IRC Guest Lecture: Culture and Power among Palestinians in Tel Aviv

The IRC Guest Lecture series kicked off last week, with journalist and anthropologist Andreas Hackl’s talk on “Culture and Power among Palestinians in Tel Aviv: An Intercultural Perspective”.

With his natural flair for storytelling, Andreas took us on a journey to modern-day Israel, where the Palestinian citizens of Israel have taken part in an ongoing struggle to preserve identity, culture and a national identity while at the same time living in the midst of Israeli society.

Making up some 1.3 million or 17 percent of Israel’s population today, the Palestinian citizens of Israel are the descendants of those Palestinian Arabs who did not become refugees in 1948 – when Israel was created – but were incorporated within the boundaries of this state that continues to define itself as Jewish (and democratic). What is important is that the Palestinian or Arab citizens of Israel are not a minority that immigrated into a majority-society, but rather an indigenous former majority to which a foreign colonial project and a state had forcibly immigrated. Palestinians in Israel are then dealing with the condition of ‘exile at home’ in their everyday lives. This includes the complex and difficult balancing of power and culture by individual members of this ‘marginalized minority’.

The everyday political and cultural dilemmas are specifically severe among Palestinians in Tel Aviv, a city often imagined to be an exclusively Jewish-Israeli place. Here, Palestinians’ historic luggage and their national and cultural identities often stand in sharp contrast to the social and cultural environment in the city and Tel Aviv’s own discursive identity. The result of Palestinians’ opportunity-oriented inclusion into Tel Aviv – whether in search for work, education, or an urban lifestyle – is often the uneasy coexistence of everyday struggles with power and culture on the one hand, and the often innovative and empowering tactics of individual Palestinians on the other.

For Palestinians in the city of Tel Aviv, conflict and peace, or resistance and cooperation, coexist.

Andreas’s talk raised some serious questions on the issues of plurality but at the same time partiality of identity. The ‘exile at home’ takes the traditional anthropological view of liminality to new levels. Important questions were also raised on multilingualism in modern-day Israel. As a journalist and a researcher he relied on interviews and ethnographic engagement to capture and convey the ‘voice’ of the community he was studying. As the Palestinian citizens of Israel often switch between languages depending on context, he too had to be sensitive to the special requirements of each situation – Arabic, Hebrew and English intermixed in many ways. You could write a whole paper about the dynamics of these interviews based on the language used for communication, before you move on to the more crucial power dynamics examined in his work.

Andreas is also a member of the International Doctoral Programme Transformations in European Societies, a collaboration between the universities of Munich, Murcia, Tel Aviv, Graz, Basel, Copenhagen and Heriot-Watt and is one of the editors of the Transformations blog. He is a PhD student in Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh and DOC-fellow of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Interpreting Needs Troublemakers

Author: Jonathan Downie

I was in London on Saturday for a meeting and I got chatting to some fellow interpreters about the ways that research is challenging how we think about and practise interpreting. Here in LINCS, for example, Robyn Dean is arguing for us to fundamentally shift how we think about ethics, Penny Karanasiou is asking tough questions about the role(s) of interpreters in business negotiations and I am beginning to think that experienced clients might have more helpful views of our work than we do!

All this spells trouble. Doing research like this means threatening some of the most cherished ideas of our profession. Who doesn’t like to coddle the comforting thought that we know better than our clients about, well, everything? If you start talking too openly about problems with mainstream interpreting ethics, you remove one of the few firm foundations in our profession. And as for discussing whether interpreters can do more than “just interpret”, it’s probably safer to just leave that well alone!

But the thing is, all the good researchers I know are very bad are just leaving things alone. Safe is not a word we tend to like. In fact, I was accused of enjoying stirring things up on Saturday. Me? As if!

All joking aside, I do really think that challenging preconceived ideas is exactly what our profession needs. If we discover flaws in our practice or training or in the way we sell our work then of course, it must be confronted. This is where research is at its best. When researchers get their hands dirty and ask difficult questions, sparks begin to fly.

