalapproach,wheretheinterpretermakesdecisionsbased

onguidelinesprovidedtothembasedontheirrespectiveCodeofProfessionalConduct,aDI

isexpectedtounderstandtheuniquedecision-makingprotocolthatisunderstoodaspartof

beinginthatparticularenvironment.Thisisnotmeanttoimplythatthededicated

interpreter’sethicsareinferiororsuperiortothatofacommunityinterpreter,butrather

requiresadditionalskillsthatinvolvebeingabletoeffectivelyreadthesituation,knowthe

DPandhis/herpreferences,andbeautonomousandadaptableintheirapproachto

decision-making.

Somewhatrelatedtotheadoptionofateleologicalapproachtodecision-making,the

resultsindicatedapredilectionforgoodpersonalrelationshipswithDIs.Basedonthe

responses,havingagoodpersonalrelationshipwithone’sDI,evenbeingfriendsoutsideof

work,cancutdownontheanxietyoftheinterpretingsituation,leadingtoadditional

comfortwiththeinterpreterandthereforeamoreequippedteam(DP-DIteam).Thehopeis

thatthiscomfortfacilitatestheinterpretingprocess,helpingittorunmoresmoothly.

Lastly,itwasapparentintheresponsestothesurveythatacertainlevelofskilland

knowledgeisexpectedofDIs.Inthisway,justbeingfriendlyandadaptablewillnotcutit,as

isoftenclaimedintheinterpretingprofession(i.e.skillcanbetaughtbutattitudecannot).

Adaptabilitywasindeedahighlyvaluedtrait,buttherewasalwaysaminimalrequirement

ofhavingahighlytrained,knowledgeable,andproficientinterpreter.

Limitationsofthestudy

Thisinvestigation,whilerichinitsdataandinsight,shouldbeconsideredcautiously.

Asafirststepinamuchlargerresearchendeavor,itisimportanttonotesomelimitationsto

thissurveystudy.Themainlimitationsinclude:samplingmethod,samplesize,andlackof

definitionsfortraits.Thesamplingmethodchosenforthisstudy(snowballsampling)does

notaffordtheresearcherstheopportunitytoknowexactlywherethesurveysendupas

theyarebeingforwardedtolargenetworksofpeople.Whilethisisnotideal,perhapsfalling

intothehandsofindividualswhodonotsatisfyourstudy’seligibilityrequirements,thereis

currentlynobettermeansfordistributingthissurvey.Thesamplepopulationfromthis

39

studyisobviouslytoosmallfortheresultstobegeneralizable.However,theydoserveasa

usefulspringboardforfuturerefinements.

Also,sincewehadnoexplicitdefinitionsofthelistedtraits,thereisapossibilityfor

inconsistentresults.Onthepositiveside,thisfoiblewilllikelyleadtobetter,more

consistentresultsinfutureresearchsincewecanimproveuponthisforthenextstageof

thisstudyeitherthroughsolicitingdefinitionsfromtheparticipantsoratminimum

providingexplicitdefinitionsforeachtrait.Itisoftenarguedthatself-reporteddata,suchas

whatwascollectedinthisresearch,isnotalwaysthemostreliablesource;butinthiscase

webelieveitistheonlywaytouncovertheanswertoourresearchquestionsincean

ethnographicstudy,perhapsyieldingmorerichdata,isnotreallypossible.

Implications

Thedatafromthisstudyhasrevealedimplicationsworthnotingandconsidering

duringthehiringandeducationprocessofsignedlanguageinterpreters.First,duringthe

screeningandhiringprocessofinterpreters,theresponsibleperson(iftheDIisnotbeing

directlyhiredbyaDPorDPP)shouldtakeintoconsiderationthosetraitswhichaDPorDPP

considertobemostimportantgivenaparticularworkenvironmentorscheduled

interpretingrequest.Considerationforwhichinterpreterishiredshouldincludewhetheror

notthetraitsidentifiedasbeingmostimportantorgivenmorepriorityarepresentinthe

interpreter’soverallskillsetandpersonality.Inessence,ifadaptabilityisashighlyvaluedas

suggestedinthisstudy,DIshiredshouldbeabletobeplacedinavarietyofcontextswith

easeandwithoutconcernfromtheDP.

Secondly,asthelandscapeoftheinterpretingfieldinthisNorthAmericancontext

changeswiththeadditionofDPs,interpretertrainingandeducationprogramsmusttake

intoconsiderationtheproposedtraitsfromthisstudyduringtheselectionandscreening

processofcandidates.Additionally,measuresshouldbeputinplacetobeabletodetermine

astudent’sabilitytoadapttovarioussituationsandpotentialforutilizingcontext-based

ethicalreasoning(DeanandPollard2011).Interpretereducatorsshouldalsoconsiderthe

needtoincludeteachingmodulescenteredontheDP-DImodeltobetterpreparestudents

forfutureinterpretingcircumstances.

40

FutureResearch

AdditionalresearchisneededinordertobetterdefinewhichtraitsDPslookfor

whentheyemployDIs.Futureresearchcouldincludeamorerefined,secondroundof

surveystocollectdatafromalargersamplesize.Thissurveywouldoutlinedefinitionswhich

wereidentifiedaslimitationsfromtheoriginalsurveyaswellasincludetheconsiderationof

raceorethnicityinthecategoryofphysicalappearance.Additionally,semi-structured

interviewscouldbeconductedwithparticipantsfromthisstageofthestudyinorderto

gleanamorerobustdefinitionof“adaptability,”aswellasothertraitspossiblyomittedor

poorlydefinedintheoriginalstudy.Semi-structuredinterviewswouldalsoallowusto

documentdetailedopinionsconcerningethicalstanceofDIsinaDPcontext.Lastly,further

researchisneededtodetermineifphysicalcharacteristicshaveanyimpactontheselection

ofDIsbyDPs.WhiletheideaofphysicalcharacteristicscarryingweightonthehiringofaDI

mayseemtrite,ifthedatacollectedindicatesitsimportanceitwouldidentifyanadditional

areawhereinterpretingforDPsdiffersfromgeneralcommunityinterpreting.Ofcourse,a

studywithalargerparticipantbasewouldbemuchmoreinformativeaboutwhattraitsare

mostsignificantandwouldprovideuswithawiderrangeofinsightsfromthepopulation,

whichwouldleadtoresultsthatwouldhopefullyhaveamorepracticalapplication.

ReferencesAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990,42U.S.C.S.§12101etseq.

Christiansen,JohnBandSharonNBarnartt.DeafPresidentNow!The1998

RevolutionatGallaudetUniversity.Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,1995.

Cook,A.P.“Neutrality?Nothanks.Canabiasedrolebeanethicalone?”Journalof

Interpretation17(2004),19-56.

Creswell,JohnW.Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods

approaches.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGE,2003.

Crotty,Michael.TheFoundationsofSocialResearch:MeaningandPerspectiveinthe

ResearchProcess.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGE,1998.

Dean,RobynK.,andRobertQ.Pollard.“Context-basedEthicalReasoningin

Interpreting:ADemandControlSchemaPerspective.”TheInterpreterandTranslator

Trainer,5(2011):155-82.

41

EducationofAllHandicappedChildrenActof1975,PublicLaw94-142,20U.S.C.S.§

14101etseq.

Hauser,AngelaB.,andPeterC.Hauser.“TheDeafProfessional-Designated

InterpreterModel.”InDeafProfessionalsandDesignatedInterpreters:ANewParadigm,

editedbyPeterC.Hauser,KarenL.Finch,andAngelaB.Hauser,3-21.Washington,DC:

GallaudetUniversityPress,2008.

Hauser,Peter,KarenFinch,andAngelaHauser,eds.DeafProfessionalsand

DesignatedInterpreters:ANewParadigm.Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,

2008.

Kale,Allisun,andHerbertLarson.“TheDeafProfessionalandtheInterpreter:A

DynamicDuo.”PaperpresentedattheEighthBiennialConferenceonPost-Secondary

EducationforPersonwhoareDeaforHard-of-Hearing,TheCenteronDeafness,Knoxville,

Tennessee,April1998.

Kushalnagar,Poorna,andKhadijatRashid.“AttitudesandBehaviorsofDeaf

ProfessionalsandInterpreters.”InDeafProfessionalsandDesignatedInterpreters:ANew

Paradigm,editedbyPeterC.Hauser,KarenL.Finch,andAngelaB.Hauser,43-57.

Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,2008.

Napier,Jemina,AndyCarmichael,andAndrewWiltshire.“Look-Pause-Nod:A

LinguisticCaseStudyofaDeafProfessionalandInterpretersWorkingTogether.”InDeaf

ProfessionalsandDesignatedInterpreters:ANewParadigm,editedbyPeterC.Hauser,

KarenL.Finch,andAngelaB.Hauser,22-42.Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,

2008.

RehabilitationActof1973,29U.S.C.S.§794etseq.

Stanton,JohnF.“BreakingtheSoundBarriers:HowtheAmericanswithDisabilities

ActandTechnologyhaveEnabledDeafLawyerstoSucceed.”ValparaisoUniversityLaw

Review,45(2011):1185-1245.

42

TheDeafasaVulnerableGroup:AreInterpretersEquippedinAdvocatingfortheHumanRightsofDeafIndividuals

andtheirInterpretersJefwaG.Mweri

Abstract

Overtheyears,deafpeopleinKenyahavesufferedstigmaanddiscriminationbasedon

their vulnerability. Like other persons with disabilities, deaf individuals suffer diminished

capacity todealwithsocio-economicchallengesbecauseof theirdisability thusmaking them

among themost vulnerable groups in society. Thediscrimination they suffer in thehandsof

majorityhearingpeopleoftenhas ledtoviolationsthathinderdeaf individuals fromenjoying

theirhumanrights.Theformsofdiscriminationareusuallyexclusion,restriction,orpreference.

Deaf individuals inKenyaare subjected tonegativeperceptionsandstereotypingasa

resultofwhichithasbeenimpossibleforthemtoenjoytheirfundamentalhumanrights.For

deafindividualstoenjoytheirrightsashumanbeings,rightsthatareentrenchedinuniversal,

local and internal legal instruments, we conceptualized the notion of deafness as a socio-

politicalconstruct inwhich theirempowerment is foregroundedsoas todisabuse thenotion

thatpersonswithdisabilitycannotbeindependent.Thoughvulnerablegroupslikemembersof

the deaf community enjoy additional guarantees and special protection for the equal and

effective enjoyment of their human rights, they still remain vulnerable to the abuse of their

humanrightsforvariousreasons.

Thispaperexamineswhythisisthecase,especiallyinKenya.Italsoexaminestheroleof

the interpreter as an advocate for deaf people’s human rights.While the interpreter has an

important role to play as a mediator in the language barrier that exists between deaf and

hearingpeople,theyalsobelongtothemajoritycultureofhearingpeoplethatenjoysrelatively

unrestricted human rights than deaf individuals. The question then is, “Can interpreters be

trusted as the willful advocates for the human rights of deaf people?” Similarly, most

43

interpretersareillequippedtodealwithissuesrelatedtotherightsofdeafindividualsbecause

they lack capacity in terms of knowledge and understanding of issues of human rights.

Therefore,thispaperwillarguethatthis lackofcapacity infringesondeaf individuals’human

rights. This lack of capacity is twofold. Deaf individuals lack capacity to claim their rights as

rights holders. Similarly, the interpreters equally lack capacity in their abilities to deal with

issuesofdeafhumanrightsortoassistdeafindividualsdealwithsuchissues.Inaddition,the

roleoftheinterpreterisfurthercomplicatedbythefactthatatonepointtheyarerightholders

andatanotherpointtheyaredutybearers.ThegovernmentofKenyaand its institutionsare

dutybearersalsolackscapacitytoworktowardsmeetingitsobligationinprotectingthehuman

rightsofdeafindividualsandindefiningtheroleofinterpretersintheprotectionofsuchrights.

Thequestionweareasking then is, does thedutybearer (government) respect the rightsof

deafindividualsandtheinterpreters?

Thispaperarguesforanapproachwithaviewondeafindividualsasalinguisticminority

whoarevulnerableduetotheirdisabilityandtheirdeafissuesmustalsobeviewedashuman

rights issues.We argue that deafness like any other disability should be seen as a result of

havingimpairmentwithallitssocialconsequences.Thiswillassistusrecognizethattheysuffer

inequalitiesonadailybasis.ThepaperarguesfollowingtheIcelandhumanrightscenter(P1):

Inorderfordisabledpersonstofreelyenjoytheirfundamentalhumanrights,

numerousculturalandsocialbarriershavetobeovercome;changesinvaluesand

increasedunderstandingatalllevelsofsocietyhastobepromoted,andthosesocial

andculturalnormsthatperpetuatemythsaboutdisabilityhavetobeputtorest.1

Thispaperfurtherarguesforahumanrightsapproachthatworkstowardsfulfillingthe

rightsofdeafpeople–ahumanrightsbasedapproach(HRBA)thatthenwouldempowerthe

government as a rights holder to meet its obligation towards the human rights of deaf

individuals, the interpreters to be able tomeet their obligation in a conducive environment

wheretheirownandtheirconsumersrightsarerespectedanddeafindividualsasclaimholders

tobeabletoclaimtheirrightsandtherightfulplaceinsociety.

1. 1TheIcelandhumanrightscenter.(www.humanrights.is/en)

44

Introduction

“OneofthemostimportantprioritiesintheworkoftheWorldFederationofDeaf

(WFD)istoensurehumanrightsforDeafpeopleallovertheworld,ineveryaspectof

life.Humanrightsareuniversalandtheybelongtoeveryoneregardlessofsex,national

orethnicorigin,colour,religion,language,oranyotherstatussuchasdisabilityor

deafness.Thus,Deafpeopleareentitledtoexercisecivil,political,social,economicand

culturalrightsonanequalbasiswitheveryoneelse.”2

Personswithdisabilities(PWDs)hardlyeverenjoytheirfundamentalhumanrights

becausetheyareavulnerablelot.TheUnitedNationsestimatesthatoverabillionpeoplelive

withsomeformofdisabilityandtheyaredisproportionatelyrepresentedamongtheworld’s

poorestandatgreaterriskofsufferingfromviolence,disaster,catastrophichealthexpenses,

andmanyotherhardships.Thevastmajorityofpeoplewithdisabilitieshaveahardtimesimply

surviving,letalonelivinglivestheyhavereasontovalue,tousethelexiconofhuman

development(Hawking2014).Vulnerabilitycanbedefinedasthediminishedcapacityofan

individualorgrouptoanticipate,copewith,resistandrecoverfromtheimpactofanaturalor

man-madehazard.MostPWDssufferdiminishedcapacitytocopewithmostlystructural

inequalitiessuchashandicappingenvironments,discrimination,andstigma.PWDsvulnerability

furthermanifestsitselfclearlywhentheirdisabilityinmostcasesleadstothelooseof

opportunitiesinbothsocialandpoliticalspheresthusleadingtoviolationoftheirhumanrights.

TheWFDasquotedabovehasthedutytoprotecttherightsofdeafpeopleworldwide.

Deafindividualsarevulnerableduetotheirinabilitytousetheirauditoryfacultylike

majorityofthehearingpeople,whichmakesthemalanguageminority.Becauseoftheir

disability,deafindividualssufferfromnumerousstructuralinequalitiessuchas:culturaland

socialbarrier,structuraldiscrimination,allformsofunfairness,increasedlikelihoodofsocial

isolationandfeweroutsidecontactscomparedtochildrenwithoutadisability.3

2WFDwebsite(wfdeaf.org)

3TheChildProtectionSportUnit(CPSU)Briefing.emdp.org/wp-content/.../Safeguarding-Deaf-and-Disabled-Children1.pdf

45

Culturalandsocialbarriersinmostcasesstandinthewayofpersonswithdisability

sincetheyperpetuatemythsaboutthem.Themythsandstereotypesthenareusedto

discriminateagainstPWDs.Stereotypesarerigidmisconceptionsornotionswhichareapplied

toallmembersofagrouportoanindividualoveraperiodoftime,regardlessofindividual

variations.Thesegeneralizationsnormallyhavenoreasonablebasis.InKenya,forexample,

deafpeoplearenegativelystereotypedasbeinghottempered,veryrude,andother

unflatteringcharacteristicsandthestereotypesareusedasabasisfordiscriminationand

rejection.Allhumanbeingsareentitledtoactivelyparticipateinallspheresofthepolitical,

cultural,socialandeconomicarenas.If,foronereasonoranother,theyaredeniedthatchance

basedontheirdisability,thentheyareexperiencingdiscrimination.

Thegroupthatisexperiencingthediscrimination(inthiscase,deafindividual)is

envisagedasnotequaltoallothersthathavebeenincludedintheprocessofdevelopment.

ThediscriminationthatmostPWDSsufferisstructural.Structuraldiscriminationisdefinedasa

situationexperiencedwhencertaincommunitiesandsocietieshavediscriminatoryviewsabout

certainpeopleandothersocieties.Theytendtopassonthediscriminatoryviewsdownthrough

theirgenerations.Thisformofdiscriminationoftenleadsto:

• Dependencyonothersforpracticalassistanceindailyliving(includingintimatecare

throughinterpretationservices);

• Frustrationsduetospeechandlanguagecommunicationneedsthatmaymakeit

difficulttotellotherswhatishappening;whichboilsdowntonotbeingaccommodated

inawaytheycancommunicateeffectively

• Limitedaccesstoinformation

Thoughstereotypingcontributesalotinthediscriminationofdeafindividuals,itisnot

theonlythingthatdrivesthisdiscrimination.Thereareexplicitandimplicitexpressionsof

discriminationandtheimplicitexpressionsarecommon.Whetherimplicitorexplicit,allforms

ofdiscriminationinfluencetheallocationofresourcesforpeopleinneedandaffectsthe

environmentaldesignsthatimpedeaccess.Thisismainlyasaresultofsystematicor

institutionalaudism,whichestablisheshearingandspeakingabilitiesasthecommunicative

norminthesociety.Audismthereforeleadstodiscriminationofthosewhocannotspeaksince

46

theyareseenasfallingoutsidethenorm.Audismisaformofableism,whichadvocatesfor

discriminationonthebasisofdisability.Discriminationonthebasisofdisabilityisasystematic

issuethatisperpetuatedbyeveryone.Itisnotanindividualactorasmallcommunityact

againstdeafindividual.AccordingtoBauman,L,D-H,SimserScot&Hannan,G.(2011),Ableism

isdescribedas:

“…prejudicialattitudesanddiscriminatorybehaviorstowardpersonswitha

disability.Definitionsofableismhingeonone’sunderstandingofnormalability

andtherightsandbenefitsaffordedtopersonsdeemednormal.Somepersons

believeitisableismthatpreventsdisabledpeoplefromparticipatinginthesocial

fabricoftheircommunities,ratherthanimpairmentsinphysical,mental,or

emotionalability.Ableismincludesattitudesandbehaviorsemanatingfrom

individuals,communities,andinstitutionsaswellasfromphysicalandsocial

environments.”P.9

Ifwehopetoachievehumanrightsforpersonswithdisabilityingeneralandthedeafin

particular,weneedtoaddressaudismandableismthathavedefinedmuchofourlives.

DeafpeoplesufferunfairnessinallformsinKenya,includingsmallinconveniencesin

day-to-dayliving,lackofpropereducation,highlevelsofschooldropouts,earlypregnancies,

etc.Theyaresociallysecludedduetotheiruniquecommunicationneed.AccordingtoMweri

(2014),thisstateofaffairsisexemplifiedbythewordsofthePermanentSecretary(PS)inthe

MinistryofGender,ChildrenandSocialDevelopmentinKenya.Whileaddressingparticipantsat

thecommencementofthedeafawarenessweek2011,hestated:“Thedeafwerethemost

likelytobelesseducatedamongallpersonswithdisability”(TheEastAfricanStandard,2011,p.

7).

Inaphysicalsense,deafnessisanimpairmentofhearing,butinthesocialsense,itisa

socialdisabilityinvolvingdenialofsocialrightsandstatus(Turner2010).4Thisbasicallyhas

beenthecaseduetowhathascometobeknownasthemedicalizationofdisabilitydeafness

included.“Medicalizationbeingtheprocessbywhichnonmedicalproblemsbecomedefined

andtreatedlikemedicalproblemsusuallyintermsofillnessordisorder.”(Conrad,1992)Inthis

approach,thefocusisontreatingamedicalconditionbroughtbyanimpairmentthatone

4Turner,B.S.(2010).VulnerabilityandHumanRight.

47

suffersandputtingthepersonintheperipherybyfocusingontheimpairmentandnotonthe

personwhichleadstomarginalizationanddiscrimination.Thisrelegatesthesocialrightsand

theneedsoftheindividualtothebackseat.

Humanrights

Turningdeafnesswhichaspointedoutearlierisanimpairmentofhearingintoasocial

disabilitythatdeniesdeafindividualssocialrightsandstatus,leadingtomarginalizationand

discriminationthenputsthewholequestionofdeafnessintherealmofhumanrights.

Humanrightsarecommonlyunderstoodasbeingthoserightswhichareinherentinthe

merefactofbeinghuman.Theconceptofhumanrightsisbasedonthebeliefthateveryhuman

beingisentitledtoenjoyher/hisrightswithoutdiscrimination.Humanrightsareuniversaland

theybelongtoeveryoneregardlessofsex,nationalorethnicorigin,colour,religion,language,

oranyotherstatussuchasdisabilityordeafness.5

Thequestionthatmayarisehereis:dodeafKenyansenjoytheirhumanrightslikeall

otherKenyans?DeafindividualsinKenyahavesufferednegativeperceptionsandstereotyping

thathaveovertheyearsmadeitimpossibleforthemtoenjoyingtheirfundamentalhuman

rights.Thoughhumanrightsareuniversalandtheybelongtoeveryone,thereareparticular

groupswho,forvariousreasons,areweakandvulnerableorhavetraditionallybeenvictimsof

violationsandconsequentlyrequirespecialprotectionfortheequalandeffectiveenjoymentof

theirhumanrights.Thesegroupsalsoincludepersonswithdisabilities(PWD).