Take Robyn’s work in interpreter training. Rather than just sit back and criticise, she actively trains interpreters to apply the case conferencing techniques used by doctors. I know of many other researchers who do groundbreaking research and then take the brave step of presenting it to professionals so they can apply it.

If interpreting is to thrive in today’s high-tech, always-on world, we need to be able to adjust. This doesn’t just mean adopting some new technology or learning to be fashionable. It means asking the though questions about what we need to change in our practice to meet our clients’ real needs and growing expectations.

Is it scary? Yes! Is it necessary? You bet. But that’s why I do research: to do work that can benefit the wider world. Maybe it’s time we all did the same.

Posted in Ethics, Interpreting, Research, The Future, Training | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Introducing our new PhD students

Our vibrant PhD cohort is growing!

Yanmei Wu has joined LINCS as a PhD student in Heritage and Performance. Her study will look into Chinese Kunqu Opera as intangible heritage, as well as its recent revival in 21st century China. Her supervisors are Dr Chris Tinker and Dr Kerstin Pfeiffer.

Yanmei studied ethnomusicology at SOAS, visual anthropology at Goldsmith’s and teaching Chinese as a foreign language at Sheffield. She taught Chinese at Manchester Metropolitan University for three years before deciding to pursue her PhD studies in Heriot-Watt.

In addition to her teaching career and study, Yanmei has worked extensively as a performing artist. Originally from Jiangsu province in China, she was trained in traditional Chinese dance and music from an early age. She performs different styles of trasitinoal Chinese dance as well as zheng, the Chinese zither.

Heather Mole has also joined us this year to embark on her PhD research on sign language interpreting. Her supervisors are Prof Jemina Napier and Dr Katerina Strani.

Heather’s background includes BSL/English interpreting (a degree in Deaf Studies from Bristol University) and a Masters in Disability Studies from Leeds University.

She has worked as an adviser to disabled students in a university setting for 8 years. In that time, Heather reflected on the power dynamics of service provision and interpreting. She has also been fascinated by the concept of “white privilege” and the transposition of this onto “hearing privilege”. Heather hopes to research these two dimensions to see what impact they may or may not have on the interpreter.

For more information on our PhD programmes in LINCS, you can visit this page for research on Translation and Interpreting and this page for intercultural research.

Posted in Culture, Events and News, Interpreting, PhD, Research, Sign Language, Students, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BSL team growing in LINCS

By Jemina Napier and Graham H. Turner

In October 2013, Jemina made a post that gave an overview of ‘Who’s who?’ in the BSL team in the Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies (LINCS) at Heriot-Watt University. The blog introduced various members of staff and also PhD students whose topics focus on sign language related areas of research.

In this blog we are delighted to announce that the team has expanded with an additional two deaf and two hearing people: three members of staff and one PhD student.

We are all very excited to see the BSL team growing so rapidly. We now have eight members of staff and six (7) PhD students (staff member Gary Quinn is also doing his PhD part time). In addition to PhD student research topics on a description of prosody in BSL, job demands for interpreter educators, ethical discourse among sign language interpreters, the impact of interpreters on the practice of mental health professionals, sign language interpreting on television in China, comparative interpreting strategies of  deaf and hearing interpreters and power and privilege in educational interpreting contexts, the team are working on a range of research projects, that investigate deaf jurors, legal interpreting across Europe (Justisigns), video remote interpreting and captioning for access to EU institutions (Insign) and sign language brokering, with plans for new projects in the pipeline to start next year. It is envisaged that with more staff and PhD students there will be greater scope to attract further research funding and embark on a wider range of projects.

Below you will see a brief profile of each new member of the team, along with a link to a video clip where they introduce themselves in British Sign Language (BSL).

Dr Steve Emery (deaf) is a BSL-using researcher who has joined the team as an Assistant Professor. His research interests focus on deaf citizenship, minority group rights and Deafhood and genetics. He has worked before at Heriot-Watt University and Bristol University as a postdoctoral researcher on various research projects, and also spent time at Gallaudet University as a visiting scholar. Steve will be teaching subjects primarily linked to Deaf culture and history, and Deaf people in society.