SincePWDsamongothergroupsarevulnerableandhavetraditionallybeenvictimsof

violations,therearesomeinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentsthathavebeenputinplace

tosetoutadditionalguaranteesforpersonsbelongingtothesegroupsspecificallyforthose

whoarevulnerableduetooneformofdisabilityoranother.Thelegalframeworksfor

Protectionofpersonswithdisabilitiesinclude:6

1. UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(1948)(article3,21,23,25).

2. InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(1966)(article26).

5UDHR.http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=104&language_id=1&erc_doc_id=445&category_id=24&category_type=3&group=Humanrightstreatiesandotherinstruments

48

3. InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(1966)(article2).

4. DeclarationontheRightsofMentallyRetardedPersons(1971).

5. DeclarationontheRightsofDisabledPersons(1975).

6. DeclarationontheRightsofDeaf-BlindPersons(1979).

7. ConventionontheEliminationofDiscriminationagainstWomen(1979)–CEDAW.

8. Convention(No.159)concerningVocationalRehabilitationandEmployment(Disabled

Persons)(1983).

9. ConventionontheRightsoftheChild(1989)(article2,6,12,23,28).

10. PrinciplesfortheProtectionofPersonswithMentalIllnessesandtheImprovementof

MentalHealthCare(1991).

11. StandardRulesontheEqualizationofOpportunitiesforPersonswithDisabilities(1993).

12. BeijingDeclarationontheRightsofPeoplewithDisabilities(2000).

13. ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(2007).

14. AfricanCharteronHumanandPeoples'Rights(1981)(article18)

ApartfromtheaboveinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentsmostofwhichKenyais

a signatory, the Kenya constitution (2012) also caters for protection from discrimination by

virtueofdisability inarticle.82(3). InKenya,thereisalsotheDisabilityAct2003amendedin

2015. This 2003 act saw the established the National Council for Persons with Disabilities

(NCPWD).Despitealltheseadditionalguaranteesoverandabovetheuniversaldeclarationof

HumanRights,therightsenjoyedbyothers,thesituationforPWDsinKenyaforexampleisstill

wanting.Theirrightsareguaranteedmainlyonpaperbutnotinreality.

TheInterpreter

“ASignLanguageinterpretercanbeviewedasanyhearingpersonwhohaslearntasign

languageandactsasamediatorinthelanguagebarrierthatexistsbetweenthedeafandthe

hearing.”(Mweri2010)6Whiletheinterpreterhasanimportantroletoplayasamediatorinthe

languagebarrierthatexistsbetweendeafindividualsandthehearing,theyalsobelongtothe

6Mweri,J.G.(2010).Interpretation:signsandmeaning,diversityinlanguageuse,equivalencesandculturaluntranslatability.TheJournalofLanguage,Technology&EntrepreneurshipinAfrica,Vol.2.No.1.2010,ISSN1998-127921.

49

majoritycultureofhearingindividualsthatenjoysmorehumanrightsthandeafindividuals.

Thisraisesfundamentalquestions:

• Dotheyunderstandtheissuesofdeafhumanrightstotheextentthattheycanensure

thatdeafindividual’sconsumerrightsarenotviolated?

• Caninterpretersalsoplaytheroleofadvocacyinsituationswheretherightsofdeaf

individualsareinfringedupon?

• Dotheyadheretotheircodeofethicsandensuretheyremainintheirrolesas

mediators?

• Aretheyequippedtodealwithissuesrelatedtohumanrightsanddeafpeople?

• Dotheyhavetheknowledgeandunderstandingofissuesofhumanrightsingeneraland

thoseofPWDanddeafindividualsspecifically?Dotheyhavethecapacitytodealwith

humanrightsissueswheretheirownrightsasinterpretersareinfringedupon?

TheReality

IntheKenyanDeafCommunity,thereisgenerallackofcapacityintermsofknowledge

andunderstandingofissuesascitizenswithhumanrights.Inthegreaterdiscourseofhuman

rights,weidentifytwomainplayers.

1. Thedutybearer-ThegovernmentofKenyaanditsinstitutions(stateandnonstate

actorsincludinginterpreters)

2. Therightsholder–deafindividualsandinterpreters.7

Dutybearersarethoseactorswhohaveaparticularobligationorresponsibilityto

respect,promoteandrealizehumanrightsandtoabstainfromhumanrightsviolations.The

termismostcommonlyusedtorefertoStateactors,butnon-Stateactorscanalsobe

considereddutybearers.IntheKenyancasethegovernment,nationalassociationsofthedeaf

andeventheinterpreterssometimesactasdutybearers.Moreimportantly,thestateisthe

majorplayerinthissinceithastheobligationtorespect,protectandfulfilleveryright.7WFDwebsite(wfdeaf.org)

50

Thebiggestobstacleintheadvancementofdeafhumanrightsisthat,thegovernment

ofKenyaanditsinstitutions(stateandnon-stateactors)asdutybearersalsolackcapacityto

ensuretherightsofdeafpeopleareprotected.Thislackofcapacityisnotbecauseoflackof

legalframeworkstoprotectdeafhumanrights;itisbornoutofclearmisunderstandingofthe

deafandtheirlanguage.ThoughKenyanSignLanguageisrecognizedbytheKenyan

constitutionasoneoftheindigenouslanguagesofKenyaandalanguageofParliament,nothing

muchhasbeendonetodevelopitsothatdeafpeoplecanaccessservicesthroughalanguage

theyunderstand.Thisthenmeansthatdeafpeopleareunabletogetservicesinthe

governmentdepartmentssince,forexample,nointerpretersareprovidedorbecausethose

providingtheserviceshavenocapacitytorespectandreinforcedeafhumanrightsbecause

mostofthepeoplerunningthedepartmentsareignorantabouthumanrightsingeneraland

deafhumanrightsinparticular.

Similarly,whatcomplicatesmatteristheroleoftheinterpretersinceasaninterpreter

givingservicestodeafindividualshe/sheisatthatpointadutybearer.Sincetheyhave

particularobligationorresponsibilitytowardsthedeafwhetherhiredbygovernmentorby

individuals.Likethegovernmentanditsagencies,theinterpreterthusmayalsolackcapacityto

meethis/herobligation.Boththeinterpreterandgovernmentanditsagenciesasdutybearers

lackthecapacity:

a) toworktowardsmeetingitsobligationinasfarasdeafhumanrightsare

concerned

b) toassistdeafindividualsclaimtheirrightwhentheyareviolated.

Thislackofcapacityinnotconfinedtothegovernmentanditsagenciesasdutybearer

alone.Inarights-basedapproach,everyhumanbeingisrecognizedbothasapersonandasa

right-holder.Rightsholdersareindividualsorsocialgroupsthathaveparticularentitlementsin

relationtospecificdutybearers.Ingeneralterms,allhumanbeingsarerightsholdersunderthe

UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights.Inparticularcontexts,thereareoftenspecificsocial

groupswhosehumanrightsarenotfullyrealized,respectedorprotectedsuchaspersonswith

disabilities.Inthiscase,Deafindividualsandtheinterpretersarerightholders,butinKenyaas

rightsholderstheyalsolackcapacityinthefollowingways:

51

• Deafindividualslackcapacitytoclaimtheirrightsasrightsholderssince

theyareinmostcasesnotfamiliarwiththeirrightssincenoattemptsareevermadeto

educatethemontheirrights.

• Theinterpretersequallylackcapacitytoclaimtheirrightsasinterpreters.

Forexample,theymaylackthecapacitytodemandforproperpaymentforservices.In

Kenya,itisnotuncommontofindgovernmentorevenindividualsofferingtopayan

interpreteraslittleas2500KES(aUnitedStatedcurrencyequivalentof$25)forawhole

dayswork.Thustheyendupbeingoverworkedandunderpaid.

• Similarly,theinterpretersoftenlackcapacitytoassistdeafindividuals

whentheirrightsareinfringeduponsincetheytoomayhavelittleknowledgeonissues

ofhumanrights

Theinterpretersneedtheircapacitytoclaimtheirrightsasworkerswithfairpayanda

conduciveworkingenvironment.Theinterpretersmustalsohavecapacitytounderstandwhat

deafhumanrightsaresoastoeffectivelyperformtheirduty.Thedeafindividualsthemselves

requirecapacitytoclaimtheirrightsasrightsholdersanytimetheyareviolated.Thismeans

thegovernmentoralldutybearershaveanobligationtowardseducatingdeafpeopleandthe

interpretersabouttheirrights.Lackofcapacityleadstovulnerability,however,ifwestriveto

buildcapacity,thistrendcanbereversed.

Howdowebuildcapacity?

Wecanbuildcapacityforbothrightsholdersandthedutybearersifwestartbyviewing

deafindividuals’issuedasahumanrightsissue.ThoughDeafpeoplehavethesamerights

guaranteedintheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsaseveryoneelse,theWFDhas

identifiedtheimplementationoffourbasicfactorsastantamounttotheprotectionofthe

humanrightsofDeafpeople:Signlanguage:Bilingualeducation,Accessibility,andInterpreting.

52

Thesefourissuesareatthecoreofdeafhumanrights,especiallythefourththatisthe

focusofthispaper.Inordertohelpimplementthemforthebenefitofdeafindividuals,we

positthatbestwayistoadoptthehumanrightsbasedapproach(HRBA).8

Forustoaddressdeafindividual’sissuesashumanrightsissues,thereisneedfora

fundamentalshiftofparadigmfrombasicneedsapproachthatdisempowersdeafindividualsto

thehumanrightsbasedapproachthatisempowering.Thismeans,theemphasishastoshift

fromdependencethatthebasicneedsapproachhasbeenadvocatingtoindependenceas

advocatedforbytheHRBA.Thisapproachwouldgivedeafindividualsavoiceandensurethat

theybecomepoliticallyactiveagainstsocialforces.Thisapproachwouldalsoassistthe

interpreterstoperformtheirroleormeettheirobligationswithouthindrance.Therights-

basedapproachputthemechanismsinplacetoensurethatentitlementsareattainedand

safeguarded.Thehumanrights-basedapproachfocusesonthosewhoaremostvulnerable,

excludedordiscriminatedagainst.

ThedistinctionsbetweenthebasicneedsapproachandtheHRBAareexplainedinthe

tablebelow:

THEBASICNEEDSAPPROACH THEHUMANRIGHTSBASEDAPPROACH

Recognizestheexistenceofneeds. Recognizestheexistenceofrights.

Focusesonbasicneedsidentification. Reinforcescapacitiesofdutybearersand

rightsholders.

Focusesonfulfillingthoseneeds. Recognizeseveryhumanbeingasaperson

andasaright-holder.

Workstowardsfulfillingtheneedsof

beneficiaries.

Workstowardsfulfillingtherightsof

people.

Strivestosecurethefreedom,well-being

anddignityofallpeopleeverywhere,within

theframeworkofessentialstandardsand

8HRBA.www.unfpa.org/human-rights-based-app

53

principles,dutiesandobligations.

Focusesonthosewhoaremostvulnerable,

excludedordiscriminatedagainst.

Developsthecapacityofstatestofulfillthe

obligationstoprotect,respectandpromote

therightsoftheircitizens.

Table.1.ThedifferencebetweenthebasicneedapproachandtheHumanRightsbasedapproach

Thebasicneedsapproachwastheapproachusedpriorto1977,itsmainfocusonissues

ofhumanrightswasonbasicrequirementsofbeneficiaries’identificationandtoeither

supportinginitiativetoimproveservicedeliveryoradvocatingfortheirfulfillment.

Itwouldidentifybeneficiaries,forexample,deafindividualsandthenfocuson

improvingservicedeliveryforthemoradvocateforthefulfillmentofthatservicedelivery.It

aimedatfulfillingtheneedsofthebeneficiaries.Allthischangedwiththeintroductionofthe

HRBAafter1997.Theapproachfromthenhenceforthhasbeentoworktowardsfulfillingthe

rightsofpeopleandnotjusttheirneeds.

TheHRBAintegrateshumanrightsstandardsandprinciplesintodifferentissues

affectingpeople.InHRBA,humanrightsareacrosscuttingprioritythatalsointegrateshuman

rightsintonationaldevelopmentprogrammesofdifferentcountries.Inviewofthis,theUN

cameupwithastatementofcommonunderstandingbasedonthefollowingtenets:9

1. Allprogrammesofdevelopmentco-operation,policiesandtechnicalassistanceshould

furthertherealizationofhumanrightsaslaiddownintheUniversalDeclarationof

HumanRightsandotherinternationalhumanrightsinstruments.

2. Humanrightsstandardscontainedin,andprinciplesderivedfrom,theUniversal

DeclarationofHumanRightsandotherinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentsguideall

developmentcooperationandprogramminginallsectorsandinallphasesofthe

programmingprocess.

9http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies#sthash.WbJbL9gZ.dpuf

54

3. Programmesofdevelopmentcooperationcontributetothedevelopmentofthe

capacitiesofduty-bearerstomeettheirobligationsandof‘rights-holders’toclaimtheir

rights.

Thusallprogramminginallphasesoftheprocess,includingassessmentandanalysis,

programmeplanninganddesign(includingsettingofgoals,objectivesandstrategies);

implementation,monitoringandevaluationweretobeguidedbyHumanrightsprinciplesthat

included:universalityandinalienability;indivisibility;inter-dependenceandinter-relatedness;

equalityandnon-discrimination;participationandinclusion;accountabilityandtheruleoflaw.

Itisimportanttonotethemainissuesderivingfromhumanrightsfallonstatesandtheir

authoritiesoragents,notonindividuals.Thatiswhythestateanditsagenciesareconsidered

dutybearers

ThoughallthesehumanrightsprinciplesdrawnfromtheUNStatementofCommon

Understandingasmentionedaboveareimportant,therearethosethatdirectlyrelatewith

PWDs.Forexample,theprincipleofEqualityandNon-discriminationthatstates:“Allindividuals

areequalashumanbeingsandbyvirtueoftheinherentdignityofeachhumanperson.All

humanbeingsareentitledtotheirhumanrightswithoutdiscriminationofanykind,suchas

race,colour,sex,ethnicity,age,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocial

origin,disability,property,birthorotherstatusasexplainedbythehumanrightstreaty

bodies.”

Theprincipleofparticipationandinclusionwhichstates:“Everypersonandallpeoples

areentitledtoactive,freeandmeaningfulparticipationin,contributionto,andenjoymentof

civil,economic,social,culturalandpoliticaldevelopmentinwhichhumanrightsand

fundamentalfreedomscanberealized.”

StatementNo.3oftheUNstatementofcommonunderstandingisalsoimportantsince

itputsmoreemphasisoncapacitybuildingforbothdutybearerandrightsholder.Fromthe

above,itisapparentthatahumanrightsbasedapproachempowerscitizenstodemandfor

deliveryoftherightsandserviceswhichtheyareentitledtoo,whileatthesametimestrivingto

developthecapacityofstatestoenablethemfulfilltheobligationstoprotect,respectand

promotetherightsoftheircitizens.TheHRBAdefinesclearlywhateachstakeholderisentitled

to.Itwouldclearlydrawthelinebetweentherightsholdersandthedutybearer.

55

Toaddressissuesofhumanrightsforbothdeafindividualsandtheinterpreter,the

rightsholder-dutybearerrelationshipneedstoberedefinedtoreflectitsreciprocalnatureas

illustratedbelow:

Fig.2.

Therelationshipbetweenthedutybearerandtherightsholderisacyclicrelationship.

Therightsholderthroughparticipationisrequiredtoclaimrightsfromthedutybearerwhocan

dothisthroughaprocessofaccountabilitytoenablefulfillmentofitsobligationsand

responsibilitytowardstherightsholder.Itisimportanttonotetheexistenceofthefollowing

criticaldistinction:Aneednotfulfilledleadstodissatisfaction.Incontrast,arightthatisnot

respectedleadstoaviolation,anditsredressorreparationcanbelegallyandlegitimately

claimed.

ThussincetheHRBAfocusesonrights,itisexpectedthattherightsholdersinthiscase

deafindividualsandtosomeextendtheinterpreterswouldplacealegitimateclaimoncetheir

rightsareviolated.However,thelackofcapacityhindersthisfromhappening.Boththerights

holderandthedutybearerneedtounderstandthateveryhumanbeingisrecognizedbothasa

personandasaright-holder.Thusoneshouldbeabletoclaimtheirrightsanytimetheyare

violated.

Inasfarastherightsholdersareconcerned,bothdeafindividualsandtheinterpreters

appeartobevulnerablesometimesespeciallywhenbothareviewedasrightholders.Deaf

individualswhosefateisdecidedbycircumstancesandnotchoicethusfacesalltypesof

56

roadblocksintheenjoymentoftheirrightsandsodoestheinterpreterwhoiscaughtin

between.Theinterpretersarealwaysinaprecariouspositionbecausefirstandforemostthey

belongtothedominanthearingculturethatisbyandlargeresponsiblefortheoppressionof

deafindividuals.Similarly,atonepointhe/shebelongstothedutybearergroupespecially

whenprovidinginterpretationservicesbecauseatthispoint,theinterpreterisexpectedto

fulfillhis/herobligationtodeafindividualsbywayofaccountability.Butsometimes,therights

ofinterpretersarealsoinfringeduponsothatthoseofdeafindividualscanprevail,e.g.,the

termsofpaymentsortheinterpreters’responsibilityincausingmiscommunicationand

misunderstanding.Thisdouble-edgedkindofroletheinterpreterplaysmakesinterpretation

complexanddeservingofspecialunderstandingandattention.

ThescenarioaboveiscomplicatedmoreinKenyabyvirtueofthefactthatnoneofthem

inmostcaseshavethecapacitytoclaimtheirrights.Neitherdoesthegovernmentasduty

bearerhavesuchcapacitytomeetitsobligationsnordoesdeafindividualsandtheinterpreters

asrightsholdershavethecapacitytoclaimtheirrights.

Fromwherewestand,therightsofthetwothatisdeafindividualsandtheinterpreter

areintrinsicallylinkedandmaybedifficulttodivorceonefromtheother.Theirrelationshipis

oneofinterdependencyandinterrelatednesswheretherealizationoftherightsofonemay

dependontherealizationoftherightsoftheother.Itmaybedifficulttoadvocatefordeaf

rightsdivorcedfromtheinterpreter’srights.If,forexample,oneoftherightsdeafpeopleare

supposedtoenjoyistherighttoqualifiedinterpreter,thatrightmaybelinkedtohowwellthis

trainedinterpreterispaidforhisorherservice.

WayForward

WASLIandWFDandotherstakeholdersthatdealwithissuesofdeafindividualsmust

incorporatehumanrightsprinciplesintheirwork.ByincorporatingtheHRBA.Inthiswaythey–

WASLIandWFDasdutybearerswillbeinabetterpositiontohandlethetwinissuesofdeaf

rightsandtheinterpreters’rights.Weareviewingthetwointernationalorganizationsasduty

bearerssincetheyaremajoractorswhohaveaparticularobligationorresponsibilitytorespect,

promoteandrealizehumanrightsandtoabstainfromhumanrightsviolations.Thetwo

organizationsfallundernon-Stateactorsandarethereforealsoconsidereddutybearers.

57

Thoughnon-stateactors,thetwoorganizationstheyhaveanobligationtowardstherespectof

humanrightsoftheirconsumers.

TheHRBAwillassistthesetwointernationalorganizationalbodiesinbuildingcapacityof

boththerightsholdersandthedutybearer.Thiscanbedonebysupportingnational

associationsofthedeafandofinterpreterstobuildthecapacityoftheirmembershipinterms

ofhumanrightswhileatthesametimecooperatingwiththegovernmentsintheirrespective

countrieswherethehumanrightsofdeafindividualsandtheinterpreterarenotrespected.The

twoorganizationscanalsoassisttobuildcapacityinthemajorpolicymakersingovernmentso

thatallpolicies,especiallythoserelatingtodeafindividuals,reinforcethehumanrights

principles.

Trainingprogrammesforinterpretersshouldhavethehumanrightsanddeafrights

components.Thisway,theinterpreterswouldbeinabetterpositiontoassistoradvicewhen

thedeafrightsareviolatedandalsostaketheirownlegalandlegitimateclaimoncetheirown

rightsareviolatedtoo.TheHRBAisonethatwouldempowerdeafindividualsandthe

interpreterandmakethemmoreindependentenablingthemtoenjoytheirhumanrightslike

anybodyelse.

TheKenyangovernmentmustliveuptotheconstitutionthathasastrongcomponent

onbillofrights.Forexample,thePersonswithDisabilitiesAct2013anditsamendmentsin

2010toalignitwiththeconstitutionwhichstates:“…apersonwithdisabilityisentitledunder

theconstitutiontoreasonableaccesstoallplaces,publictransportandinformationhencethe

governmenthastheresponsibilitytomaketelecommunicationandmassmediaavailableto

personswithdisabilitiesfortheirrehabilitation,selfdevelopmentandselfreliance.”Though

theserightsareenshrinedintheconstitution,deafindividualshardlyevercomprehendthem.

Thusforexampleveryfewtelevisionstationsprovideinterpretationbutnodeafindividualsor

associationhaseversuedthegovernmentforthisviolation.

Itmayrequireaconcertedeffortfromthegovernment,throughitsagenciesandother

non-stateactorstoensurethatDeafindividualsareincludedintheciviceducationprograms

wheretheywilllearntheirconstitutionalrights.Bydoingthis,itwillleadtobuildingcapacityfor

itsdeafpopulation.TheKenyaSignLanguageInterpreter’sAssociationandtheKenyaNational

58

AssociationoftheDeafneedtoworktogethertoensurethatthishappensandtakeinto

considerationtheinter-dependenceandinter-relatednessofthedeafandinterpreters’rights.

ReferencesAfrican Union, The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, in the United

Nations, Human Rights: A compilation of Regional Instruments, vol.2 (second part),

NewYork(2002).

Bauman, L, D-H, Simser Scot & Hannan, G. Beyond Ableism and Audism: Achieving Human

Rights for Deaf and Hard Of Hearing Citizen (2011).

Conrad, P. Medicalization and social control. Annual reviewof SociologyVol. 18 (1992), pp.

209-232.

Government of the Republic of Kenya (GOK.) The disability act. Nairobi: Government

printer.(2003)

Government of the Republic of Kenya (GOK), Kenya Citizenship Act, 1963, available:

http://www.kenyalaw.org/kenyalaw/klr_app/frames.php.

GuidelinesonaHumanRightsBasedApproach(HRBA):IntegratingaHRBAintoyour

projectsinVietNam,fromUNCTstaffinVietNamforUNCTstaffinVietNam

HawkingStephen.DisabilityandVulnerability.UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram;Human

developmentreports(2014)

HumanrightsDevelopmentAssociates.http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=416

Icelandhumanrightscenter(www.humanrights.is/en)

Mweri,J.G.(2010).Interpretation:signsandmeaning,diversityinlanguageuse, equivalences

andculturaluntranslatability.TheJournalofLanguage,Technology&

EntrepreneurshipinAfrica,Vol.2.No.1.2010,ISSN1998-127921.

MweriG.J.Diversityineducation:Kenyansignlanguageasamediumofinstructionin

schoolsforthedeafinKenya(2014)

TheChildProtectionSportUnit(CPSU)Briefing.http://emdp.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/08/Safeguarding-Deaf-and-Disabled-Children1.pdf

TheConstitutionofKenya[Kenya],27August2010,availableat:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c8508822.html[accessed8February2017]

59

Turner,B.S.(2006).Vulnerabilityandhumanrights(Vol.1).PennStatePress.

UDHR.http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

UNconventionontherightsofpersonswithdisability,

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/disabilities-convention.pdf

UnitedNations,HumanRights:AcompilationofInternationalInstruments,vol.1(firstpart)

NewYorkandGeneva(2002).web.lb.unfpa.org/rights/approaches.htm

WorldFederationoftheDeaf(WFD).www.wfd.org

60

TheImpactofGroupthinkwithinInterpreterCohorts.

CampbellMcDermid,KathleenHolcombe,CynthiaCollward&LisanneHoukes

Abstract

Severalauthorshavereflectedonthedeportmentofsignlanguageinterpretersand

howtheiractionsimpactthehumanrightsofDeafpeople.Forexample,individualinterpreters

havebeencautionedagainstadoptingaudistbehaviors(Baker-Shenk1989;Page1993).

Howeverlittleexistsintheliteratureconcerningthebehaviorsoflargecohortsofinterpreters

workingwithincomplexstructures,suchasintheroleofastaffmemberofalargeeducational

institutionortelecommunicationscompany.Toaddressthisgap,asmallgroupofinterpreter

practitioners,someofwhowereinterpretereducators,engagedinanauto-ethnographic

conversationtodiscusstheconceptofGroupthink.

FollowingJanis’(1982)originalconceptualization,Groupthinkwasdefinedbyanumber

ofantecedents,symptomsandresultingbehaviors.Antecedentsincludedsuchthingsas

isolation,grouphomogeneity,lowself-esteemandperceivedhighstress(Janis1982).

Symptomsincludedactionssuchasstereotypedthinkingandpressureforconformity(Janis

1982).Adoptinga“particularistic”interpretation(Turner&Pratkanis1998a),whereGroupthink

wasidentifiedbythepresenceofsomeantecedentsandbehaviors,theauthorsshared

examplesofthenegativesymptomsofGroupthinktheyhadwitnessed.Theseincludedbut

werenotlimitedto;(1)atacitagreementtotheuseofsimultaneouscommunicationwithDeaf

peoplepresent(signinginEnglishwordorderwhilespeaking),(2)disregardedretaliation

againstDeafclientsforperceivedmisconductorlackofdeservedness,and(3)nepotistic

practicesbythegroup,wherelessqualifiedinterpretersrequestedand/orwereassignedwork

overbetterqualifiedcolleaguesduetotheirpowerinthegrouporthesupportofpowerful

colleagues.TheauthorsarguethatsuchbehaviorsimpedetheabilityofDeafandhearing

clientstointeractsuccessfullyandassuchimpactstheirhumanrights.Theresearchersendby

61

suggestinginstitutionalrecognitionofthepotentialforGroupthinkwhereithastobeen

overlookedandreiterateJanis’(1982)suggestedstepstoaddressthedeleteriouseffectsofit.

Introduction

Historically,thenatureoftheroleofsignlanguageinterpretershasbeenlinkedtoa

helper,machine,abilingualandbiculturalexpert,andalsoasanallytotheDeafcommunity

(Page1993).DeanandPollard(2011)laterproposedthatinterpretingisapracticeprofession,

moreclearlydefinedinassociationwiththeresponsibilitiesofeffectiveservicedeliveryrather

thananinflexiblerolemetaphor.Further,signlanguageinterpretersalsoprovideserviceas

eitheraself-employedfreelancecontractororasastaffmember.

Attentionhasbeengivenintheliteraturetoindividualinterpreters.Forexample,

burnoutofprofessionalinterpretershasbeenidentified(Harvey2002;Schwenke2012)and

signlanguageinterpretersinparticularcanexperienceisolationineitheroftheirrolesasstaff

orindependentcontractors.Inaddition,authorshavelookedattheculturalsensitivityand

discriminatoryoraudistbeliefsheldbyinterpreters(Baker-Shenk1989).Furthersomewriters

haveexaminedtheconceptofethicaldecision-makingwithinthefield,andpostulateda

teleological-basedmodel(Dean&Pollard2006).

Workingasanally,Page(1993)andBaker-Shenk(1989)suggestedinterpretersreflect

ontheroletheyadoptedasadistancedprofessionaltoseeifitwasbasedonthenormsofthe

hearingmajority,andthusoppressive.Instead,andwhenassumingarole,interpretersmust

considertheconceptsofloyaltyandtrustasviewedbyDeafpeople(Page1993).Further,

insteadofadoptingthepaternalisticviewofempoweringDeafpeople,interpretersshould

insteadbecognizantofthebalanceofpowerDeafpeoplehadaccessto(Page1993)and

respectthatDeafindividualswereself-determining(Baker-Shenk1989).

Inadditiontoworkinginisolation,andparticularlyinstaffpositions,groupsof

interpretersareemployedatlargerorganizationssuchaspost-secondaryinstitutions,video

relaycenters,orinagenciesthatprovideinterpretationservices.Littleresearchhasbeen

conductedonthesociologicalorpsychologicalaspectsofworkinginsuchspecializedgroups,as

interpreters,withinlargerorganizationsorinstitutionsthatmayhouseothervariouswork

62

groupssuchasadministration,faculty,supportstafforcounselors.Noonehas,forexample,

lookedattheconceptofgroupdynamicsandtheimpactofsuchgroupsoninterpretingservice

provisionwithininstitutionsandindustries.

Itmaybehypothesizedthattheisolationexperiencedbyasingleinterpreterasastaff

personorasanindependentcontractorwouldbeirrelevantinsuchcontexts.Oritmaybe

believedthatinterpretersworkinginsuchsettingsexperiencelessburnout,duetothesupport

theyhaveavailable.Itmightalsobepostulatedthatinterpretersinsuchcontextsadoptamore

cooperativerolewithcolleaguesandperhapsconductthemselvesinamoreethicalmanner

duetotheproximityandsurveillanceoftheircolleagues.

However,initialdiscussionsbetweenthefourprincipalinvestigators,theauthorsofthis

manuscript,suggestedthatwhileworkingingroupsmayhavesomebenefitsforinterpreters,

therearealsopitfallsaswell.Theseincludeexternalpressurefeltbytheindividualmembersto

conformtothegroup’shypotheticalnormsandtoachieveconsensus.Sometimesthedecision

toupholdsuchnormsandtothusactcohesively,however,mayputinterpretersatoddswith

effectiveservicedelivery.TheirpracticesinturnbecomeadetrimenttotheDeafindividuals

theyserveratherthanasupport.WecametobelievethatperhapstheconstructofGroupthink

capturedsomeofthepitfallswewereseeinginlargerclustersofinterpretersandinmore

hierarchicalorinstitutionalizedpositions.Thisinturnbecamethegenesisofthisstudy.

Researchquestions

TobegintoexploretheconceptofGroupthinkwithinlargeclustersofinterpreters,we

postulatedanumberofresearchquestions:

1. WhatevidenceoftheantecedentsofGroupthinkisthereincollectivesofsignlanguage

interpreters?

2. HowdoesamodelofGroupthinkapplytothebehaviorsofinterpretersworkingin

groups?

3. HowcanremediesofGroupthink,asidentifiedintheliterature,bepotentiallyappliedto

largegroupsofsignlanguageinterpretersexhibitingGroupthinkbehaviors?

63

Reviewoftheliterature

TraditionalModelofGroupthink

Inthelateseventies,Janis(1982)postulatedandlaterrefinedamodelofGroupthink

thatservedasthetheoreticalframeworkforthisstudy.Theoriginalmodelwasbasedona

limitednumberofcasestudiesofAmericanpresidentsandtheiradministrationandJanis

(1982)waslookingattheantecedentsandgroupcharacteristicsthatledtopoordecision-

making.Groupthinklaterbecameaverypopularframeworkintheeighties(Esser1998).Ithas

sincebeenappliedtoanumberoforganizations,suchasjuries,hockeyteamsandvarious

administrativeboards(Rose2011),butithasnotbeenappliedtocohortsofsignlanguage

interpreters.

MostofthedatausedtoformulatetheGroupthinkmodelwasonsecondarysources,

suchasminutesandmemoirs(Janis1982).KeyconceptsidentifiedbyJaniswerealackofgroup

normsortraditionsforhandlingproblemsolvingordecision-making,astrongdesireforgroup

cohesion,externalthreatsandstresses,andthesilencingofdissenters.

Fromthecasesstudies,Janis(1982)postulatedtwotypesofantecedentconditionsto

Groupthink(structuralandsituational)andthefollowingsixmajorfactors:

1. Insulationofthegroup

2. Lackoftraditionofimpartialleadership

3. Lackofnormsrequiringmethodicalprocedures

4. Homogeneityofmembers'socialbackgroundandideology

5. Highstressfromexternalthreatswithlowhopeofabettersolutionthantheleader's

6. Lowself-esteemtemporarilyinducedby:

a. Recentfailuresthatmakemembers'inadequaciessalient

b. Excessivedifficultiesoncurrentdecision-makingtasksthatlowereachmember's

senseofself-efficacy

c. Moraldilemmas:apparentlackoffeasiblealternativesexceptonesthatviolate

ethicalstandards(Janis1982,p.244).

TheseantecedentconditionsledtothefollowingthreetypesofsymptomsofGroupthink:

64

TypeI.Overestimationofthegroup

1.Illusionofinvulnerability

2.Beliefininherentmoralityofthegroup

TypeII.Close-Mindedness

3.Collectiverationalizations

4.Stereotypesofout-groups

TypeIII.Pressurestowarduniformity

5.Self-censorship

6.Illusionofunanimity

7.Directpressureondissenters

8.Self-appointedmindguards(Janis1982,p.244)

Duetotheseantecedentsandgroupsymptomsorcharacteristics,thefollowingtypesof

defectivedecisionmakingoccurred:

1. Incompletesurveyofalternatives

2. Incompletesurveyofobjectives

3. Failuretoexaminerisksofpreferredchoice

4. Failuretoreappraiseinitiallyrejectedalternatives

5. Poorinformationsearch

6. Selectivebiasinprocessinginformationathand

7. Failuretoworkoutcontingencyplans(Janis1982,p.244)

DetractorsofGroupthink

SincethepublicationoftheGroupthinkmodel,severalauthorshaveapplieditand

revieweditsefficacy.Aldag&Fuller(1993)believeditwasagoodheuristicstartattryingto

capturesuchacomplexproblem,anddefinedadoptionofthemodelas“nearlyuniversal”

(Aldag&Fuller1993,p.133)bymanyresearchers.Benefitstoapplyingthemodelincludedthe

needtobroadentheparticipants’knowledgebaseanddiversityinviews(Lunenburg2010),to

morefullyunderstandtheproblemsanddecision-makingprocesses.

65

Regardlessofitspopularity,however,manyhavenotedshortcomingswithJanis’first

conceptualization(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998;Rose2011).Philosophically,Groupthink

waspremisedon“defensiveavoidance”ofdifficultsituationsinapassivemanner,andthe

phenomenonwasframedinanegativeway(Aldag&Fuller1993,p.534).Someheldthemodel

wasnotcomprehensiveenough(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998)andthatmanyaspectswere

difficulttooperationallydefine(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998;Rose2011).Forexample,

constructslike“loyalty”and“groupcohesion”arenoteasilydescribedinbehavioraltermsas

theyareoftenbasedonanindividual’sprivatefeelings(Esser1998).Furtherthevariousstudies

doneonGroupthinkadopteddifferentdefinitionsoftheantecedentsandsymptoms,making

theirresultsdifficulttocompare.

Someauthorsthenwrotetherehasbeenlittleempiricalsupportforthemodel(Esser

1998;Rose2011),andthatwhichexistedonlyaddressedcertainaspectsofJanis’model(Esser

1998;Rose2011).Whereresearchwasdone,ittypicallyonlyinvolveduniversitystudentsas

researchsubjects(Rose2011).AlsosomeofthestrategiessuggestedbyJanistoavoid

Groupthinkmayinfactexacerbateagroup’sattemptsatmaintainingapositivefaceandmay

onlyfurtherdissuadedissentionbyforcinggroupcohesion(Turner&Pratkanis1998b).

Duetotheseshortcomings,authorshavesuggestedthreeapproachestoapplyingand

researchingamodelofGroupthink.Inastrongorstrictstance,everyantecedent,group

characteristic,andsymptommustoccurforthephenomenontobeconsideredGroupthink

(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998;Turner&Pratkanis1998a).Ontheotherhand,authorshave

identifiedtheapplicationofGroupthinkinanadditivemanner(Schafer&Crichlow1996;Turner

&Pratkanis1998a),wherethechanceofGroupthinkoccurringincreasesasthepresenceofthe

variousantecedentsincrease.Athirdapproachisconsidereda“weak”modelofGroupthink

(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998)or“theliberalorparticularistic”interpretation(Turner&

Pratkanis1998a,108),wherethepresenceofsomeoftheantecedents,symptomsor

characteristicsmaybeenoughtoindicatethephenomenonisoccurring.Thelatteristhe

frameworkadoptedinthisstudyandsimilartothe“particularisticapproach”adoptedinother

models(Turner&Pratkanis1998b,p.215),thoughaswillbeseeninthesectiononour

findings,astrictstancecouldhavebeenadoptedaswefoundevidenceofeveryantecedent,

66

characteristic,andsymptom.

TodealwiththeperceivedshortcomingsofJanis’model,variousadaptationshavebeen

suggested.Forexample,Turner&Pratkanis(1998b)suggestedtheSocialIdentityMaintenance

(SIM)model.Inthisframework,theunderlyinggoalofthememberswasthoughttobe“to

maintainandreinforcethepositiveimageofthegroup”(Turner&Pratkanis1998b,p.213).

Aldag&Fuller(1993)espousedthe"GeneralGroupProblem-SolvingModel".They

believedoneofthelimitationsoftheGroupthinkmodelwasitsemphasisontheprocessas

negativeanditsfocusonpoordecisionswhereastheirmodeladoptedamoreneutralstance.

Theyadvocatedforaprocessmodel,astheybelieveddecision-makingwasnotaclear-cut

phenomenon.Suchamodelshouldconsiderthegroupandindividualagendasormandates,the

typeofgroup,themembers’levelofopen-mindednessandtheirabilitytoaccuratelyestimate

theirownabilitiesatproblemsolving.Otherthingstoconsiderwerethestageofthegroupin

becomingagroupandthelengthoftimetheindividualshadworkedtogetherandintheir

currentpositions(Aldag&Fuller1993).

Otherfacetsofagrouptoconsiderintheirdecision-makingprocessandasidentifiedin

theliteratureincludedleadershipstyleandpower(Aldag&Fuller1993;Schafer&Crichlow

1996;Turner&Pratkanis1998a),characteristicsorcomplexityofthetask(Aldag&Fuller1993;

Esser1998),andorganizationalnormsandcontext(Aldag&Fuller1993;Esser1998;Rose2011;

Schafer&Crichlow1996).Inthecaseofthenorms,forexample,researchersshouldidentify

institutionallymandatedprocessesandtheextenttowhichaccountabilityisenforced.These

maycertainlyimpacthowagroupmakesdecisions.Oneshouldalsoconsiderthemembers’

levelofidentificationwiththegroup,towhatextentdotheyfeeltheybelongtothegroupor

areloyaltothegroup,aswellastheiridentificationtotheproblemtobesolved,anddothey

believeitissignificantorunimportant(Packer2009).

Methodology

ToexamineGroupthinkincohortsofsignlanguageinterpreters,thisstudyadoptedan

auto-ethnographicapproachandananalytic-inductivedataanalysisprocess.Withina

67

qualitativeparadigmandauto-ethnography,fourinterpreters,theprincipalresearchersinthis

study,sharedtheirpersonalexperiencesofhavingworkedwithingroupsofsignlanguage

interpreters.Theyfirstmettodiscusstheirexperiencesanddocumenttheirstories.Atthat

point,onlythefirstauthorwasfamiliarwiththeGroupthinkmodel.Thesestorieswerethen

sharedwiththeotherresearchersandcomparedforsimilaritiesanddifferences.Fromthere,a

reviewoftheliteraturewasconductedtooperationallydefineGroupthinkandapplythattothe

sharednarratives.

Toguideusinthedatacollectionandlateranalysis,wealsodrewuponNarrativeInquiry

asamethodology.NarrativeInquiryrecognizesthatthesharedstoriesareconstructionsbased

onmemoryworkandattemptsatverballyrecreatingourpastexperiences(McCabe,Capron&

Peterson1991).Ourcurrentviewofwhatweexperiencedmaydifferfromourpastview

(Lucius-Hoene&Deppermann2000),asourreflectionswereshapedbyourprocessof

reflectingandbyourinterestinGroupthink.Wedidinfactendupselectingsomestoriesfor

inclusion,andsomewereexcludedaswasnotedinmemorywork(Bell2002;McCabe,Capron

&Peterson1991).Whilerecreatingourstoriesandthroughouttheanalysis,wewerealso

awareofoutsideforcesonourstorysharing,whichmayhaveledtoadesirefor“political

correctness”(Peterson1999,p.192).Forexample,wewerereticenttoharshlyoropenly

critiquingourcolleaguesoremployersgiventheyareapotentialaudience.

Thus,unlikeinaquantitativestudy,wearenotconcernedwithfindingasingletruthor

inconstructssuchasvalidityorreliabilityforexample.Insteadweareinterestedintheconcept

ofsharedandmultiple“truths”andboththeparticipants’andtheaudience’sunderstandingof

theevents(Murray2009).Readersshouldaskthemselvesifthefindingslookauthenticandif

theyaretransferabletotheirownexperiences(Connelly&Clandinin1990).Inotherwords;is

thereasenseofverisimilitudeintheexperiencessharedhere(Connelly&Clandinin1990)?

Giventhestudywasqualitativeinnature,welookedtoPatton(1999)whodescribed

waystoenhancethecredibilityofsuchastudythroughtriangulation.Onewaytoincorporate

triangulationinastudyiscollectingdatafromdifferentdatasources.Inthecurrentstudythose

wouldbethefourparticipants.Alsoemployingmultipleanalysts,againthefourresearchers,

enhancesthetrustworthinessoftheprocessandfindings(Patton1999).Patton(1999)also

68

espousedrigorinthedatacollectionmethodologyasameansofenhancingtriangulation.In

thiscase,theparticipantssharedtheirstoriesindependentlyandpriortoresearching

Groupthinkorconceptualizingthevariousaspectsofit.Wethensystematicallywentthrough

thestoriesandcomparedourreflectionstotheantecedent,groupcharacteristic,and

symptomsofGroupthink,toarriveatinter-raterconcordance.Patton(1999)alsodescribed

howthecredibilityoftheresearchersisimportanttonoteinqualitativeresearch.Thisstudy

wasemicinnature,inthesensethatthefourparticipantswereinsidersasprofessional

interpreters,givingthemperhapsamorenuancedunderstandingofthefield.Inaddition,three

ofthefourparticipantshaveconductedresearchandpresentedonorpublishedtheirfindings,

andtwoofthefourutilizedasimilarqualitativemethodologyintheirwork.

Participants

Oneoftheuniqueaspectsofthisstudyisthediversebackgroundofthefour

researcherswhowerealsotheparticipants.Theyrepresenttwogenders,maleandfemale,and

haveexperiencewithinterpretingindifferentcountries;theNetherlands,Canada,andthe

UnitedStates.Allhaveengagedinfreelanceinterpretingworkandhavealsoworkedinvarious

staffpositions.Threeoutoffourareinterpretereducatorsandtwohaveheldorcurrentlyhold

interpretermanagementpositions.Allfourholdnationalcertificationandthreegraduatedfrom

aninterpreterpreparationprogram.Theiragesrangedfrommidthirtiestomidfifties.Their

experienceinthefieldofsignlanguageinterpretingrangesfrom4yearstoover30years.To

protecttheanonymityofeachstorytellerpseudonymswereassignedtoeachpersonand

identifyinginformationwasomitted.Tomaskthegenderofthestorytellers,eachpersonwas

assignedafemalename.

DataandAnalysis

Theparticipantssharedatotalof13stories.Uponexaminationandreviewofthe

Groupthinkmodel,somewereremovedfromthepool.Someaccountswereaboutthe

behaviorsofanindividualinterpreterinaspecificsetting,andnotsymptomaticofagroupof

69

interpretersforanemployer.Forexample,oneinterpretersharedastoryabouthowamore

experiencedinterpreterencouragedanovicetodomoreoftheworkinanassignmenttoget

moreexperience.Theexpertactedasifshewere“onvacation”.Inanotherexamplefromthe

sameparticipant,aninterpreteradvertisedeventsshewouldinterpretviasocialmediaandby

doingso,triedtoencourageDeafpeopletoattend.Itwasbelievedthatshewastakingthe

choiceofvenuesoutofthehandsoftheDeafparticipantsbydoingso.

Asecondparticipantsharedastorywedidnotincludeinthisstudyabouthowinterpreters

couldbecomeemotionalwhileinterpretingforclientswhowereupsetorangry.These

interpretersseemedtotaketheinformationpersonallyandcouldconsequentlysufferfroma

burnout.

Thethirdparticipantsharedastoryaboutinterpretersallocatingturnsduringinteractions

betweenhearingandDeafpeople.Someinterpretersoftenfavoredthehearingpersonover

theDeafspeaker.