Mark MacQueen (deaf) is a native Scottish BSL-using sign language teacher who has joined the team as BSL Language Assistant.  After being thrown in at the deep end and starting to teach at Falkirk College, he later went on to work for the British Deaf Association in the delivery of their BSL curriculum. After studying linguistics and participating in the Heriot-Watt University Train the Trainers of BSL teaching course, Mark brings a wealth of expertise to the role. He now has over 14 years of experience of sign language teaching in a range of settings,and his priority is to ensure that Heriot-Watt BSL students develop a high level of fluency in BSL.

Rob Skinner (hearing) is employed as a Research Associate on the Insign project funded by the EU DG Justice. He grew up in the Deaf community with deaf parents as a native BSL user, and has worked as a sign language interpreter for many years specialising in media/ TV, mental health, and video relay interpreting (at Sign Video). He has also worked as a research assistant at the centre for Deafness Cognition and Language (DCAL) research at University College London on various sign language related projects. Once Rob’s contract on the Insign project finishes in December 2014, he will be continuing work on the Justisigns project.

Heather Mole has a background in BSL/English interpreting (a degree in Deaf Studies from Bristol University) and a masters in Disability Studies from Leeds University after which she was an adviser to disabled students in a university setting for 8 years. In that time she has reflected on the power dynamics of service provision and interpreting and plans to research the dimensions of power and privilege to see what impact they may or may not have on the interpreter.

Posted in About LifeinLINCS, PhD, Sign Language | Leave a comment

Why we all need double vision

by Jonathan Downie

Why would an interpreter who was beginning to get valuable clients spend his non-working time reading research papers? Why would a translator who was learning to network start applying for conferences on Translation Studies rather than for a nice CAT tool presentation?

Those are good questions. In fact, they are questions I asked myself for a while. You see, for most translators and interpreters, the word “research” makes them think about termbanks and parallel texts rather than participant observation and statistical analysis. Research for them is all about getting the next job right and maybe, if you find the time, keeping an eye on the markets you work in.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of research. To translate and interpret well, you need to be a good researcher, or more correctly a good “information finder.” You can often get away with thinking no further than your next job.

This begins to explain why I started swapping translation work for interpreting research and writing, alongside my interpreting work. What I found myself wanting, especially on those days between jobs when I had done lots of marketing and still no clients were biting, was a longer range perspective. Surely there had to be something more than simply finding information and applying it to the current job.

Now, truth be told, I am not much of a philosopher. I have never been attracted to questions like “what are we doing when we translate?” or “how can we define equivalence?” On the other hand, I am interested in how we can learn and become more effective, how we can better understand our clients’ needs and how we can improve the status of translators and interpreters. Answering that kind of question leads very quickly to finding ways of giving practical help to translators and interpreters.

Believe it or not, I actually believe that translators and interpreters can help themselves. They already have a better understanding of the questions I posed than most researchers. If your livelihood depends on it, you had better get very good at determining what your clients want! If you want to increase your earning power, you had better get a good understanding of how you could improve.

What’s missing is what researchers call “generalizability.” Learning techniques that work for you might be pretty useless for someone else. Your clients probably communicate in a very different way than mine. What we all need then is a kind of double vision. We need to be able to focus intently on the job we are doing now while still taking an interest in wider issues.

Take the infamous debate over court and police interpreter conditions in the UK. During one government enquiry, one interpreter representative made the claim that members of their association had watched court proceedings under the new contract and had noticed that the quality had dropped massively. A good researcher would instantly want to ask what they meant by “quality” and how they could tell it had dropped. A very good researcher would want to know whether all the interpreters watching the same case found the quality to be the same.

That little piece of evidence could have been much more telling if the person concerned had been able to say something like “we assessed interpreting at 10 courts and found that, on average, interpreters under the new contract omitted 50% more information than those who were working under a different contract.” The added precision is the kind of thing that can be gained when we have the double vision I was talking about.

The truth is, if any long-term improvements are going to happen in any area of translation and interpreting, it will take a combination of hard campaigning and strong data. It will take people who are excellent at the work they are doing now and yet are far sighted enough to think about the bigger questions behind their work. Those bigger questions are why I became a researcher and an interpreter and they are we why all need double vision.