Thefourthparticipantnotedhowsomeinterpretersnegotiatedlatearrivalstoassignmentsor

requestedtoleaveearlysotheycouldtakeonadditionalwork.Shealsonotedhowsome

becamefriendswiththeirclientsandwentsofarastobuythempresentsortospendalotof

socialtimewiththem.Inanotherexample,shenotedhowsomeofhercolleaguesrefusedtodo

interpretationworkfromasignedlanguage,likeASL,intoEnglish,thusleavingherwiththe

responsibilitytodoso.

Aswelookedatthesestories,wegatheredthattheywerebasedonthedecisionsof

individualsandnotgroups.Wealsodidnotthinktheinterpreters’actionsweresanctionedbya

largergrouporemployer.Inthefirstcase,forexample,theinterpreterabusedherperceived

poweroverthenovicetoforcethenovicetotakeonmoreofthework.Inthesecondstory,the

interpreterpromotedherassignmentsperhapsfromadesiretomakemoneyorcontrolthe

eventsDeafpeoplecouldattend.Inthestorysharedbythesecondparticipantwhereindividual

interpretersbecameemotionalortookassignmentspersonally,wedidnotseeevidenceof

Groupthink.Insteadweperceivedtheseasbeingindividualchallengesthatinterpretersface.

ThiswasalsothecaseforthosewhodidnotwanttoworkfromASLintoEnglishorwhobought

presentsfortheirclients.Wedidnotthinkthattheseactionswouldhavebeensanctionedby

70

employersorwouldhavebeenignored.

Fromtheremainingstories,fourwerechosen,onefromeachparticipant.Webelieved

theserepresentedGroupthinksymptomsandtheyhadhighinter-raterconcordancefor

antecedents,symptomsanddefective-decisionmakingasoutlinedinGroupthink.Thefour

narrativeswillbeoutlinedinthefindingssections.However,onlyasynopsiswillbeprovidedto

helpmasktheidentitiesofthestorytellersandtoprovideanonymityfortheparticipantsand

settings.

Havingidentifiedfourstories,wethenlookedforantecedents,symptomsanddefective

decision-makingasoutlinedinJanis’(1982)modelofGroupthink.Thesewerethencompared

acrossthefourstoriestoseeifthereweresimilaritiesordifferences.

Findings

Thefollowingisabriefsynopsisofeachofthestoriessharedandexaminedfor

Groupthink.

StoryOne–InterpretingPublicSpeaking

Inthisstory,HelentalkedaboutinterpretingforDeafstudentswhowerejudgedon

theirpublicspeakingabilitiesineducationalsettings.Shenotedthatsomeinterpreters

struggledtointerpretaccuratelywhenworkingfromasignedlanguageintoaspokenlanguage.

Shequestionediftheinterpreterssometimesunder-representedtheDeafstudent’sabilityor

conversely-andperhapslessfrequently-over-representedthestudents’abilitybymaking

themsoundbetterthantheywere.Thisseemedtobecommonpracticethateveryoneinthe

interpretingdepartmentwasawareofandyetnoonetookactiontoaddressit.

StoryTwo–Retaliation

Inthesecondstory,SusanhadheardofinterpreterswhoretaliatedtowardsDeafor

hearingparticipants.TheydidthisbecausetheybelievedtheDeaforhearingpersonwasnot

actinginawaythattheinterpreterdeemedtobeappropriate.Forexample,oneinterpreter

71

sharedthataDeafclientwasnotsigningclearly,sotheinterpreterdecidedtopurposelyalter

hisorhersigningtomakeitlessclear.TheinterpreterdescribedtheDeafpersons’signingas

“sloppy.”Atothertimes,Susanheardinterpreterstalkabouthowhearingpeoplewere“idiots

atbest”fortheirbehaviorandhowtheytreatedDeafpeople.Susannotedthattherewasno

retaliationinotherprofessions,suchasdoctorstowardspatientsforexample,andshe

wonderedwhyinterpretersengagedinitandwhyitwasn’tbeingaddressed.

StoryThree–TheTreatmentofNovices

Mariesharedastorywhereshetalkedabouttheoveralltreatmentofnovicesinthe

field.Shehadseenhowsomeexperiencedinterpretersestablishedahierarchywhenworking

withanovice,wheretheexperiencedinterpretertookonadominantrole.Forexample,the

moreexperienced,seniorinterpreterswouldsaythingslike,“Iwillgiveyouachancetowork

withme”.Thefieldoremployersinturnsupportedthis.Duetothishierarchy,theexperienced

interpreterscoulddictateworkpractices.Oneexamplesharedwasasituationwherethe

experiencedinterpreterinsistedthatthenoviceinterpreterstaketheirbreaks(lunchordinner)

awayfromtheDeafparticipants.Theirrationalewasthatitalsoservedasabreakforthe

interpretersorthatithelpedavoidinjuriesfromsigning.However,thislefttheDeafperson

withoutservice,oftenwithotherswhodidnotsignatall.Moreover,italsowentagainstthe

wishesofthemorenoviceinterpreters.

StoryFour–Nepotism

Inthefourthstorychosenforthisstudy,Laureldescribedhowinsomesettings,an

interpreter’spreferencetodoajobheorsheconsideredinterestingbecamethepriorityover

theirabilitytoactuallyinterpretsuccessfully.Forexample,lessqualifiedinterpreterswere

oftensenttointerpretaclasstheypersonallyhadaninterestin,ortheywererequestedto

interpretforhighprofilespeakers,oratpopularevents.Theirlackofexperienceandskill

potentiallymeanttheywerenotreadyforthosetypesofassignmentsandrancountertothe

Deafparticipant’sneedforaccess.Everyoneinthatworkgroupknewthebestinterpreterhad

72

notbeensenttodothework.Nonetheless,theyremainedquietwhenalesserqualifiedor

evenunqualifiedpersonwasgiventheassignmentbecausethatpersonrequestedit.Thiswas

perhapsbasedonthepowerofcertaininterpretersinthegroupinfluencinghowworkwas

assignedoronthepowerheldbytheless-qualifiedinterpreter.Thiscanberegardedas

nepotistic.

DataAnalysis

HavingselectedfourstoriesthatwefeltweretheresultofGroupthink,wethenset

aboutcomparingthem.Welookedfortheantecedents,symptomsanddefectivedecision-

makingcharacteristicofGroupthink.Thisinvolvedfurtherdiscussionandanalysisofthestories.

Thefollowingtablesoutlinethedatacollectedaroundthesharedcharacteristicsnotedinall

fourstoriesbeginning.Thefirsttablerepresentstheantecedents.

73

Antecedent Example

Insulationofthegroup Inallfoursituations,thefourparticipantsagreedthattheinterpreters

wereseenassetapartfromotherdepartments,teachersorprofessors,

andtheDeafcommunityorDeafstudentstheyworkedwith.Theywere

viewedasautonomousandunsupervisedformuchoftheirwork.

Lackoftraditionof

impartialleadership

Ineverysetting,thechosenleadersormanagementwereformeror

currentinterpretersorperhapsteachersoftheDeaf.Theycontinued

managementpracticesandpoliciesthattheylearneddecadesago,

whichmaynotbecurrentandwhichmayrepresentamachinemodel

philosophy.

Lackofnormsrequiring

methodicalprocedures

Therewerefewifanyopportunitiestosystematicallydiscussthe

interpersonalandpowerdynamicsofthegroup.Therewaslittletono

supervisionoftheinterpretersandnoregularformalorinformal

mechanisms(meetings,unanimousreviewssuchassuggestionboxes,

unanimoussurveys,etc.)thatinvolvedtheconsumers/clients.

Homogeneityof

members'social

backgroundand

ideology

Thefourparticipantsagreedthatmostoftheinterpretersinthese

settingswereCaucasian,hearing,able-bodied,female,middleclass,

collegeeducated,anddidnothaveDeafparentsorrelatives.Mosthad

potentiallylearnedtobecomeinterpretersinamachinemodel

paradigm.Thereforetherewasmuchhomogeneityofthemembers.

Highstressfrom

externalthreatswith

lowhopeofabetter

solutionthanthe

leader's

Againinallofthesettings,theparticipantshadnotedhowinterpreters

wereoftenconcernedtheirworkwouldbejudged,andtheywere

concernedabouttheirreputationinthefieldandinthecommunity.

Theydidnot,however,havenewsolutionstothechallengestheywere

facingandreliedonpastpractices.

Lowself-esteem

Ineverysetting,theparticipantsfeltthatmanyinterpretersbegantheir

careerwithlowself-esteem.Fromtheirperspective,itwasendemicto

thefield.

Table1SharedAntecedentsofGroupthink

ThenexttableoutlinesthesharedsymptomsofGroupthinkseenineachofthefour

stories.

74

Symptom Example

Illusionofinvulnerability Accordingtothefourparticipants,therewasashortageofpersonnelin

thefield,andsointerpretersoftenfoundworkwithoutdifficulty.There

wasasenseofinvulnerabilityduetothatthoughitwasnotopenly

talkedabout.Whilesomeinterpretersworkedasindependent

contractorsineducationalorcommunitysettingsorforagenciessuch

asavideorelaycompany,theircontractsseemedtocontinuein

perpetuityandwererarelyrescindedonceagreedupon.Evenwhen

workinginastaffposition,andperhapsduetotheshortageof

interpreters,weakerorunethicalinterpretersseemedtohavealotof

protection.

Beliefininherent

moralityofthegroup

Theparticipantsfeltthatinthegeneralsocietyandinthevariouswork

placestheymentionedintheirstories,theinterpreterswereseenby

everyoneastheretohelp,nothinderDeafpeople.Thistherewasa

strongbeliefintheirinherentmorality.

Collective

rationalizations

Severalcollectiverationalizationswerenotedinthesharedstoriesthat

supportedunethicalorlessqualifiedinterpreters.Therewasashared

beliefinsupportingpastpracticesasthebestwayoronlypossibleway.

Forexample,therewasastrongbeliefinthetheory,“Noonecomplains,

sonothingiswrong.”Everyoneagreedthattherewasnotenough

funding,whichstifledwaysofdealingwithproblems.Therewasthe

philosophy,“Wetrieditonceanditdidn'twork.Whytryagain?”There

seemedtobeaconsciousorunconsciousbeliefinthemachinemodelof

interpreting,asinterpreterswereneutralandjusttheretotranslate.

Stereotypesofout-

groups

Uponreflectingonallfourstories,theparticipantsthoughtthatDeaf

andhearingindividualswhowantedchangewereseenasdemanding

orangry.Thereexistedan“us”against“them”view,interpreters

againsttheclients,andabeliefthattheclients“don’tunderstandour

work.”

Self-censorship Eachoftheparticipantshaddecidednottospeakoutorhadseen

othersdecidenottospeakout,indicatingastrongsenseofself-

censorship.

Illusionofunanimity Anothercommonexperiencewasthateveryoneinthefoursettings

75

madeaconcertedefforttogetalongandproduceaunitedfronttothe

consumers.Interpretersdidnottalkabouttheseissueswiththe

consumersorwiththeirgroupmembers,thoughtheymayhaveshared

themwithaselectgroupoftrustedpeers.

Directpressureon

dissenters

Thefourparticipantsbelievedthatanyonewhowantedchangewithin

theirgroupwasostracized.Theywererebuttedbythemindguardsand

therewasarealfearofbeingshunned.

Self-appointed

mindguards

Eachoftheparticipantstalkedabouthowsomemembersofthegroup

hadtakenontheroleofdissuadingchange,andtheyremindedthe

groupthatsomethingshadbeentriedbefore,orinsistedthatnewways

wouldn’twork.Theyfailedtocomeupwithalternativesolutions.

Table2SymptomsofGroupthink

76

Thelasttableturnstothedefectivedecisionsidentifiedwithinthefourstories.

DefectiveDecision Example

Incompletesurveyof

alternatives

Theparticipantsnotedhowtypicallynoexternalexpertsorresources

werecalledupontolookattheGroupthinksymptoms,thoughtheywere

broughtintoteachlanguage(ASL)orinterpretingskillsets.Therewasa

hierarchyintermsofwhocameupwithsolutionstoproblemsand

determinedbestpractices,whichwastypicallytop-down,fromthe

“experienced”interpretersorcoordinators.Therewerenoorfewrequests

forideasfromthegrouporindividualsinthegroupandlittletonoinput

fromtheDeafandhearingclients.

Incompletesurveyof

objectives

Therewaslittlerecognitionofthegoalsorobjectivesofinterpretingsuch

asthecomplexityofthetaskandalloftheinterpersonalandintrapersonal

skillsrequiredtodothis.Therewasnorecognitionorpoliciesconcerned

withhowtodealwithnepotisminassigninginterpretersorretaliation

frominterpreterstotheclients.Therewasnorecognitionofthehierarchy

inthefieldandhowtoempowernoviceinterpretersorwaystoensure

successfulinterpretationforDeafstudentspresentinginapublicforum

forgrades.

Failuretoexamine

risksofpreferred

choice

Ineachstory,themembersofthegroupshadnotlookedattherisksof

continuingthestatusquo.Accordingtotheparticipants,membersofthe

groupwhohadspokenupbutwhohadnotbeenheardeventuallyfelt

disillusioned.Deafandhearingpeopledidnotinturngettheservicethey

deserved.Continuingthestatusquocreatedabarrierorperpetuatedthe

barrierthatexistedbetweenDeafpeopleandinterpreters(“us”and

“them”).

Failuretoreappraise

initiallyrejected

alternatives

Theparticipantsbelievedthatgroupsshouldlookatwhatmayhavebeen

unaffordablebeforeasitmightbeaffordablenow.Theythoughtpolicies

thatmaytakealotofworktoestablishwouldbecostefficientonceupand

running.Forexample,therearewaystocoverbreaktimesinassignments

toavoiddeprivingDeafpeopleofaccess.Therearewaystoensurean

interpretertranslatesaDeafperson’sspeechfromASLintoEnglishfairly

accurately.Therearealsowaystodealwithnepotismintheworkforce

andretaliation.

77

Poorinformation

search

Inallfourcases,theparticipantsnotedlittleornorecognitionof

literature,whichdescribestheneedforsupervisioninpractice

professions.Therewasnorecognitionoftheliteratureontheroleof

interpretersinvarioussettingsandtheirimpactonthecommunication

triad.Employersormanagersfailedtorecognizetheneedtobring

externalexpertstohelpmediatesomeofthesymptomsseen.

Selectivebiasin

processing

informationathand

Thereseemedtobeanemphasisonjustifyingcurrentpractices.The

workgroupsdescribedcontinuedtolookatinformationonsignlanguage

interpretinganddidnotconsiderothermodelsorsourcesofbest

practices.Theemphasiswasonimprovingserviceprovisionandtypically

focusedonenhancingindividualinterpreter’slanguageorinterpreting

abilities.Forexample,everyonerecognizedalackofself-esteeminthe

field,yetnooneactedonit.

Failuretoworkout

contingencyplans

Therewerenocontingencyplansforthesymptomsnotedbythe

participants,whichincludedretaliation,nepotism,hierarchy,orthe

inabilityofsomeinterpreterstoworksuccessfullyfromasignedlanguage

(likeASL)toaspokenlanguage.Infactthepracticeinthegroupsseemed

tobetoignoresuchpracticesortoallowforthemtobeinformallynoted

butnotofficiallydealtwith.

Table3DefectiveDecisions

78

Discussion

Inallfournarratives,wefoundevidenceofallsixantecedentsofGroupthink,namely(1)

insulationfromthegroup,(2)lackofimpartialleadership,(3)lackofmethodicalprocedures,(4)

homogeneityinthegroup,(5)highstressfromperceivedexternalgroupsand(6)lowself-

esteem.WealsofoundevidenceofalleightofthesymptomsofGroupthink.Theantecedents

andsymptomsmayhaveinturnledtosomeofthedefectivedecisionmakingnotedinthefour

stories.Thosedecisionsincludednottakingstepstoensureaccurateinterpretationservices

(storyone),allowingorignoringretaliationfrominterpreterstoconsumers(storytwo),the

establishmentofhierarchieswherethenewerinterpretersweredeniedtheiropinionsorvoice

(storythree)andnepotisticpractices(storyfour)whereunpreparedorill-suitedinterpreters

requestedandweregivenassignmentsbasedontheirpersonalinterestbutnottheirabilities.

Janis’(1982)describedninewaystoavoidortodealwiththeGroupthinkphenomenon.

Wefeelthesemayhelptodealwiththepoordecision-makingdescribed.Theguidelinesarethe

following:

1. Eachpersonshouldberequiredtocriticallyevaluateproposals

2. Theleadershouldremainimpartialandunbiased

3. Differentgroupswithseparateleadersshouldbeestablishedandworkindependentlyto

addressthesameproblem

4. Themaingroupshoulddivideintotwoseparategroupswithdifferentchairstoreview

policydecisionsandthenmeettocometoconsensus

5. “Eachmemberofthepolicy-makinggroupshoulddiscussperiodicallythegroup's

deliberationswithtrustedassociatesinhisorherownunitoftheorganizationand

reportbacktheirreactions.”(p.266)

6. Outsideindependentexpertsshouldbecalledinperiodicallytochallengethegroup’s

assumptions

7. Arotatingdevil’sadvocateshouldbechosentoevaluatepolicydecisions

8. Whenarivalorganizationisinvolved,timeneedstobetakentoevaluatetheirgoalsand

79

intentions

9. “A“secondchance”meetingshouldbeheldafteradecisiontogiveparticipantsa

chancetorefutethepolicy(Janis1982,p.270)

Wewouldliketoendbylookingattheapplicationofthesestepstothedecision-making

modelidentifiedinthefourstories.Asafirststepandwhereitisnothappening,questionable

practiceslikethosenotedinthesestoriesshouldbeidentifiedandthecurrentpracticesofthe

departmentoragencyshouldbescrutinizedbythoseinvolved.Forexample,itlookslikein

severalsettingsproblemslikepoorservice,retaliation,anunwrittenhierarchy,andnepotistic

practicesarebeingignored.Animportantquestiontoaddressishowtheemployeesor

freelancersinthosesettingsviewthesepractices.Consequentlyweshouldwonderifstepsare

neededtodealwiththem.Anotherissuetoconsiderisiftheleadershipisimpartialenoughto

dealwiththeseproblemsorshouldaneutral,thirdpartybeemployed?AsnotedbyJanis

(1982),itmightbebettertobreaklargergroupsintosmallerunitswithindependentchairsto

discusstheseproblemsandthedecision-makingprocessesaroundthem.Alsoitbehooves

management,asdescribedbyJanis(1982),toencourageeveryonetovoicehisorheropinions

aboutsuchissues.

AsnotedbyJanis(1982),onemeansofdealingwithdefectivedecision-makingpractices

istobringinexternalexpertsandtoencouragegroupmemberstoliaisewithatrusted

confidanttoworkthroughtheirviews.Thefieldiscurrentlyadvocatingforsuchamodelas

well,describedassupervision(Dean&Pollard2006;2011).Webelieveifthesestepsaswellas

theonesoutlineearlierwereemployed,wewouldseemoreeffectivewaysofdealingwiththe

problemsnotedinthedata,whichinturnwouldensuremoreeffectiveserviceprovisionfor

Deafandhearingindividuals.

References

Aldag,RamonJ.andSallyRiggsFuller.“Beyondfiasco:AreappraisaloftheGroupthink

phenomenonandanewmodelofgroupdecisionsprocesses.”PsychologicalBulletin113,no.3

(1993):533-552.

Baker-Shenk,Charlotte.“Characteristicsofoppressedandoppressorpeoples:Their

80

effectontheinterpretingcontext.”InInterpreting:TheArtofCrossCulturalMediation.

ProceedingsoftheNinthNationalConventionoftheRegisterofInterpretersfortheDeaf,

editedbyMarineMcIntire.SilverSpring,MD:RIDPublications,1986.

Bell,Jill.“NarrativeInquiry:Morethanjusttellingstories.”TESOLQuarterly36,no.2

(2002):207-213.

Connelly,F.MichaelandD.JeanClandinin.“StoriesofexperienceandNarrative

Inquiry.”EducationalResearcher19no.5(1990):2-14.http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176100

Dean,RobynandRobertPollard.“Frombestpracticetobestpracticeprocess:Shifting

ethicalthinkingandteaching.”InANewChapterinInterpreterEducation:Accreditation

ResearchTechnology,editedbyElisabethMaroney.Monmouth,OR:CIT,2006.

---.“Context-basedethicalreasoningininterpreting:Ademandcontrolschema

perspective.”TheInterpreterandTranslatorTrainer5(2011):155-182.

Esser,JamesK.“Aliveandwellafter25years:AreviewofGroupthinkResearch.”

OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses73no2/3(February/March1998):116-

141.

Harvey,Michael.A.“Shieldingyourselffromtheperilsofempathy:Thecaseofsign

languageinterpreters.”JournalofDeafStudiesandDeafEducation8no.2(2002):207-213.

Janis,Irving.L.Groupthink:PsychologicalStudiesofPolicyDecisionsandFiascoes.

Secondedition.Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany,1982.

Lucius-Hoene,GabrieleandArnulfDeppermann.“Narrativeidentityempiricized:A

dialogicalandpositioningapproachtoautobiographicalresearchinterviews.”NarrativeInquiry

10no.1(2000):199-222.

Lunenburg,FredC.“GroupDecisionMaking:ThePotentialforGroupthink.”

InternationalJournalofManagement,Business,andAdministration13no.1(2010):1-6.

McCabe,Allyssa,EarlCapronandCarolePeterson.“Thevoiceofexperience:Therecall

ofearlychildhoodandadolescentmemoriesbyyoungadults.”InDevelopingNarrative

Structure,editedbyAllyssaMcCabeandCarolePeterson.Hillsdale,NewJersey:Lawrence

ErlbaumAssociates,1991.

Murray,Garold.“Narrativeinquiry.”InQualitativeResearchinAppliedLinguistics.A

81

PracticalIntroduction,editedbyJuanitaHeighamandRobertA.Croker.NewYork,NewYork:

PalgraveMacMillan,2009.

Packer,Dominic.J.“AvoidingGroupthink:Whereasweaklyidentifiedmembersremain

silent,stronglyidentifiedmembersdissentaboutcollectiveproblems.”PsychologicalScience20

no.5(2009):546-548.DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02333.x

Page,Jean.“Inthesandwichorontheside?Culturalvariabilityandtheinterpreter's

role.”JournalofInterpretation6no.1(1993):107-126.

Patton,MichaelQuinn.“Enhancingthequalityandcredibilityofqualitativeanalysis.”

HealthServicesResearch34no.5(1999):1189-1208.

Peterson,Robert.“TheperceptionsofdeafnessandlanguagelearningofincomingASL

students.”InHonoringOurPast,CreatingOurFutureTogether,editedbyClayNettles.Silver

Spring,MD:RIDPublications,1999.

Rose,JamesD.“DiverseperspectivesontheGroupthinktheory-AliteraryReview.”

EmergingLeadershipJourneys4no.1(2011):37-57.

Schafer,MarkandScottCrichlow.“AntecedentsofGroupthink:Aquantitativestudy.”

TheJournalofConflictResolution40no.3(September1996):415-435.

Schwenke,Tomina.“Signlanguageinterpretersandburnout.”JournalofInterpretation

20no.2(2012):32-54

Turner,MarleneE.andAnthonyR.Pratkanis.“Twenty-fiveyearsofGroupthinkTheory

andResearch:LessonsfromtheEvaluationofaTheory.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHuman

DecisionProcesses73no.2/3(February/March1998a):105-115

___and___.“AsocialmaintenancemodelofGroupthink.”OrganizationalBehaviorand

HumanDecisionProcesses73no.2/3(February/March1998b):210-235.

82

WorkinginJordan:TheExperiencesofaJordanianSignLanguage/Arabic

Interpreter ErinTrine&DareenKhlifat

Abstract

Thiscasestudyexaminestheself-reportedexperiencesofaJordanianSign

Language/ArabicinterpreterworkinginJordan.Datawerecollectedfromawritten

questionnaireandasemi-structuredinterviewandwerecodedintocategoriesbasedon

themes.Threeprimarythemesandthirteensecondarythemesemergedduringtheanalysis.

ThethreeprimarythemeswereInterpersonalRelations,InterpretingParadigms,and

ProfessionalStandards.Thesethemesandthesecondarythemesarediscussedinrelation

toJordaniancultureandfutureresearchsuggestionsareprovided.

Introduction

Thisstudyexaminestheself-reportedexperiencesofan interpreterwhointerprets

betweenJordanianSignLanguage(Lughatil-Ishaarahil-UrduniahorLIU)andspokenArabic

working in Jordan. This paper highlights select findings from the master’s thesis

“Mutarjeema: A Case Study of an Arabic/Jordanian Sign Language (LIU) Interpreter in

Jordan”byTrinecompletedatWesternOregonUniversity in2013.Asa singlecase study

theexperiencesexpressedby theparticipantareevidentofherexperiencesonlyandare

notnecessarilyrepresentativeoftheexperiencesofotherJordanianSignLanguage/Arabic

interpretersinJordan.TheauthorsrecognizeJordanianinterpretersaspeersandcolleagues

workingtoservetheircommunities.Ourhopeisthatthisstudywillserveasafirststepto

enhance understanding in the field of the work being done in Jordan and open the

conversationtoconsiderhowtheinternationalinterpretingcommunitycanlearnfromand

bestsupportourJordaniancolleaguesandtheDeafcommunityintheregion.

83

SituatingtheStudy

JordanhasbeenrecognizedasaleaderintheArabworldwhenitcomestodisability

rights and has passed legislation to comply with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of

PersonswithDisabilities (CRPD)andworkedto integratepersonsconsidereddisabled into

society(Rutherford,2007;Al-MajeedAl-Majali,&Faddoul,2008;HCAPD,2009;NCHR,2010;

Callard,etal.,2012).However,despitethisapparentdesiretosupportdisabledpersonsin

theireducationalandprofessionalendeavors,tangibleprogress inthisareahasbeenslow

(Othman,2010;USStateDepartment,2011;Azzeh,2012).InJordantheDeafcommunityis

considered to be part of the disabled population, rather than a linguistic and cultural

minority, and is impacted by both the legislation and social stigmas regarding disability

withinthecountry (Hendriks,2008;Al-Majeedetal.,2008).ThereportednumberofDeaf

people within the country ranges from 1% according to Hendriks (2008) to 17.84% (Al-

Majeedetal.,2008)ofthepopulation1,andfrom20,000followingtheJoshuaProject(2012)

to60,000(Hendriks,2008).Even if the lowernumbersprovetobecorrect, it isclear that

the Deaf community comprises a significant portion of the Jordanian population.

Consequently,JordanianSignLanguage/Arabicinterpretersarevitalinprovidingtheaccess

necessary for the Deaf population to engage with society in the ways that legislation

mandates. At the time of this study, no formal training was in place for Jordanian Sign

Language/Arabicinterpreters.

Methodology

ThiswasasinglecasestudyconductedwithoneinterpreterfromJordan.The

participantisafemaleinterpreterwithovertenyearsofinterpretingexperienceinavariety

ofsettingsandachildofaDeafadult(CODA).Theparticipantself-reportedonher

experiencesthroughawrittenquestionnaireoftwentyquestionsandasemi-structured

interviewoftwenty-onequestionsconductedviaSkype.Questionsrangedintopicsto

garnerabroadunderstandingofthestateofinterpretinginJordanfromtheparticipant’s1Editors’note:atthetimeofthestudy,nonumbersregardingtheoverallpopulationofthecountrywereavailable.

84

perspective.Examplesofquestionsinclude:“Describetheinteractionyouhavewithother

interpreters”,“WhathappensifaDeafpersonandaninterpreterdonotunderstandeach

otherorifaninterpreterdoesnothavetheskillsforaparticularjob?”and“Inthe

questionnaireyoumentionedthatithasbeenfouryearssincetheHigherCouncilforAffairs

ofPersonswithDisabilitieshaspaidattentiontointerpreters.Howhasinterpretingchanged

inyourcountrysincethattime?”(Trine,2013).Thedatacollectedfromthequestionnaire

andinterviewwerecombinedandanalyzedthroughopencoding(Yin,2008)andaxial

coding(Merriam,2009)approaches.Thisincludedreviewingthedatatoidentifythemes

andthencomparingthosethemestothedatainaseparateprocesstoensurethatthey

indeedalignedwiththerawdata.ThestudywasapprovedbyWesternOregonUniversity’s

InstitutionalReviewBoardin2012andwascompletedin2013.Throughoutthestudythe

participantisreferredtounderthepseudonymJana.

Findings

Theanalysisofthequestionnaireandthesemi-structuredinterviewidentifiedthree

primary themes and thirteen secondary themes in Jana's reported experiences as an

Arabic/LIU interpreter in Jordan. The threeprimary themeswere Interpersonal Relations,

InterpretingParadigms,andProfessionalStandards.Eachprimarythemecomprisedroughly

one-thirdofthetotaldataelicitedfromatwo-pagequestionnaireandtwo-hourinterview.

The primary theme of Interpersonal Relations included information regarding how Jana

related to other people; this primary theme contained the secondary themes of Hearing

Consumer Relations, Deaf Consumer Relations, and Collegiality. The primary theme of

InterpretingParadigmsaddressedinformationregardingwaysinwhichJanaapproachedthe

actualworkofinterpreting;thisprimarythemecontainedthesecondarythemesofHelper

Paradigm(Gish,1990),ConduitParadigm(Gish,1990),CommunicationFacilitatorParadigm

(Humphrey&Alcorn,2001),Bilingual-BiculturalParadigm(Humphrey&Alcorn,2001),Ally

Paradigm (Campbell, Rohan, & Woodcock, 2008), and Designated Interpreter Paradigm

(Hauser, Finch,&Hauser, 2008). The primary themeof Professional Standards addressed

informationabouttherequirementsandpracticesforworkingasaninterpreter inJordan;

thisprimarythemecontainedthesecondarythemesLogistics,Requirements,Training,and

Finance. Figure 1-1 below illustrates the primary themes and corresponding secondary

85

themesidentifiedthroughthedataanalysis.

Figure1-1:PrimaryandSecondaryThemes(Trine,2013)

InterpersonalRelations

WhendescribinginteractionswithhearingconsumersJanasharedthatmostpeople

stillholda stigma towardDeafpeopleandoften sayunkindor ignorantcommentsabout

havingaDeafpersonpresentsuchas“What’stheuse”oraboutherastheinterpreter,such

as “maybe she will never getmarried because she is working with crazy people” (Trine,

2013). She has also experienced people praising her for her work and suggesting that

because of her kindness God will send her to heaven. She shared her frustration in

witnessingdiscriminationagainstDeafpeoplecontinuallyinvarioussettingsbutaddedthat

those she has worked with over time “almost understand now” (Trine, 2013). Jana

describedoneofthehardestthingsaboutherworkasinteractingwithpeoplewhoare“are

absolutelyinignorance”aboutDeafpeople(Trine,2013).

Jana has close ties to theDeaf community as a CODA,which shemaintained and

developedover timeby being continually involvedwith the community. She reports that

her relationship with and reputation within the Deaf community are excellent. She

86

explained that the situation for Deaf people in Jordan has improved tremendously from

veritable isolation to the possibility of vibrant lives with relationships, education, and

careers. She shared that Deaf people are “in charge” (Trine, 2013) when it comes to

determining ifan interpreterhasthenecessaryskills fora jobandcanrequestadifferent

interpreter if their needs are not being met. However, she stated that getting another

interpretercouldbeproblematicdue toonlyhaving twenty-five interpreters in theentire

country (Trine, 2013). Her perspective on what the Deaf community most wanted from

interpreterswashonesty, todothebest theycould,andnottoeditorchangewhatDeaf

peoplecommunicatewheninterpreting.

In regards to relationships with other interpreters Jana expressed that while she

generally had good relationships with other interpreters, overall there was tension. She

explained that therewasparticularly a strongdividebetween interpreterswhohadbeen

workingforlessthanfiveyearsandthosewhohadbeenworkingfortwenty-fiveyears,and

between interpreterswithageneralhighereducationand thosewithoutageneralhigher

education, with each group looking down on the other. Jana shared that interpreters

primarily work alone and that many interpreters feel competitive with others about

receivingwork.

InterpretingParadigms

When Jana shared stories about how she approached the task of interpreting she

described approaches that aligned with each of the interpreting paradigms described in

Western interpreter educationprogramsat the timeof the study.Her approaches varied

dependingonthesituationandherexperience.Attimesshewouldbeextremelyinvolved

andatothertimesshewouldmaintainstrongboundaries.Sheemphasizedtheimportance

of interpreting every word a Deaf person signs and of engaging in setting appropriate

behavior so as not to cause a misunderstanding between participants. She adamantly

explainedthatitwasunacceptableforinterpreterstoexpresstheirownopinioninsteadof

theviewoftheDeafpersonforwhomtheywereinterpreting.Shealsosharedthatattimes

-whenshehadpermissionfromtheDeafconsumer-shewouldparticipateinaninteraction

whileclarifyingwhat ideaswereherownandwhat informationshewas interpreting.The

87

three approaches that appearedmost often in thedatawere theHelper Paradigm (Gish,

1990) which involves a very active and involved approach, the Conduit Paradigm (Gish,

1990)whichinvolvesaverydistantandmachine-likeapproach,andtheBilingual-Bicultural

Paradigm (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001) which involves an approach of recognizing and

mediating both linguistic and cultural differences between participants for which one is

interpreting.

ProfessionalStandards

When describing what it was like to work as an interpreter Jana continually

expressedadeepdesire for improvement. She said that sheworkedan averageof thirty

hoursaweekandaddedthatinterpretersworkingintheurbancapitalofAmmanwereable

toworkmoreoften thanthose in ruralareas.Sheexpressedthewish foranorganization

overseeingtheschedulingofinterpretingjobs.InuniversitysettingstheHigherCouncilfor

theAffairsofPersonswithDisabilitiesisresponsibletoprovideandpayinterpreters.Atthe

timeofthestudyJanastatedthatlownumberoftwenty-fiveinterpretersinthenationwas

animprovementfromthepastwhenevenfewerinterpreterswereavailable.

Janaexplainedthatthere isnoformaltrainingfor interpreters inJordan.Sinceshe

cravedmentorshipwhensheentered the field shedoesherbest toprovide it forothers.

People usually enter the field because they have a Deaf familymember. Those pursuing

interpreting as a career take short courses in LIU to learn the language, but no formal

interpretingtrainingormentoringisavailableforlearningthemeaningtransferprocess.She

shared that the Higher Council for the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities has created a

“licenseforsigning”forinterpretersworkingingovernmentorganizationsbutthatitis“still

insufficient”(Trine,2013).

Janaexplainedthatthewagesfor interpretersarenotadequatefor interpretingto

besustainableasone'ssoleincome.Shealsonotedthatthemethodofpaymentvariesfrom

oneinterpretingassignmenttothenext.Attheuniversityhersupervisorpaysherdirectly,

but inthecommunityDeafpeoplepayinterpretersforservices.Thisgenerallymeansthat

interpretersaccepta lower rate,ordonotacceptpaymentatall,whenDeafpeoplepay.

Jana said that the remuneration for a full day of interpreting could range from 7 to 15

88

Jordaniandinars (roughlyequivalent to9 to18Euros respectively). She shared thatmost

interpreters work part time and struggle to earn a living. Jana believes the issue of

remunerationisabarriertomorepeoplejoiningtheprofession.Whileshewasdesperateto

see improvement in theprofessionalization of signed language interpreting in Jordan she

acknowledgedthatJordanwasstill“wayahead”ofotherArabcountries(Trine,2013).

DiscussionandFutureResearch

Throughout the findings Janaportrays herself as seeking to raise the standards of

thefieldinJordanandtoprovidethebestpossibleservicestoconsumers.Wecanrecognize

Janaasacolleaguewithsimilarexperiencesandgoals to thoseofher internationalpeers

andwithmuch to contribute to the field. Considering the datawithin the framework of

Jordanian culture provides insight into Jana’s reported experiences. Figure 1-2 below

illustratestheinterconnectednessoftheprimarythemesfromthedataandhighlightsthat

thesethemesaresituatedwithinthelargercontextofJordanianculture.

Figure1-2:TheDataandJordanianCulture

AsHeld,CummingsandCotter(2011)reportthecountryofJordanhasmaintained

unique ties to its region and to the West since its establishment. These ties may have

contributedtothecultureofJordandevelopingdifferentlythantheculturesofsomeofits

neighboring nations. Previous research conducted on the cultures of Arabic speaking

89

nations (Hofstede,1984) identifiedtheculturesasallsharinganumberofcommontraits.

Alkailani,Azzam,andAthamneh(2012)determinedthatJordaniancultureshowssimilarities

withotherArabicspeakingnations inthecategoriesofmasculineandcollectivist,butthat

Jordanianculturediverges in thecategoriesofpowerdistanceanduncertaintyavoidance.

Based on these categories, Alkailani et al. (2012) note that Jordanian culture values: the

accumulationofwealth,distinctgenderroles,expertise,structure,youth,minimizingstatus

bythoseinauthority,solidarity,relationshipbuilding,andconservatism.

Alkailani et al (2012) identified Jordanian culture as collectivist. Initially, Jana’s

portrayalof the tensionandcompetitionbetweencolleaguesmayappear toconflictwith

collectivist values of relationship building and solidarity. However, when considered in

conjunction with the masculine characteristics of the culture which values wealth as a

symbol of success, this tension is indicative of the professional identities of interpreters.

This informationmay indicate that interpreters feel solidarity with their families or with

consumersoftheirinterpretingservices,ratherthanwithotherinterpretingcolleagues.This

couldcontributetoviewingcolleaguesascompetitionforwagestosupporttheirfamiliesor

as threats to disrupting working relationships that have been established. Working in

isolation could also contribute to interpreters not feeling connected to the interpreting

communityasawhole.

WhenconsideringtheratioofinterpreterstotheDeafpopulation,evenifthelower

statistics on the percentage of Deaf people in Jordan are correct, it is surprising that

competitionissoprevalent. If it is infactdifficult for interpreterstofindwork,thiswould

suggest that the Deaf community is still marginalized and is not included in Jordanian

society in theways that the CRPD and national legislation directs. It is also possible that

interpreters are unaware of potential work, as Jana mentioned that interpreters must

scheduleallnon-governmentassignmentsthemselves.Currently,therearenoprofessional

organizationsorformalizedtrainingsthatcouldinvitecurrentandfutureinterpretersintoa

professionalcommunityinJordan.Wedoseetheseexamplesinothercountries.Thislackof

solidarity and professional identity among interpreters could be problematic for the

professionalizationofthefieldandconsequentlyforconsumers.A2013studyconductedby

Annarino and Hall regarding disenfranchised interpreters in Saipan and Guam suggested

that interpreters must feel connected to the profession in order to consider the ethical

implications of their decisions when interpreting. Additionally, Guess (2004) posits that

90

membersofcollectivistculturesmayfeelinsecuremakingdecisionsindividually.Asolidified

professional identity for Jordanian interpreters could positively impact consumers if

interpreters were more diligent in making individual ethical decisions and in collectively

establishingstandardsforinterpreterstofollow.

Theculturaldescriptorsofmasculineandstronguncertaintyavoidance(Alkailaniet

al., 2012)mayalso contribute to the low statusof interpretingwithin Jordan.While Jana

shared that projectswere in development, at the timeof the study therewas no formal

interpreting education within the country. The uncertainty avoidance value of expertise

(Alkailanietal., 2012)maycontribute to societynot viewing interpretersasprofessionals

sincetheydonothaveformalizedtrainingorholdadegreeininterpreting.Thismayalsobe

afactor inthe lowremuneration interpretersreceive.Lowwages,perceived lowstatusof

theprofession,andtensionamongstcolleaguescouldalsobebarrierstopeoplewantingto

jointhefield.

When discussing her interpretingwork Jana continually demonstrated a desire to

provideaccessforconsumers,andsheacknowledgedthatthebestwaytodosodepended

on the setting and situation. She shared stories that demonstrated alignment with each

interpretingparadigmtaughtinmanyinterpretereducationprogramsinternationally(these

paradigms are named above as the secondary themes under Interpreting Paradigms).

However, Jordanian interpreters have yet to develop and codify approaches to thework

that best serve their communities and culture, and viewing this information through the

lensofknownparadigmsmayonlyprovideapartialpictureoftheapproachesJanautilized.

TheHelperParadigm(Gish,1990)codeoccurredwiththemostfrequencyinthedata

analysis.However,Jana’sstoriesdidnotappeartodisplaythepathologydescribedbyGish

(1990)“thatDeafpeople[are]somehowlacking,”as isoftenseeninthehelperapproach.

Her involvement in these situations seemed to stem from her deep connection to the

community. Likewise, in the situations coded asDesignated Interpreter (Hauser, Finch,&

Hauser, 2008) Jana shared that at times sheparticipated in an interpreted interactionby

adding her own comments. She emphasized that this only occurred when she had

permission from theDeaf consumerand that she clearlydifferentiatedbetweenherown

commentsandthoseoftheDeafconsumer.Itispossiblethatconsumersmayhavedifferent

expectationsofJanaasaCODAandtrustedcommunitymemberthantheywouldofother

interpreters.Collectivistvaluesofrelationshipbuildingandsolidarity(Alkailanietal.,2012)

91

mayalsocontributetoJanautilizingtheseapproaches.

Thefindingsofthisstudycallforfurtherresearchinanumberofways.Thisstudydid

not focus on the perspective of the Jordanian Deaf community. We suggest that future

studiesincludeDeafstakeholdersandaddressDeafcommunitymembers’perspectives.We

also suggest that research on Jordanian Deaf culture and LIU be conducted to raise

understanding and the perceived status of the Deaf community. Expanding Jordanian

society’s view of the Deaf community could also increase society’s understanding of

interpreters.ResearchregardingJordanianDeafculturecoulddetermineiftheDeafculture

is also collectivist and what the implications are in interpreting between two collectivist

cultures.

Wesuggestconductinganeedsassessmenttodetermineifinfacttensofthousands

of Deaf people are being marginalized and excluded from society. Jordan has already

demonstrated through legislation that it wants to honor the human rights of the Deaf

communityandincludetheminsociety.WerecommendthattheWorldFederationofthe

Deaf (WFD) and the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI) support

JordanianofficialsinmeetingthestandardsoftheCRPDandthenationallegislation.

WealsosuggestthatfuturestudiesincludelargerpoolsofArabic/LIUinterpretersin

ordertodetermineifJana’sexperiencesarecommonorunique.

In order to foster professional identity and solidarity among interpreters we advise that

interpreters engage in professional dialogueswith one another, such as Demand-Control

SchemacaseconferencingasdescribedbyDeanandPollard(2001).

Finally, we acknowledge that significant work is being done in Jordan and that

improvementshavebeenmadesincethetimeofthisstudyin2013.Wesuggestcontinued

researchonthestateofArabic/LIU interpreting inJordantodocumentandsupportthese

efforts.

It isourhope that this studyprovides the first step in investigating theArabic/LIU

interpretingcommunityinJordanandthatmorescholarlydialoguewillfollowtoilluminate

howwecanbestsupportourcolleaguesandtheDeafcommunity in theregion.Wetrust

thattheJordanianDeafcommunityandinterpretingcommunitywillmoveforwardtogether

inprofessionalizingthefieldinwaysthatservethembestbothculturallyandpragmatically.

WelookforwardtolearningfromourJordaniancolleaguesastheyestablishbestpractices

forArabic/LIUinterpretersworkinginJordan.

92

References

Alkailani, Azzam, & Abdel B. Athamneh, “Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: Ungeneralized,

ReevaluatingtheJordanianCulture.” InternationalBusinessResearch,5 (2012):71-

80.doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n4p71.

Al-MajeedAl-Majali,&KrestineJ.Faddoul,“TheRightsofDisabledPeopleintheHashemite

Kingdom of Jordan as per the National Legislative System and International

Standards,” National Center for Human Rights, 2008,

http://www.nchr.org.jo/english/ModulesFiles/PublicationsFiles/Files/The%20Rights

%20of%20Disabled%20people%20in%20the%20Hashemite%20Kingdom%20of%20Jo

rdan%20As%20Per%20the%20National%20Legislative%20.pdf

Annarino&Hall,“ItTakesProfessionalCommunity:ACaseStudyofInterpreterProfessional

DevelopmentinthePacRim,”RID:VIEWS,Summer2013.