Posted in Interpreting, Research, Translation | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Back to School ?

by Katerina Strani

The new Academic Year has started and LINCS is full of students again. It’s good to see enthusiastic freshers, new MSc and PhD students as well as old familiar faces.

But even though undergraduate students get a break from uni during the summer, staff and postgraduate students are busier than ever. So what did we do over the summer?

  • Held the annual Edinburgh Interpreting Research Summer School (30 June – 4 July): Intensive research training for existing and future scholars in any field of interpreting. 5 days of seminars on research design and methods, lectures on current trends in conference, public service and sign-language interpreting, workshops on writing a literature review to maximising research impact, presentations by participants. Oh, and guest lectures by Barbara Moser-Mercer and Franz Pöchhacker.
  • Held the annual Applied English and Interpreting Summer Course (4-22 August): Intensive interpreting training (CPD) for professional interpreters. One week of British Culture and Society, British and Scots Law and public speaking, two weeks of intensive consecutive and simultaneous interpreting into English, including multilingual mini-conferences.
  • Ran Academic English Programmes to enable students to reach the required entry levels for English language and to prepare to study in a UK context. 450 students attended 12, 6 and 3-week courses with an overall pass rate of 98% ! These courses use Access EAP: Frameworks, co-authored by Olwyn Alexander, Academic Director of the English section and nominated for an ELTon award in 2014. The pre-sessional courses are accredited by BALEAP and were inspected for re-accreditation in August. Innovations this year include a strand of subject-specific seminars to enable Business Management students to prepare to engage with postgraduate study. There were also a series of Open Days within Academic Schools to welcome new students to the university.

We’ve also been busy with Public Engagement activities, such as:

  • BSL summer school for school kids, voted as the No.1 school experience day for kids this year! For more information, contact Gary Quinn.

Finally, we secured funding for three collaborative research projects:

1. Dr Raquel de Pedro Ricoy secured AHRC Research Innovation Grant funding under the Translating Cultures theme. The project, entitled “Translating cultures and the legislated mediation of indigenous rights in Peru”, to be conducted over 20 months (October 2014 – June 2016), has been awarded over £200,000. The aim of this project is to examine translation and interpreting processes between Spanish and indigenous languages in contexts of consultation between agents of the state, outside bodies and members of the indigenous communities against the background of escalating industrial exploitation of the natural resources lying below indigenous lands. The research team includes Professor Rosaleen Howard (Chair of Hispanic Studies, Newcastle University) and Dr Luis Andrade (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima), and will work with Peru’s Ministry of Culture and the NGO Servicios Educativos Rurales as Project Partners.

2. Professor Jemina Napier also secured AHRC Research Innovation Grant funding under the Translating Cultures theme for a project entitled “Translating the Deaf Self”. The project will be conducted over 18 months (January 2015- June 2016) and has been awarded over £198,000. Its aims are to investigate translation as constitutive of culture and as pertinent to the well being of Deaf people who sign and rely on mediated communication to be understood and participate in the majority. The deaf-hearing sign bilingual research team, co-led by Professor Napier and Professor Alys Young (Professor of Social Work Education & Research at the University of Manchester) will include deaf researcher Rosemary Oram and another deaf research assistant, and will work with Action Deafness in Leicester as Project Partner.

3. Dr Katerina Strani secured funding by the European Commission Directorate General for Justice for a project entitled “RADAR: Regulating Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Racism”. The project involves 9 partners, it will be conducted over 24 months (November 2014 – October 2016) and Heriot-Watt has been awarded over £33,000. The  aim is to provide law enforcement officials and legal professionals with the necessary tools to facilitate the identification of “racially motivated” hate communication. For this purpose, a communication-based training model will be developed for professionals at the national level and for trainers at the international level, as well as online learning resources. Finally, the project aims at producing a multilingual publication with concrete tools, recommendations and best practice examples to facilitate anti-discrimination and anti-racist actions and regulations.

So after a busy summer, it looks like we have an even busier year ahead.

Bring it on!