Azzeh, “Civil Society Report Faults Kingdom’s Slow Progress on PeopleWith Disabilities,”

The Jordan Times, January 31, 2012, http://jordantimes.com/civil-society-report-

faults-kingdoms-slow-progress-on-people-with-disabilities

Callardetal.,MentalIllness,DiscriminationandtheLaw:FightingforSocialJustice.UK:John

Wiley&Sons,2012.

Campbelletal.,Academicandeducationalinterpretingfromtheothersideofthe

classroom:Workingwithdeafacademics.Hauser,P.C.,Finch,K.L.,&Hauser,A.B.,

ed.Deafprofessionalsanddesignatedinterpreters:Anewparadigm.Washington,

DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,2008

Dean, & Pollard, “Application of Demand-Control Theory to Sign Language Interpreting:

Implications for Stress and Interpreter Training,” Journal ofDeaf Studies andDeaf

Education,6(2001):1-14.doi:10.1093/deafed/6.1.1

Gish,(1990).“EthicsandDecisionMakingforInterpretersinHealthCareSettings:AStudent

Manual,”Minneapolis/St.Paul,MN:TheCollegeofSt.Catherine.

Guess, “DecisionMaking in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures,”Online Readings in

PsychologyandCulture,4(2004).doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1032.

Hauser,etal.,Deafprofessionalsanddesignatedinterpreters:Anewparadigm.

Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,2008

93

Held,Cummings,&Cotter,MiddleEastPatterns:Places,Peoples,andPolitics.Boulder,CO:

WestviewPress,2011.

Hendriks,“SignLanguageVarietiesinJordanandtheMiddleEast.JordanianSignLanguage:

Aspects of Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” PhD diss., Netherlands

GraduateSchoolofLinguistics,2008.

HigherCouncil for theAffairsofPersonswithDisabilities.HigherCouncil for theAffairsof

PersonswithDisabilities.LegislativeMeasuretoFulfillJordanObligationsUnderthe

Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 2009.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/JORDAN%20200809.pdf

Hofstede,“TheCulturalRelativityoftheQualityofLifeConcept,”AcademyofManagement

Review,9(1984),389-398.http://www.jstor.org/stable/258280.

Humphrey&Alcorn,Soyouwant tobean interpreter?:An introduction to sign language

interpreting.Amarillo,TX:H&H,2001.

Merriam, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass,2009.

NationalCenter forHumanRightsof Jordan.NationalCenter forHumanRightsof Jordan.

NationalImplementationoftheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.

2010.http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/docs/study/NCHRJordan.pdf

Othman, (2010).“RightsofPeoplewithDisabilities in JordanNeedSeriousPrioritization—

U.S. official,” Ammon: Voice of the silent majority, October 22, 2010.

http://en.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=10123

Rutherford, “Jordan and Disability Rights: A Pioneering Leader in the Arab World,” The

Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 3 (2007), 25-42. Center on

DisabilityStudiesattheUniversityofHawai‘iatManoa.

Trine,"Mutarjeema:ACaseStudyofanArabic/JordanianSignLanguage(LIU)Interpreterin

Jordan." MA thesis, Western Oregon University, 2013.

http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/10

U.S. State Department. Consolidated Disability Findings From the 2010 U.S. State

DepartmentCountryReportsonHumanRightsPractices:NearEastandNorthAfrica.

2011.

http://www.usicd.org/doc/2011NearEast_NorthAfrica_Disability_References.pdf

Yin,CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods(4thed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,2008.

94

InternationalSignInterpreterPreparationsforHigh-levelEuropean

Assignments________________________________________________ MayadeWit&IrmaSluis

Introduction

Duringthepasttenyears,deafsignlanguageusershavebecomeincreasinglyactive

politicallyonEuropeanlevel.Duetotheintensifiedinvolvementofassociationssuchasthe

EuropeanUnionoftheDeaf(EUD)andtheEuropeanUnionoftheDeafYouth(EUDY),the

demandforinternationalsigninterpretershasincreasedwithinEUinstitutionsandinthe

politicalarenainBrussels,Strasbourg,andGeneva(TurnerandNapier,2014).

Inorderfordeafsignlanguageuserstoexercisetheirhumanrightsandparticipateinthe

Europeanpoliticalarena,accessthroughsignlanguageinterpretingservicesisrequired.TheEU

institutionsandEuropeanorganizationshaveextensiveexperienceinworkingwithspoken

languageinterpreters,butlittletonoexperiencerecruitingandworkingwithsignlanguage

interpreters.Thislackofexperienceposesanarrayofchallengestothedeafassociationsand

individuals,aswellasinterpreterassociationsandinterpreters.

Inthisarticletheresultsofanexplorativestudyarepresentedinwhichexperiencesand

bestpracticeswerecollectedofinternationalsigninterpretersworkingataEuropeanlevel.The

findingsareexpectedtofurtherbetterunderstandingamongpractitionersandusersofthe

interpretingservices.Thisarticlewillzoominonaselectionofthefindings,specificallyonthe

profileoftheinterpreterandpreparationtechniques,forafulloverviewoftheresultswerefer

toDeWitandSluis(forthcoming2015).

ResearchQuestion,FrameworkandMethodology

95

Thisstudyexpectstogainfurtherinsightintothespecificchallengestheinternational

signinterpreterencounters,inparticularinregardstopreparation.Thestudyiscomposedof

twoparts.

Thefirstpartofthestudydescribesthecurrentstatusofinternationalsigninterpreters

atEuropeanlevel,theneedforinternationalsigninterpreters,thehiringandrecruitment

process,aswellastheprofileoftheinternationalsigninterpreter.Theinformationwas

collectedthroughaliteraturereviewandaspeciallydesignedsurveyonthegeneralprofileof

theinternationalsigninterpreter.Thesurveywasspreadamongstinternationalsign

interpretersknowntoworkatEuropeanlevel.

Thesecondpartfocusesontheaspectofpreparationforanassignmentbyinternational

signinterpreters,consideringalsoifandwhatdifferentpreparationwascarriedoutforan

internationalsignassignmentincomparisontoanassignmentinthenationalsignlanguageof

theinterpreter.Forthispartadiaryfortheinternationalsigninterpreterwasdeveloped

lookingatspecificallytheaspectsrelatedtopreparationforaninternationalsignassignment.

CurrentStatusofInterpretersatEuropeanLevel

Nexttotheneedofnationalsignlanguageinterpreters,thereisagrowingdemandfor

internationalsigninterpreterswithinEurope(TurnerandNapier,2014).TheEUDuses

internationalsigninterpreterstomaketheirmeetingsandconferencesaccessiblefor

representativesandparticipantsofdifferentEuropeancountries1.

Internationalsigninterpretersworkinavarietyofsettings.TheprimaryEuropeanlevel

organizationsinternationalsigninterpretersworkforaretheEuropeanParliament,the

EuropeanCommissionandtheCourtofJustice(informalmeeting,EUinstitutionsandAIIC-EU-

NDcommittee,11/13/2013).

Until2012theSCIC(TheDirectorateGeneralforInterpretationoftheEuropean

Commission)providedinternationalsigninterpreterswithinthesethreeEuropeaninstitutions.

SCICusesalistoffreelanceinterpreters.Tobeaddedtothislist,interpretersneedtohavea 1http://eud.eu/International_Sign_Disclaimer-i-206.html,accessed2/5/2014

96

universitydegreeandhavecompletedinterpretingstudiesandprovidedanoverviewoftheir

workedhoursandexperience.

ManyspokenlanguageinterpreterswhoworkfortheEuropeaninstitutionsaremember

oftheAssociationofInternationalConferenceInterpreters(AIIC).Duetocooperationwithefsli

andtheSignLanguageNetwork,aworkinggroupwithinAIIC,signlanguageinterpreterscould

starting2012becomeamemberofAIIC.Thiswasabigstepforwardfortheinternational

recognitionforsignlanguageinterpretersworkinginconferencesettings.

PreparationandInternationalSign

Theinterpretingprocessconsistsofdifferentcomponents.Oneofthesecomponentsis

preparation(Napier,2002).Inordertodeliveraqualityinterpretation,theinterpreterneedsto

undertakepreparation(Campbell,RohanandWoodcock,2008;DeanandPollard,2001;

Diriker,2011;Frishberg,1990;HumphreyandAlcorn,1996;JanzenandKorpiniski,2005;

Kauling,2012;NeumannSolow,2000;Nolan,2005;PollardandDean,2008;Seleskovitch,1978;

Stewart,ScheinandCartwright,1998;Stone,2007;deWit,2010b).

Kauling(2012)exploredhownationalsignlanguageinterpretersintheNetherlands

preparefortheirassignmentsandfoundtwodifferentmethods,whicharea)studyingthe

preparationmaterials,asslidepresentations,papers,etc.,andb)strivingforextralinguistic

knowledge.ThislattertermisposedbyGile(1995),andreferstoknowledgeaboutthatspecific

interpretingsituation.Thiscouldbegatheringinformationaboutthelocation,butalsolearnthe

underlyingintentionsofthespeaker.Thiswillhelptheinterpretertohaveabetter

understandingofthediscourse,andtodeliverahigherqualityinterpretation.

Thisstudyexploredhow,specifically,internationalsigninterpretersprepareforinternational

assignmentsatEuropeanlevel.McKeeandNapier(2002)mentiontheimportancefor

internationalsigninterpreterstogainknowledgeabouttheinterpretingsettingandotherextra

linguisticfactors:

97

“(…)interpretingdecisionsindicateextensiveuseofcontextualknowledge,inferencing,

audienceawareness,andconsiderationsofrelevanceandefficiencyintheprocessof

interpretation”(p.1).

Moody(2002)confirmstheimportanceofobtainingtheextralinguisticknowledge,

consideringthelimitedlexiconofinternationalsignandtheneedfortheinterpreterto“act

out”thespeeches.

WorkingatEuropeanlevel,interpretersneednotonlytopreparethecontentofthe

speech,backgroundofthespeakers,andextra-linguisticknowledgebutalsogetacquainted

withhowtheEuropeaninstitutionsfunction,aswellastheirdecisionmakingprocess,current

issuesandspecificjargon.

Theseinstitutionshavelittleexperienceandthereforeknowledgeofworkingwithsign

languageinterpreters.Asaresult,theinterpreterneedstoexplaintheworkofsignlanguage

interpreters,aswellasclarifyandassistinarrangingpracticalconditionsonsite.Toguidethe

institutions,theAIICSignLanguageNetworkcreatedtwonewguidelinesin2014.These

guidelinesprovideinformationforsoundengineers2andspokenlanguageinterpreters3onwhat

isimportantwhenworkingwithsignlanguageinterpreters.

GeneralProfileInternationalSignInterpreter

Toacquireinformationabouttheprofileofinternationalsigninterpretersasurveywas

designedandsentoutto32interpretersofwhichsixteenresponded.Thequestionsincluded

whetherrespondentsweremaleorfemale,deaforhearing,inwhichcountrytheylive,ifthey

haveadiplomaordegreeinsignlanguageinterpreting,howmanyyearsofexperiencethey

haveasanationalsignlanguageinterpreterintheirhomecountriesandhowmanyyearsof

experienceasinternationalsigninterpreters.Inadditionquestionsregardinglanguagewere

posed:theirnativelanguage,whatlanguage(s)theyknow,andintoandfromwhichlanguages

2http://aiic.net/page/6700/guidelines-for-sound-engineers/lang/13http://aiic.net/page/6701/guidelines-for-spoken-language-interpreters-working-in-mixed-teams/lang/1

98

theyinterpret.FurthermoreaquestiononwhichinstitutionsororganizationsinEuropethey

haveworkedfor.

Halfoftherespondentsweremaleandhalffemale,whereof11hearingand5deaf

interpreters.Therespondentsliveindifferentcountries:Netherlands(5),UnitedKingdom(3),

Germany(3),Belgium(1),France(1),Denmark(1),Finland(1),andUSA(1).Theeducational

degreesofthe16interpreterswereasfollows:vocationaldegree(8),Bachelor'sdegree(3),

Master'sdegree(3),andoneinterpreterreportedtobeattendingaMasterprogramandone

hadcompletedatrainingconductedbyagovernmentalagency.

Figure1showsthenumberofyearsexperiencetherespondentshaveasanationalsign

languageinterpreterandasaninternationalsigninterpreter.

Yearsofexperience Numberofinterpreterswith

experienceinworkingin

theirnationalsignlanguage

Numberofinterpreterswith

experienceinworkingin

internationalsign

0-5years 3 7

5-10years 6 5

11-15years 3 1

16-20years 1 1

21-25years 1 2

Morethan25years 2 0

Figure1:Numberofyearsexperienceworkinginanationalsignlanguageandininternationalsign

Threerespondentsindicatedtohavelessthan5yearsexperienceinterpretingintheir

nationalsignlanguage,however7interpretersstatedtohavelessthan5yearsexperience

workingasaninternationalsigninterpreter.Onerespondentsaidtohavenoexperience

interpretingintheirnationalsignlanguageandonlyhadexperienceininternationalsign

99

becausehe/sheisdeaf.Otherdeafrespondentsstatedthattheydohaveexperience

interpretingintheirnationalsignlanguage.

Asexplainedpreviouslytheinterpreterswerealsoaskedaboutlanguageknowledgeand

competences,specificallyregardingtheirnativelanguage,thelanguagestheyknow,andfrom

andintowhichlanguagetheyinterpret.Inthefullarticleanoverviewofthenativelanguagesof

theISinterpreterscouldbefound(deWitandSluis,forthcoming2015).

Acomparisonofdeafandhearinginterpreters’experienceofworkingintotheirnational

signlanguageandinternationalsignisshowninfigure2.

Respondent Yearsofexperienceasa

nationalsignlanguage

interpreter

Yearsofexperienceasan

internationalsign

interpreter

Hearing 7 2

Hearing 7,5 1

Hearing 8 3

Hearing 10 5

Hearing 12 2

Hearing 14 6

Hearing 15 5

Hearing 16 8

Hearing 24 20

Hearing 30 22

Hearing 33 25

100

Deaf 0 9

Deaf 2 1,5

Deaf 6 6

Deaf 10 8

Deaf 14 12

Figure2:Acomparisonbetweendeafandhearinginterpretersinnumberofyearsofexperience

Theresponsesindicatethatdeafinterpretersstartatanearlierstageintheir

interpretingcareerwithinterpretingintointernationalsign.Onedeafinterpreterindicatedto

nothaveworkedinhis/hernationalsignlanguage,howeverhasnineyearsofexperience

workingintointernationalsign.Figure3showstheyearsofexperiencetherespondentshave

beforestartingtoworkintointernationalsign.

Hearinginterpreters Deafinterpreters

4 -9

5 0

5 0,5

5 2

6,5 2

8

8

8

8

101

10

10

Figure3:Numberofinterpretersperyearsofexperiencebeforeworkinginto

internationalsign

PreparationTechniques&Strategies

Inadditiontothesurveyonthegeneralprofileofthesignlanguageinterpreter,the

interpreterswerealsoaskedtofilloutadiary.Thediarycontainedquestionsonthe

preparationtechniquesandstrategiestheinterpretersusedduringanassignmentwherethey

usedinternationalsignasoneoftheworkinglanguages.Theinterpreterswereaskedtofillout

thediaryfollowingtheeventwheretheyhadworked.Thepurposeofthediaryentrieswasto

gainbetterinsightinthetypeoftheevents,suchasthebackgroundinformationandlogistics,

andtoobtaininformationontypeandmethodofpreparationtheinterpreterusedspecifically

forinternationalsignassignments.

0

1

2

3

4

-9 0 0.5 2 4 5 6.5 8 10

Figure3:Numberofinterpretersperyearsofexperiencebeforeworkingintointerna9onalsign

Deaf

Hearing

102

Intotal32interpreterswereaskedtofilloutthejournalandfiveinterpreters

participated:threeinterpretersmadeonediaryentry,oneinterpreterthreeentriesand

anotherinterpretersevenentries.Intotaltherewere13internationalsignassignmentsthat

werereportedonbytherespondents.

Outofthe13events,interpreterswerecontactedninetimesdirectlybytheorganizers,

twotimesbythedeafperson,andtheothertwobyinterpretercolleagues.Mostoftheevents

didnotcoverafulldayandhadanaveragedurationofonetofourhours.Themajorityofthe

eventswereplatformwork,wheretheinterpreterfacedalargeraudience.Theinterpreters

mostlyworkedinteamsoftwoandoccasionallyinateamofthree.Oneinterpreterreportedon

ateamof6withtworotatingteamsofthreeinterpreters.Atalleventstheteamofinterpreters

kneweachother,exceptforoneevent.Aninterpretercoordinator,orso-calledheadofteam,

waspresentatallevents.Ofthethirteenevents,atotalofseveneventsofficiallyannounced

thepresenceofaninternationalsigninterpreter.Thisisessentialinformationfordeafpeoplein

ordertoknowiftheycanactuallyparticipateintheevent.

Englishandinternationalsignwereatalleventsthesourcelanguagesforthe

interpreter.NexttoEnglish,themostfrequentlyspokenlanguageinterpretationofferedwas

French,SpanishandGerman.Somerespondentsreportedontheincidentaluseofothersigned

languagesattheevent.

Allinterpretersmentionedthattheypreparedfortheirinterpretingassignment.Forless

thanhalfoftheeventstheinterpreterswereveryfamiliarwiththetopicoftheevent.They

mentionedavarietyofpreparationstrategies.Themostfrequentlyusedpreparationtechnique

wasthereadingofrelevantpapers,suchastheagenda,backgroundinformation,

presentations,andabstracts,whichtheyrequestedfromtheeventorganizers.Thiswas

followedbydiscussionofsignsforterminologyandconceptswiththeirteaminterpreteraswell

aswiththedeafclients.Inaddition,theyusedInternetsearchesforadditionalsourcesof

information,suchasinformationonthehostingorganization.Animportantandcrucialpartof

thepreparationstrategywasinformingtheeventorganizersoftherequirementsthatneeded

tobefulfilledinordertocarryoutinterpretingservices.Forexample,someoftheseincluded

thesetupoftheroom,thetechnicalrequirements,theseatingofthedeafparticipantsandthe

103

placementoftheinterpreters.Theconferenceroomswereoriginallybuiltwithgroundedtables

andseatswithtooshortaudioextensioncords.Theseroomsalsohaveboothsforspoken

languageinterpreters.Becausesignlanguageinterpretersdonotworkinthebooths,butinthe

roomwheretheyneedtobevisibletothedeafaudience,thisfrequentlyneedsadditional

explanationtotheeventorganizers.Nexttothemorestandardsettings,someoftheevents

requiredfurtherexchangewiththeorganizers,suchaseventsthatwerewebstreamedwith

signlanguageinterpretation.Topicsthatwerethendiscussedwereforexamplesolid

backgroundcolors,contrastingbackgroundwiththeusualblackordarkcoloredoutfitofthe

signlanguageinterpreter,andalsowirelessheadsetsandatwhichsizetheinterpreterwasin

thecutoutofthescreentostillhaveavisibleandunderstandablesignlanguageinterpretation.

Athalfoftheeventstheeventorganizersprovidedthebackgroundinformation.The

respondentsmentionedthatattheothereventstheycontactedthepresentersthemselves,

followingtheinabilityoftheorganizerstodoso,andexplainedthepresentersabouttheroleof

theinterpreterandaskingthemfortheirpresentations.

Lookingbackontheirmethodofpreparations,ninerespondentssaidthattheyhad

preparedwell,oneinterpretersaidthattheyhadnotpreparedwellandtwosaidthatitcould

havebeenbetterandthelastonesaidthattheyhadpreparedmoreorlesswell.Asone

respondentstated,"Yes,itwasenoughpreparationwiththematerialsbuttherewasno

opportunitymadeavailabletomeetwiththespeakersnortheothersinterpreters,signedor

spoken."

Inregardtopreparationswiththeircolleagues,andinterpretermentioned,“AlthoughI

wishmyteamwouldbemoreproactiveinpreparing.Ipreparewell,butmyteamusuallydoes

notreadthefulltextsorprepmaterials."Anotherrespondentstatedthatthepreparationsfor

contentwereadequate,butthetechnicalfacilitiesappearednottofunctionwell.Oneofthe

questionstotherespondentswasiftheywouldpreparedifferentlyifthishadbeenan

assignmentintheirnationalsignlanguage.Onerespondentstated,"Yes,inthatsensethatthe

conceptsinInternationalSignhadtobediscussedandagreedonpriortointerpreting.Inmy

nationalsignlanguagethereisnotsuchaneedforthat,unlesstheyareunusualconcepts."For

sixoftheeventstheinterpreterssaidthattheywouldpreparedifferentlywhenitconcernsan

104

assignmentintheirnationalsignlanguageandforsevenoftheeventsnot.Asshowsinoneof

thecomments,"Preparingforanationalassignmentislessstressful.Nowworkingwith

internationalandduetothemanyculturalandlinguisticchallenges,wepreparedmorethan

usualwithanationalassignment."

Forafollowingtimefivewouldpreparedifferentlyandsevenwouldnot.One

respondentalsostatedtheimportanceofinvolvingthedeafperson,"Askthedeafpersonsto

assistinexplainingtheorganizerstheneedforpreparationinordertoprovidefullaccess."

DiscussionandConclusions

Theresearchfindingsindicate,amongotherthings,thatduetotheinexperienceofthe

eventorganizersofworkingwithsignlanguageinterpreters,theinterpretersfacechallenging

workingconditionsandconsequentlyhighstresslevels.Moreimportantly,itappearsthatthe

interpreter’sattentionisshiftedtowardsraisingawarenessandaddressingeventlogisticsand

thereforeleavinglessroomtofocusonprovidingaqualityinterpretation.Forafulloverviewof

thefindingswerefertoDeWitandSluis,(forthcoming,2015).Overall,internationalsign

interpretersshouldconsiderthedifferentpreparationstrategiesproposedbytherespondents

whennotworkingwiththeirnationalsignlanguage.Thesestrategiesdonotseemtobe

commonamongalltheinternationalsigninterpretersresponding,butmightbeofuseto

furtherraiseawarenessamongconferenceorganizersandusersoftheinterpretingservice.This

mightinthelongtermaffecttheunderstandingandwillingnessofallstakeholdersattheevent

toimproveaccessfordeafsignlanguageusers.

Recommendations

Consideringthefrequentlymentionedinexperienceofeventorganizers,furtheractions

needtobetakentoraiseawarenessofwhataccessfordeafsignlanguageusersthrough

internationalsigninterpretingservicesmeans.Inaddition,morestepsneedtobetakento

105

improvetheworkingconditionsofinternationalsigninterpretersatEuropeanlevelthrough

adequateinterpreterpreparation.Toooftentheinternationalsigninterpretersareforcedto

usetheirtimetoeducateandassisttheeventorganizersinlogisticsinrelationtointerpreting

services.Whenworkingconditionsareimproveditwillassisttheinterpretertofocusonthe

qualityoftheinterpretationinsteadofhandlingthecomplexityoftheunderlyinglogistics.

ReferencesCampbell,Linda,andRohan,Meg,andK.Woodcock.2008.AcademicandEducational

InterpretingfromtheOtherSideoftheClassroom:workingwithDeafacademics.In

DeafProfessionalsandDesignatedInterpreters:ANewParadigm,editedbyPeterC.

Hauser,KarenL.Finch,PeterandFinch,andAngelaB.Hauser,Angela,81-105.Washington,

DC:GallaudetUniversityPress,2008.

Dean,RobynandPollard,Robert.2001.ApplicationofDemand-ControltheorytoSign

Languageinterpreting:ImplicationsforStressandInterpretertraining.InOxford

UniversityPress:1-14.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPressInc.

Dean,Robyn,andPollard,Robert.2013.TheDemandControlSchema:Interpretingasa

practiceprofession.NorthCharleston,SC:CreateSpaceIndependentPublishing

Company.

Diriker,Ebru.2011.Userexpectationsurveys:questioningfindingsanddrawinglessonsfor

interpretertraining.inİ.Ü.ÇeviribilimDergisi.IUJournalofTranslationStudies.1(3).

Frishberg,Nancy.1990.Interpreting:Anintroduction.RegistryofInterpretersfortheDeaf,

incorporated.

Gile,Daniel.1995.BasicConceptsandModelsforInterpreterandtranslatortraining.

Amsterdam,theNetherlands:JohnBenjamins.

Humphrey,Bob,andJaniceAlcorn.1996.Soyouwanttobeaninterpreter:anintroduction

tosignlanguageinterpreting.Clearwater:H&Hpublishing.

Janzen,Terry,andDonnaKorpiniski.2005.Ethicsandprofessionalismininterpreting.In

TopicsinSignedLanguageInterpreting.EdTerryJanzen,165-199.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

JohnBenjaminsB.V.

106

Kauling,Emmy.2012.Keepingthesurprisestoaminimum.MAThesis.UtrechtUniversity

ofAppliedSciences.

McKee,Rachel,andNapier,Jemina.2002.InterpretinginInternationalsignpidgin.Sign

language&andlinguistics.5(1),27-–54.

Moody,Bill.2002.Internationalsign:Apractitioner’sperspective.JournalofInterpretation.

1–-47.

Napier,Jemina.2002.SignLanguageInterpreting:LinguisticCopingStrategies.Coleford,UK:

DouglasMcLean.

NeumannSolow,Sharon.2000.SignLanguageInterpreting:ABasicResourceBook.

Burtonsville,Maryland:LinstokPress,Incorporated.

Nolan,James.2005.Interpretation,techniquesandexercises.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

LTD.

Pollard,Robert,andDean,Robyn.2008.ApplicationsofDemandControlSchemain

InterpreterEducation.InProceedingsofthepre-conferencemeetingatthenational

conventionoftheRegistryofInterpretersfortheDeaf.August3,2007.Rochester,NY:

UniversityofRochester.

Seleskovitch,Danica.1978.Interpretingforinternationalconferences.Washington,DC:Pen

andBooth.

Stewart,David,JeromeSchein,andB.Cartwright.1998.SignLanguageInterpreting:

ExploringItsartandscience.Boston:AllynandBacon.

Stone,Christopher.2007.DeafTranslators/Interpretersrenderingprocesses:The

translationoforallanguages.InSignLanguageTranslatorandInterpreter.Volume 1,

number1:53-72

Turner,Graham,H.andNapier,Jemina.(2014).UNCRPDImplementationinEurope-A Deaf

Perspective:Article29:ParticipationinPoliticalandPublicLife.Brussels: EuropeanUnionof

theDeaf,54-71.

Witde,Maya.2010b.SignLanguageInterpretinginMultilingualInternationalSettings.In

InterpretinginMultilingual,MulticulturalContexts.eds.RachelLockerMcKee,and

JeffreyDavis,226-242.Washington,DC:GallaudetUniversityPress.

107

Witde,Maya,andSluis,Irma(forthcoming2015).InternationalSign-AnExplorationinto

InterpreterPreparation.In:Napier,J.andRosenstock,R.InternationalSign:

Linguistics,Usage,andStatus.Washington:GallaudetUniversityPress.

108

AIIC:WhatDoesitStandfor,andWhatCanitDoforYou?

MayadeWit&ElisabetTiselius

Introduction

Atthe2015WASLI(WorldAssociationofSignLanguageInterpreters)conferencein

Istanbul,Turkey,theinternationalassociationofconferenceinterpreters(AIIC)participatedfor

thefirsttime.MembersfromtheSignLanguageNetworkrepresentedtheassociation.The

authorspresentedAIICasanorganizationandwhatitdoesforitsmembers.TheAIICcouncil

unanimouslychangedthestatutesin2012inordertowelcomesignlanguageconference

interpreterstotheorganization.ThefollowingtextisapresentationofAIICaswellasa

practicalguideonhowtoapplyformembership.

AIIC–Background

Theinternationalassociationofconferenceinterpreters,knownbyitsFrenchacronym,

AIIC,wasfoundedin1953inParis.Theobjectiveswhentheorganizationwasestablishedwere

tolaythefoundationsoftheprofession.AIIChas,sinceitsbeginnings,beenaninternational

organizationwithindividualmembersfromdifferentcountries(asopposedtoafederationof

nationalbodies).AnotherinitialgoalofAIICwastorepresentallinterpretersequally,whether

employedasafreelancerorstaffmember.Themembersoftheorganizationwould(andstill

do)vouchforhighqualityinterpreting.Theorganizationaimedtofunctionasaprofessional

organization,butatthesametimetorepresentitsmembersinthewayatradeuniondoes,i.e.

tonegotiateforcollectiveagreements.Fromtheoutsettheassociationwasopentoconference

109

interpretersofspokenlanguages,and,since2012,AIICisproudtosaythatwespeakandsign

alllanguages.Today,AIICorganizesover2800interpretersin91countriesanditistheonly

internationalorganizationforconferenceinterpreters.

Thetasksoftheorganization

AIICworkstowardsseveraldifferentgoalsinordertostrengthenandsupportthe

interpretingprofession.TheorganizationhasbeenworkingactivelybothwiththeInternational

StandardsOrganization(ISO),aswellasUNESCOfordefining,protectingandrecognizingthe

profession.OneofAIIC’scoretasksismindingtechnicalmattersforinterpreters,suchasISO-

standardsforinterpretingbooths,orstandardsforremoteinterpreting.Thisisalsoveryclosely

linkedtothetaskofimprovingandsafeguardingworkingconditions.AIIChasbeentruetoits

initialgoaltofunctionasatradeunion.Itistodaytheonlynegotiatingbodyininterpreting

questionsformanyinternationalorganizations,suchastheEU,theUN,CouncilofEuropeand

theNATO.Theserepresenttheso-calledagreementsectorofAIIC.Theprofessionaldelegations

forinterpretersattheseinstitutionsconsistofAIIC-membersandactonbehalfofall

interpreters(bothstaffandfreelance)inlinewiththeorganization’sfoundingprincipleto

representallconferenceinterpretersalike.AttheseinstitutionsAIICnegotiatescollective

agreementsforinterpreters.

Trainingandresearcharetwootherimportantareasofworkoftheorganization.AIIC

hasdevelopedguidelinesforconferenceinterpretingtrainingandkeepsanofficialrecordof

schoolsabidingtotheseguidelines.Italsoprovidestrainingfortrainerstherebyensuringthe

continuationofhighqualitytrainingoffuturecolleagues.Furthermore,AIICsupportsand

promotesresearchconcerningdifferenttypesofconferenceinterpreting.AIICalsorunsregular

marketsurveysamongitsmembersandpublishesreportsoftheseresults.Thiswaywekeepin

touchwithittheactualprofessionalpracticeandweunderstandandknowthedifferent

marketsofthemembers.AIIChasalsodevelopedandnegotiatedinsuranceproductsforits

members.

110

AIICanditsmembers

Justasforanyorganizationbuiltonindividualmembership,AIICstandsandfallswithits

individualmembers.AIICmemberscontributetothereputationbothoftheorganizationandof

theprofessionbymaintainingcollegialityandpromotingquality.Volunteermembersarealso

contributingtotheworkofAIICbyorganizingthemselvesindifferentcommitteesand

networks,suchastheSignLanguageNetworkorthetrainingcommittee.Membersofthe

differentcommitteesrepresentAIICindifferentcontextsandcovertheirparticularareaof

interestwithintheorganization.Furthermore,AIICco-operateswithotherinternational

organizationssuchastheInternationalFederationofTranslators(FIT),theWorldAssociationof

SignLanguageInterpreters(WASLI)andtheEuropeanForumofSignLanguageInterpreters

(EFSLI)topromoteinterpretingandtranslationworldwide.

AIICanditsvalues

ThemostdistinguishedcorevalueofAIICanditsmembersistheprofessionalsecrecy,

laidoutinarticle2ofthecodeofethics.ThearticlestatesthatAIICmembers“shallbebound

bythestrictestsecrecy”towardsallpeopleandwithregardtoallinformation.However,not

onlysecrecyisimportanttoagoodinterpreter,linguisticcompetence,intercultural

communicationandprofessionalismareothercorevaluesheldhighbytheorganization.In

ordertobecomeamember,othermembers,socalledsponsors,vouchforthecandidate’s

linguisticskillsandprofessionalism.Furthermore,acandidatehastoworkforatleast150days

inordertoapplyformembership.Thisclauseguaranteesthatthecandidatehasexperience.

AIICalsofostersyounginterpretersthroughitspre-candidaturewhereaspiringyounger

colleaguescanregisterandundertaketofollowtheethicalandprofessionalstandardsofthe

organization.

111

AIICmembersandtheprivateinterpretingmarket

ItisimportanttostressthatAIICmemberswhoworkontheprivatemarketarefreeto

negotiatetheirownfinancialconditionsforeachassignment.AIICdoes,however,encourage

memberstopracticecollegiality,transparency,aswellasprofessionalisminallcontexts.This

meanswithclients;candidates;recruitersand,ofcourse,colleagues.AIICcolleaguesonthe

privatemarketalsoabidetotheassociation’sbindingrules.Apartfromsecrecythesecover,for

instance,teamstrength(notworkingwithoutcolleaguesinsimultaneousmode,asacasein

point),quality(nottakingassignmentsforwhichaninterpreterisnotqualified),andethics.

Afewmorewordsonquality

Justasforanyhighprofileservice,qualityisessentialfordeliveringthehigh-endservice

AIICstandsfor.Therefore,AIICmonitorsthequalityofitsmembers.Thismeansthatthe

associationkeepsstrictadmissioncriteriafornewmembersoftheassociation.Thesecriteria

aredescribedbelow.Themostimportantfeatureisthesponsorsystem,withseasoned

membersvouchingforthequalityofnewcandidates.AIICmembersareobligedtoabideby

boththeCodeofProfessionalEthics1andtheProfessionalStandards2.

AIIC’sValueProposition

BeinganAIICmemberoffersagoodopportunityfornetworking.Asstatedearlier,the

AIICbrandisstronglylinkedtohighqualityandprofessionalservices.BeingamemberofAIIC

meanscontributingtoandpromotingthatbrand,throughcollegialityandprofessionalism.

Knowingispowerandknowingyourmarketisanimportantinstrumentforinterpreters,

justasforotherprofessionals.Therefore,AIICprovidesitsmemberswithawealthofpractical

1http://aiic.net/page/67242http://aiic.net/page/6746

112

information(bothaboutthemarket,butalsoabouttrainingandgeneralinterpretingissues).

Thisinformationisavailablethroughtheorganization’swebsite.Thestatisticsoftheannual

workloadsurveyisanotherimportantinstrumentthatAIICprovidesforitsmembers.

Finally,wewanttodiscussthedirectory.AllAIICmembersarelistedintheAIIC

directory3,accessiblebothinprintandontheInternet.Thesearchengineallowspotential

clientstosearchforinterpretersbasedonlanguage,locationorname.Thedirectoryisalso

searchengineoptimized;ifsomebodylooksforanAIICmember’snameitisverylikelythatthe

particularmember’sentryinthedirectoryshowsup.Thismeansthatthemember’spersonal

visibilityincreasesonlybybeingpartofthedirectory.AIIC’sonlinevisibilityisalsohighin

searchesonforinstance‘conferenceinterpreters’or‘professionalinterpreters’.

AIIC&Signlanguageinterpreters

Forquitesometime,AIICmembershaveidentifiedthebenefitsofwelcomingsign

languageinterpretersintotheorganization.Clearly,signlanguageconferenceinterpretingis

thesameprofessionasspokenlanguageconferenceinterpreting.SinceJanuary2012sign

languageinterpreterscanbecomeamemberofAIIC.Thiswasachievedafterclosecooperation

andfruitfuldiscussionswithEFSLI,WASLI,AIICandtheAIICSignLanguageNetwork.TheAIIC

generalassemblyin2012inBuenosAiresunanimouslydecidedtowelcomesignlanguage

conferenceinterpreters.Thisputsignedlanguagesonanequalfootingwithspokenlanguages

withintheworldofconferenceinterpreting.

Asmentionedabove,AIICmembersfollowaprofessionalcodeofethicsandworking

standards.ItisimportanttostressthatsinceAIICistheofficialandsolenegotiatingpartnerto

theEU,UNandotherinternationalinstitutions4(anoftenunknownfact),itnegotiateson

behalfofthewholemembership,throughspecialnegotiatingdelegations.Thismeansthatthe

workandpaymentconditionsforinterpretersagreeduponneedtoberespectedbythe

3http://aiic.net/directories/interpreters/4http://aiic.net/directories/aiic/sectors/

113

institutions.Evenmoreimportantinthiscontext,thisisthecaseforallinterpretersworkingfor

theinstitutions.Theseconditionsarethusnotonlytrueforspokenlanguageinterpretersor

AIICmembersonly,butalsoforsignlanguageinterpreters.Thereforeitisessentialthatsign

languageinterpretersabidebythestandardsagreedbyAIICwhenworkingforinternational

institutionssuchastheEUandtheUN.Ifweusethesamesetofstandardsasspokenlanguage

interpreters,thiswillbebeneficialinfurtheringtheinternationalrecognitionoftheprofession

ofsignlanguageinterpreters.

WhyjoinAIICasasignlanguageinterpreter

TheAIICSignLanguageNetwork,whichwasdrivingtheworktoopenupAIICtosign

languageconferenceinterpreters,isstillinplace.Atthismomentthenetwork,amongother

tasks,supportssignlanguageinterpreterswhowishtojointheassociation.Inaddition,they

disseminateinformationonsignlanguageinterpretingatconferencesandtheessential

cooperationbetweensignedandspokenlanguageinterpretersatinterpretingassignments.To

enforcethiscommitmentAIIChasparticipatedandpresentedattheannualEFSLIandWASLI

meetingsandconferences.ReportsofattendancewerepublishedontheAIICwebsite,tocreate

furtherinsightandawarenessamongstAIICmembersandvisitorsoftheAIICwebsite.

Untiltodayonlytwosignlanguageinterpretershaveappliedformembershipandthey

havesubsequentlybeenacceptedasfullAIICmembers.Thereare,however,manymoresign

languageinterpreterswithextensiveconferenceexperiencewhowouldliketobecomea

member.AIICencouragesthesepotentialnewmemberstoapply.Inordertofurtherthe

internationalrecognitionoftheprofessionofsignlanguageinterpreters,itisofessencethat

thenumberofsignlanguageinterpretermemberswillincreasewithinAIIC,therebyitwill

strengthenthelegitimacyoftheorganizationtoworkonbehalfofsignlanguageinterpreting

equally.

114

Howtojoin

Onceyouhaveatleast150daysofconferenceinterpretingexperienceyoucanapplyto

AIIC.TheAIICSignLanguageNetworkhascreatedachecklistinEnglishandFrenchforsign

languageinterpreterstohelpthemintheirapplicationprocess:

https://sites.google.com/site/newslnetworksite/how-to-join-aiic(seethedownloadlinkstothe

pdffilesatthebottomofthatpage).

WhenyouapplytoAIICyouneedtofindatleastthreesponsors(includingtwofrom

yourownworldregion),whoareactiveAIICmembers,and:

● whohavelistenedtoyouworkatameetingnomorethanthreeyearspriortothedate

atwhichtheysignedyourapplication;

● whohavesignedyourapplicationformnomorethanthreeyearspriortothedateat

whichtheAIICSecretariatreceivesyourapplication;

● whoareactivemembersofAIIC;

● whohave5years'seniorityinthelanguagestheyaresponsoring;

● whocoveratleastonelanguagepair.

AfulloverviewoftherequirementsandprocedurescanbefoundontheAIICwebsite:

http://aiic.net/page/199.Thedeadlineforsubmissionofyourmembershipapplicationistwice

ayearon30Novemberand31May.Ifyousendyourapplicationsixweeksbeforethat

deadline,AIICwillprescreenallthedocumentationtoensureyouhavesubmittedallthe

necessarypaperwork.Shouldyounothaveworked150days,butwouldliketoshowyour

commitmenttobecominganAIICmember,youcanalsoapplyforpre-candidateship.This

meansthatthreesponsorswillvouchforthefactthatyouworkasaconferenceinterpreterand

thatyouabidebyAIICprofessionalstandards.

TheAIICSignLanguageNetworkhasputtogetherinformationandpracticalstepsfor

signlanguageinterpretersonhowtobecomemembers:

https://sites.google.com/site/newslnetworksite/

115

Inconclusion

AIICanditsSignLanguageNetworksincerelyhopethatwehaveshownthebenefitsof

beingamemberofAIIC.Wearelookingforwardtowelcomingnewconferenceinterpreting

membersfromthesignlanguagecommunity.AIICwillcontinuetopushtheboundariesof

conferenceinterpretingforward.Today,interpretersworkinadisruptiveandgamechanging

world,technologyhavemassiveimplicationsonworkingcondition,implicationswhichchange

fast.Therefore,AIIChasanimportantroletoplay.Weneedtoinvestigate,promoteand

negotiatethesenewconditionsaswell.Wearesigningandspeakingtogetherasonevoicefor

allconferenceinterpretersoftheworld,whynotjointhefun?And,ifyouhavealreadyjoined,

comeworkinoneofAIIC’scommitteesornetworks!

116

TheLegislationofKenyanSignLanguageandItsImpactontheSignLanguageInterpretingProfessioninKenya

LeonidaTausiKaula

Abstract

Kenyahasmoveda stepcloser in regard to theSignLanguage interpretingprofession

afterthepromulgationofthecurrentconstitutionin2010.TheconstitutionrecognizesKenyan

SignLanguage(KSL)asthelanguageofthedeafinKenyaandfurtherstipulatesthatthestate

should promote the development of KSL. Additionally, KSL is one of three languages of the

KenyanparliamentinadditiontoEnglishandKiswahili.ThePersonswithDisabilitiesAct(2003)

also provided several rights and privileges to the deaf among them including reservation of

employmentopportunities in thepublic sector and catering for the communicationneedsof

thedeafinlearningacademicinstitutions.Thelawalsoreiteratesthatthedeafhavearightto

accessinformationandaccessjusticethroughalanguagethattheyunderstand.

ThislegislationhasprovidedlegalprotectionandbackingthatthedeafKenyansrequire

to demand for their right to communication as they access services and job opportunities

resulting from the legislation. Furthermore, recognition of Kenyan Sign Language has also

resulted in an increased need for Sign Language interpretation services in different settings.

Consequently, Sign Language interpreters have began interpreting in new settings such as

parliament,Courtandtelevisionsettingsarealsoamongthesedomains.Whilethisisapositive

step towards awareness and recognition of the profession, Sign Language interpreters are

providingservicesinnewdomainstowhichtheyhavenotbeenpreviouslybeenexposed.

117

Ontheotherhand,theKenyangovernmentstructuredoesnot includethepositionof

sign language interpreter as one of its job titles. In an attempt to meet the constitutional

requirement, different government ministries have employed deaf persons and thereafter

encounteredchallengeshiringaSignLanguageinterpreter.DiversetermsusedtorefertoSign

language interpreters have been used in order to meet the demand in the existing job

descriptionsinthegovernmentstructure.

Interpretingineducationalsettingsisoneotherdomainthathasbeenimpactedgreatly

by thenew legislation. Recognitionof Kenyan Sign Language and its use as the languageof

instruction in deaf schools and as an exam-based subject seems to have contributed to an

increasednumberofdeafKenyansinhigherinstitutionsoflearning.Inthelastsixyears,more

deaf people have attained entry requirements tomainstreamuniversities. Though several of

themmaybeenrolledinthesameuniversity,thecareersarediverse.Thisnotwithstanding,all

are in different departments, enrolled in different academic years and attending classes at

differenttimes.

ThepositiveshiftoftheKenyanSignLanguagerecognitionhasbroughtaboutdilemmas

associatedwithsignlanguageinterpreting.Practitionersandvariousstakeholdershavehadto

address these issues in order for the profession to move to the next level. It is therefore

necessarytoconsolidateeffortsandensurethatrecognitionisachieved.

Introduction

ThepromulgationofanewKenyanConstitutionin2010hasbroughtwithitgreatgains

tomanyKenyans.Theclamorforanewconstitutionhadbegunintheearly1990’s leadingto

numerousconsultations involvingdifferentstakeholders. It involvedseveraldraftsmaking ita

longprocessbeforefinallyhavingadocumentacceptabletomostKenyans.Asamatteroffact,

themajority rejecteda first draft througha referendumvote in 2005.At the time the initial

drafts were made, few people knew about signed languages. In my view, the long process

involvedwasablessingindisguiseespeciallyfortheDeafsincethefinalstagesoftheprocess

118

revealedtherewasalreadyanincreasedawarenessaboutthedeafandsignlanguageastheir

language.Ultimately,KenyanSignLanguage(KSL)wasrecognized intheConstitutionbringing

withitanunprecedentedphenomenoninrelationtoSignLanguageinterpretation.

ABriefBackgroundtoSignLanguageInterpretinginKenya

SignLanguageInterpretinginKenyamayhavebegunwiththeonsetofthefirstschools

fortheDeafintheearly1960’s.Acharitableorganization,theKenyaSocietyforDeafChildren

(KSDC) established two units for theDeaf inMombasa andNairobi in 1958. Soon after, two

morefullyfledgedschoolswereestablishedbycatholicmissionariesinMumiasandNyangoma

(Mwangiri 1988). Formany years, teachers of the deaf signed to deaf children some of the

informationfromhearingpeopleusingthelittlesignlanguagelearntfromtheirdeafstudents.

Later in1987, theKenyaNationalAssociationof theDeaf (KNAD)was registeredas a

non-governmentalorganization. Fundedby theSwedishDeafAssociation (SDR),KNADhelda

series of trainingworkshops that targetedhearing people interested in learning Kenyan Sign

Language(KSL).Thegraduatesoftheseclasses,heldinthelate1980’sandearly1990’sended

upformingthefirstgroupofinterpretersinKenya(Okomboetal2009)

After the formation KNAD in 1987; and the Kenya Sign Language Research Project

(KSLRP)in1991,afewmorepeoplewhoinitiallyworkedasreceptionists/copytypistsofthese

organizationsbeganinterpretingforthedeafpersonsinvolvedinadvocacyfortherightsofdeaf

people.Atthetime,apartfromknowledgeofsignlanguageacquiredthroughinteractionwith

deafcolleagues,theinterpretershadnoformaltraininginsignlanguageinterpretation.Laterin

1997, the Danish Association of the Deaf funded a project for sign language interpretation

training.TheprograminvolvedfourcountriesnamelyKenya,Uganda,TanzaniaandZambia.Its

firstphaseinvolved6people(3hearingand3deaf)whounderwentafour-monthcrashcourse

programinSignLanguageandinterpretertraininginDenmarkattheCenterforSignLanguage

and Sign Supported Communication. The 3 hearing persons involvedwere already practicing

interpreterswhilethedeafpersonswereSignLanguageteachersintheirrespectivecountries.

Thesixweretrainedastrainersoftrainers(TOTs)insignlanguageinterpretation.Inthesecond

119

phase,eachoftheDeafAssociationsofthefourcountrieswererequiredtorecruit3deafsign

languageteachersand3practicinginterpreterstoundergoatwoyeartrainingprograminsign

languageinterpretation.IwasamongthethreeinterpretertraineesfromKenyaasatthetime,I

workedastheKSLRP’sprojectsecretaryandprovidedSLinterpretationattheprojectofficeand

onseveraloccasionsinworkshopsinvolvingdeafpeopleoutsideKSLRP.Oneoftheothertwo

interpretersworkedasaKNAD’ssecretarytoo,whiletheotherworkedforacertainchurchfor

theDeaf inNairobi. The trainingwas conductedbyDanish interpreter trainers togetherwith

the team of TOTs that had previously undergone training in Denmark.Within the two-year

period,allthetraineesconvergedfivetimesfor4-6weekseachforafull-timeandresidential

training.Aftereachsix-weekperiod,eachteamreturnedback to therespectivecountries for

practicalexperiencewithsupervisionbythetrainers.

At theendof the two-year training in the year2000, Kenyahad3 interpreters and3

deafpeopleexpectedtocontinuetraininginterpreters.However,therewasnoestablishedSL

interpreter training program apart from KSLRP that offered sign language classes. I was

absorbedatKSLRPtoassistwithitstrainingprogramasacomponentofinterpretationaddedto

the sign language program. The other two trained interpreters continued practicing

interpretation: one as a freelance interpreter while the other was later employed by the

Judiciary to interpret court cases involving deaf persons. Ever since, KSLRP has trained a

numberofpeoplewhoarecurrentlyworkingas interpreters someofwhomaremembersof

theKenyaSignLanguageInterpretersAssociation(KSLIA).

Inthe90’stheU.S.PeaceCorps(anAmericanvolunteerorganization)introducedadeaf

educationprogramthatplacedteachersinKenyanSchoolsfortheDeaf.Someofthevolunteer

teachersweredeafsothereforethePeaceCorpsprogramreliedheavilyoninterpreterstocarry

outitspre-servicetraining.Interpreterswereneededtofacilitatecommunicationbetweenthe

instructorsandthedeafvolunteers.Theorganizationinvestedinoneortwointerpretersfrom

the U.S. to work with local interpreters to build their capacity. In 1999, a strong group of

American Deaf volunteers advocated for funding to build the capacity of local interpreters.

Consequently,inSeptember2000,thePeaceCorpsorganizedaworkshopforinterpreters.The

one-weekworkshopinvolvedtwoAmericanSignLanguage(ASL)interpreters,3deafAmericans

120

as facilitatorsand10KenyanSignLanguage interpretersasparticipants includingmyself.The

mainresolutionoftheworkshopwastoestablishaninterpretersassociation.On22ndOctober

2001,KenyaSignLanguageInterpretersAssociationwasfinallyregistered.

PriortoLegislation

PriortothepromulgationofthecurrentKenyanconstitutionin2010,signlanguage(SL)

interpretersmostlyinterpretedinchurchesandseminar/workshops,whichinmostcaseswere

organizedbynon-governmentalorganizations.Ofteninterpreterswereperceivedashelpersof

thedeafandinmostcasesworkedwithoutpay.NoneofthepublicentitieshademployedSign

Languageinterpretersexceptthejudiciary.DuetolackofSLinterpretersincourt,deafpersons

involvedincourtcasesasdefendant,plaintifforwitnessencounteredaccessibilitychallenges.

Often, such court caseswould be adjourned several times resulting in delayed judgments or

unfair ones for that matter. This in itself was a breach to the right for a fair hearing.

Consequentlyin2004,advocacybytheKenyaNationalAssociationoftheDeafborefruitasthe

Judiciary employedat least four SL interpreterspostingoneeach inNairobi, Kisumu, Eldoret

andKakamega.ThejobtitleofaSLinterpreterwasandstillnon-existentintheKenyanpublic

service structure. The SL interpreters were therefore employed as court clerks (and

remuneratedassuch)withtheunderstandingthat theywould interpretcourtcases involving

thedeafinallcourtsaroundvariousregions.

In institutions of higher learning, Deaf students who were enrolled experienced

accessibilitychallenges.TheDeafstudentswouldfindaninterpreterforthemselvesbyoffering

themasmalltokenfortransportwithoutanypayfortheservicesprovided.Similarly,publicand

private healthcare centers had no interpreters or health care providers who could sign. SL

interpreterswerenotrecognizedandthereforenotfairlycompensatedfortheirwork.

TheCurrentLegislation

121

Article 39 of The Personswith Disabilities Act 2003 requires all television stations to

provide a sign language interpreter inset or subtitles in all newscasts, including educational

programmes and all programmes covering events of national significance. Despite the

provision,interpreterinsetorsubtitleswerenotprovidedandasaresult,DeafKenyansdidnot

accessinformationasrequired.

Furtherarticle9oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPersonswith

Disabilities(UNCRPD)requiresthatstatepartiesensurethatPersonswithDisabilities(PWDs)

haveaccesstoinformationandcommunicationonanequalbasis.Article9(e)requiresstate

partiestoprovideallformsofliveassistanceandintermediariesincludingareprofessionalsign

languageinterpreters.Article21notonlyrequiresstatepartiestoprovideinformationintended

forthegeneralpublictoPWDsinaccessibleformatbutalsotoacceptandfacilitatetheuseof

signlanguagesinofficialinteractions.AlthoughKenyasignedtheconventionon30thMarch

2007andratifiedon19thMay2008,DeafKenyansdidnotenjoytherighttoaccessinformation

sincethestatedidnotensureprovisionofSLinterpretation.

RecognitionofKSLinthecurrentconstitutionsawKenyamoveastepfurtherinregard

tothesignlanguageinterpretingprofession.Article120(i)stipulatesthattheofficiallanguages

of Parliament shall be Kiswahili, English and Kenyan Sign Language, and the business of

Parliament may be conducted in English, Kiswahili and Kenyan Sign Language (KSL).

Consequently,theKenyanparliamentwasrequiredtoincludeKenyanSignLanguageinaddition

to English and Kiswahili languages previously used. Further article 118 1 (a) requires that

parliamentconductsitsbusinessinanopenmannerandensuresthatitssittingsandthoseof

its committees are open to the public. This led to live broadcasting of parliamentary

proceedingsonthenationaltelevisionchannelforthegeneralpublic.AlthoughtodateKenya

hasnothadaDeafMemberofParliament,KSLinterpretationhasbeenofferedontelevisionfor

deaf viewers. At inception of the constitution in August 2010, neither parliament nor the

nationaltelevisionknewhowtoidentifyaskilledinterpreter.Initially,aformerteacherofdeaf

childreninterpretedthethree-hoursessionalone.Afterafewmonths,deafconsumersraised

concernsnotonlyonthelongdurationofinterpretationwithoutabreakbutalsothequalityof

interpretation. Consultations between KSLIA, KNAD and the concerned department in

122

parliamentagreedtocontractamorequalifiedteamofinterpreters.Consequently,ateamof

four (includingmyselfas the team leader)wascontracted.Since then, interpretersworkasa

teamtoensureachangeoverafterevery45to1-hourperiodofinterpreting.SLinterpretation

inparliamentwasunprecedented;hence,theteamof interpretershadtograpplewithanew

domainoflearningmostoftheparliamentarydiscourseonthejob.

ThePersonswithDisabilitiesAct 2003has sincebeen strengthenedafter thePersons

with Disabilities (amendment) Act 2015was passed. Section 28A (1) recognizes Kenyan Sign

Languageas theofficial languageof thedeafand (2)placesKSLasequivalent toEnglishand

Kiswahili. Further Section 21A (1) and (2) requires any public institution offering services to

citizenstoprovidequalifiedSignLanguageinterpretersandensuretodisseminatetothepublic

informationregardingtheavailabilityofSignLanguageinterpretersforthedeaf.

ImpactoftheConstitutionontheSignLanguageInterpretingProfession

TheabovelegislationsnotonlyresultedinrecognitionofKSLbutalsoprovidedthedeaf

withthelegalprotectionandbackingnecessarytodemandtheirrightofaccesstoinformation.

In addition to SL interpretation during parliamentary proceedings for both the National

Assembly and the Senate, there are currently three television stations providing SL

interpretationduringnewsnamely theNational broadcaster KenyaBroadcastingCorporation

(KBC)andtwoprivatelyownedTVstationsnamelyKenyaTelevisionNetwork(KTN)andGood

NewsBroadcasting System (GBS). This clearly points to an increasedneed for Sign Language

interpreters in different settings and to some extent, an increased awareness about Sign

LanguageinterpretingasanemergingprofessioninKenya.

A research project study by (Koigi 2013) entitled “The Linguistic challenges faced by

Kenyan Sign Language Interpreters of the Proceedings of the Kenya National Assembly”

established that the KSL interpreters had to use strategies such as avoidance, paraphrasing,

circumlocution,coinageandconscioustransferofborrowing.Amongotherrecommendations,

123

thestudyrecommendedthatstructuredsystemsbeestablishedtoofferlanguageteachingand

languageenhancementfortheKSLinterpreters.

A similar research project entitled “A Comparative Analysis of Challenges Associated

withEnglishandKiswahili SourceTexts inKenyanSignLanguage Interpretation (Kaula2014)”

established that, only 21.3% of the English source texts were adequately catered for in KSL

target text. The remaining 78.7% of the English source texts had various deviations such as

omissions,distortionsoroppositemeaning.Kiswahilihadevenhigherdeviationsas81.2%ofits

source textshaddeviations in the targetKSL text. The study recommendedestablishmentof

structured interpreter training programs that incorporate language enhancement in English,

Kiswahili and KSL in order to ensure competency development of KSL interpreters. These

studies by Koigi (2013) and Kaula (2014) clearly point at an urgent need to equip the KSL

interpreterswithnecessaryskillsinthesenewdomains.

AstudybyBunyasi(2010)revealedthatdespiteaMinistryofEducationpolicyonuseof

KSLasamediumofinstructionin2004,teachersinschoolsforthedeaflackedknowledgeand

skills in KSL due to lack of training and therefore did not use it for instruction exceptwhen

teachingitasasubject.Since2010,anotherpolicyfromtheministryalloweddeafcandidatesto

takeKenyanSignLanguageasasubjectinplaceofKiswahili.Thisappearstohavecontributed

in boosting the average grades of deaf learners resulting in a slight increaseof admissionof

deafKenyansinhigherinstitutionsoflearninginthelastsixyears.

Article541(b)oftheKenyanconstitutionstipulatesthatapersonwithanydisabilityis

entitled to access educational institutions and facilities for persons with disabilities that are

integrated intosocietytotheextentcompatiblewiththe interestsof theperson.Furtherthe

same article in 1(d) provides entitlement to use Sign Language and any other appropriate

means of communication. Consequently, public universities have contracted Sign Language

interpreterstocaterfordeafstudents.Despitethisbeingagoodopportunityforinterpretersto

work in an educational setting, it has come with its challenges. Seemingly most of the

institutionsdonotknowhowtofindaskilledinterpreter.

At theUniversityofNairobi, severaldeaf studentsareenrolled indifferentdisciplines

pursuingdiversecourses,atdifferentacademiclevelsandattendingclassesatdifferenttimes.

124

Each deaf student ought to have an interpreter to attend lectures, a challenging situation

consideringtheinstitutionsaredealingwithanewphenomenon.Whileincreasedenrolmentof

deaf persons to higher institutions of learning is a positive step as it provides more

opportunitiesforSLinterpreters,thejobitselfisdemandingintermsoftimeandskill.Someof

the students are undertaking specialized courses, such as engineering, which has very

specializedterminology.Furthermore,fromtheKSLIAdatabase,mostoftheinterpreters’level

ofeducationisOrdinary-levelcoupledwithknowledgeofKSLandnotrainingininterpretation

leavealoneinacademicspecializedfields.Moreover,theinstitutionsthemselvesneitherhavea

job title for interpretersnordo theyadvertise for the job. Inmost cases, thedeaf student is

askedtoprovidetheinstitutionwithanameofaninterpreterwhoislatercontractedwithout

aninterview.SomeexperiencedinterpretershavereportedtoKSLIAthattheydeclinedthejob

asremunerationofferedtothemisextremelylow.Asanassociation,KSLIAhasnocontrolover

how much pay institutions offer interpreters. Moreover, interpreters exercise their own

discretioninacceptingordecliningjobs.Oftenfreshgraduatesofsignlanguageclassestakeup

suchjobswithoutanytrainingininterpretationletaloneinthespecializedfield.Consequently,

thequalityofinterpretationprovidedtothedeafstudentsislikelytobepoor.

Article54(2)oftheKenyanconstitutionprovidesthatthestateensurestheprogressive

implementation of the principle that at least five percent of the members of the public in

electiveandappointivebodiesarepersonswithdisabilities.Thishasresultedinemploymentof

a few Deaf persons in the public service as the government endeavors to fulfill this

requirement. Interestingly, government ministries only seem to realize the need for a SL

interpreterafterhiring thedeafperson.However, thegreatestsetbackhasbeenrecruitment

andremunerationofSLlanguageinterpreterssinceclearguidelinesarelacking.Inaneffortto

hirean interpreter,ministriesencountermajorchallenges,as theprocess isbureaucraticand

time consuming. The Kenyan constitution 2010 established the Salaries and Remuneration

Commission (SRC) a body mandated to review and determine salaries for all government

employees.AfewinterpretershavereportedtoKSLIAcasesofGovernmentministriesputting

onholdplanstohirethemastheywaitfordirectionsfromtheSRC.Atthetimeofpublishing

125

thispaper,KSLIAhadreceivedcommunicationinwritingfromtheSRCthatthematterisbeing

considered.

Thepositivemoveof recognitionofKSLhasbrought to the foredimensionsabout SL

interpreting that the practitioners themselves and the stakeholders have to grapple with in

orderfortheprofessiontomovetothenextlevel.Inadditiontoanincreasedawarenessofthe

SLinterpretingprofessioninKenya,interpretershavebeguninterpretinginnewdomainssuch

astheparliament,court,educationalandtelevisionsettingsamongothers.

Currently, noneof theexistinguniversities has a Signed Language interpreter training

program.TheonlyexistinginterpretertrainingprogramattheUniversityofNairobifocuseson

spoken language interpreting and has not yet incorporated signed language interpreting.

Comparedtoothersignlanguageteachingprogramsavailablelocally,theKenyaSignLanguage

ResearchProject (KSLRP)a jointprojectbetweentheUniversityofNairobiandKNADoffersa

fairly reliable training. KSLRP’s website indicates that its nine month training entails three

months basic Sign Language classes; 3months advanced sign languagewhich incorporates a

fewcomponentsofinterpretationand3monthsofinternshipataninstitution/organizationof

deaf people. However, it is limited as it does not incorporate the intensive practice and

exposuretodiversescenariosrequiredininterpretertraining.

Currently,thereisnocertificationprocesstoensurelicensingofinterpretersinKenya.It

iscommontofindpeoplewithveryminimalsigningskillsinterpretinginhigh-levelassignments

that requireexperienced interpreters.Currently,practicing interpretersareatdifferent levels

ofskillsomewithseveralyearsofexperiencewhileothershavebasicsigningskills.Employers

are unable to distinguish those levels, as there is a lack of system of licensing interpreters

accordingtoqualifications,skillandexperience.

In the last fewyears, therehasbeen increasedenrolment for Sign Language training.

Moreover, in an attempt to accommodate deaf people, several governmentministries have

sponsoredtheirstafftoundertakesignlanguagetraining.AsofJune2015,KSLRPindicatedon

itswebsitethatinthepastthreeyears,atleast150nursesfromdifferentpublichospitalsanda

few police officers have been sponsored for full time sign language training at KSLRP for a

periodofninemonths.Thetrainingincorporatessomeaspectofbasicinterpretingtoequipthe

126

nurseswithsomeinterpretingskillsincaseofaneedtointerpretforadeafpatient.Duringthe

lastthreemonthsofthetraining,thelearnersareplacedinanorganization/institutionforthe

deafforinternshipandexperientiallearning.

Recommendations

u There is need for short training for interpreters already working in the mentioned

settingstoenhancetheirskilllevelinordertoimprovequality

u Establish well-structured interpreter training programs that provide the required

training.TheCenterforTranslationandInterpretationattheUniversityofNairobithat

hasanexistingprogramforspokenlanguageinterpretationisconsideringincorporating

sign language interpreter training. However, the centre requires both technical and

financialsupporttoimplementit.

u Establishmentofaboardtocertifyand licensethosepracticingtogetridof“Mandela

fakes” (a term coined by Kenyan sign language interpreter community after the Fake

South African interpreter during Nelson Mandela’s memorial to refer to those

purportingtobeskilledininterpretingbutpossessverylimitedsigningskillsornoneat

all).

u KSLIArequiresresourcestoestablishasecretariatthatwillengagewiththegovernment

inlobbyingforrecognitionofsignlanguageinterpretinginKenya.

Conclusion

AlthoughthenewConstitutionhasprovidedDeafKenyanstherighttoaccess,ithasnot

madeitpossibleforthemto“enjoy”thisright,asthereseemtobenumerousbarrierstothat

access.Similarly, thereseemstobe increased jobopportunities for interpretersbutthisdoes

notnecessarybenefitthemduetothenumerouschallengesenumeratedinthispaper.

127

TheincreasedawarenessofKSLhasresultedinmorehearingpeopleenrollingforSign

Languageclassescreatingjobopportunitiesfordeafsignlanguagetrainers.Additionally,afew

universities such as St. Pauls University, Moi University, Kenya Methodist University have

incorporated sign language as a unit while others are considering starting an interpreter

trainingprogram.Asof now, there are challengesof training and certification, remuneration

andemploymentproceduresforsignlanguageinterpreters. KSLIAhasencounteredobstacles

initseffortstoengagekeystakeholdersindealingwithsomeofthechallengesmajorlybecause

oflackofrecognitionofthesignlanguageinterpretingprofession.AstrongerKSLIAandKNAD

withacommonvoicearelikelytobearthefruitsthatinterpretersinKenyayearnfor.

ReferencesBunyasi,Beatrice,Relationshipbetweenself-esteemandacademicachievementfor

GirlswithhearingimpairmentsinKenya.(PhDdiss.,KenyattaUniversity,2010)

ConstitutionoftheRepublicofKenya,2010

ConventionontheRightsofPeoplewithDisabilities.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-

persons-with-disabilities.html

Kaula, Leonida, “A comparative Analysis of Challenges Associated with English and Kiswahili

source Texts in Kenyan Sign Language Interpretation” (MA diss., University of

Nairobi,2014

Koigi, Rachel, “The Linguistic challenges faced by Kenyan Sign Language Interpreters of the

ProceedingsoftheKenyaNationalAssembly”(MAdiss.,UniversityofNairobi,2013)

Mwangiri, History of Deaf Education in Kenya. Kenya Institute of Special Education Buletin.

Vol2(I),1988.

Okombo, Mweri J, and Washington Akaranga, Sign Language Interpreter Training in Kenya.

In J. Napier (Ed.), International Perspectives on Sign Language Interpreter Education

(pp.295-300).WashingtonDC:GallaudetUniversityPress,2009

128

RepublicofKenya:ThePersonswithDisabilitiesAct,2003

RepublicofKenya:ThePersonswithDisabilities(Amendment)Act,2015.

129

World Association of Sign Language Interpreters

Conference Proceedings 2017

ISBN 978-0-646-97018-9