Posted in Events and News, Interpreting, Research, Training, Translation, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Understanding understanding *

“I want people to understand each other” –

That was the best I could come up with when asked to sum up my research in fewer than 10 words during last year’s Heriot-Watt Crucible. But it did prompt people to ask me questions such as how are you planning to achieve this, why do you want people to understand each other, what is the scope of your research, can you give us a bit more context etc. But nobody asked me what I meant by “understanding”.

Understanding is a hugely complex cognitive process that involves great uncertainty, yet it is fundamental in communication. It is also taken for granted or tends to be assumed too quickly.

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas believes that what is crucial in achieving understanding is intersubjectivity. This places emphasis on a distinct common social world shared by people when they speak. It requires us to overcome our biased, subjective views so that, instead of communicating our own subjectivities, we are communicating intersubjectively. And understanding is reached when people relate to something in “the one objective world” (which I don’t agree with, but that’s another story), something in the common social world that they have created through communication and something in each one’s subjective world.

This model is certainly not without its flaws, but it highlights the fact that understanding is a shared process. Even in the absence of others, when we read a book alone, for example, we try to understand by relating what we read to past shared communications. And that involves great uncertainty. In many cases, people assume they have understood each other even though they have created different images in their head that do not coincide. Understanding in this case is reduced to a “fictional coupling of expectations”, as my former PhD supervisor neatly put it.

And we haven’t talked about different languages yet.

In a recent conference in Cork organised by the University Association of Contemporary European Studies, I presented a paper on “The impact of multilingualism in public sphere communication” (abstract here). I tried to show that multilingualism is an integral part of post-national citizenship but it is frequently ignored in political communication. Because of multiculturalism and multilingualism, we have seen the profusion of new publics – subnational, diasporic publics, for example. And let’s not forget the EU public sphere, where 24 different languages are used! How do people argue when they speak a language different from their language of habitual use? How is debate transformed when interpreters are used? (Nicole Doerr from Mount Holyoke College has written extensively on this, looking at interpreted debate during the European Social Forum). How do we negotiate and establish meaning, understanding and ultimately consensus?

One of the questions I was asked was if language was actually important in communication and understanding. The argument was that, even when we speak different languages, we reach understanding one way or another (through paralinguistic communication, educated guesses (!) or through interpreters). So if understanding is achieved, it doesn’t matter what language you speak. The focus should be on the message and not on the language used to convey it.

IF understanding is achieved. That’s a big IF. Even in monolingual, unicultural environments we get “fictional coupling of expectations” instead of complete understanding. Multilingual environments add another level of complexity because when we speak a different language, we become different people (or do we?). If language is linked to culture, then when we speak a different language do we acquire different cultural traits? I joked once that I would probably be more efficient if I spoke better German.

But bold claims aside, we do change when we speak a different language. We do start to think differently. And if understanding is a shared process, this ultimately influences how we communicate our thoughts, our perceptions of meaning and ultimately the way we argue.

Multilingualism does not impede on our communication, but it adds another dimension to our understanding of meanings and perceptions that we must take into account.  Recognition and awareness is a good start.

Katerina Strani

* The title is borrowed by Heinz von Foerster’s book Understanding understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition, Springer, 2002.

Posted in Research, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Insign project update

Back in March 2014 I reported on a new research project that we are involved in at The Centre for Translation & Interpreting Studies Scotland at Heriot-Watt University called the Insign project. This pilot project has been funded by the European Commission DG Justice to develop a platform to provide access to European institutions to deaf and hard of hearing people across Europe, either through sign language interpretation or respeaking/ captioning services. We are working in a consortium of partners with the European Union of the DeafSign VideoIVèSefsli, and Designit, and the project runs from January – December 2014. The Heriot-Watt University team includes myself, Professor Graham Turner, and Robert Skinner as Research Associate.

The project involves 5 key tasks:

Task 1: Review of current practices

Task 2: Description of platform

Task 3: Description of interpreting services

Task 4: Demonstration of platform

Task 5: Conceptualising sustainable platform

The Heriot-Watt University team led on Task 1 – to review current practices world-wide through a combination of desk research to review existing policies, guidelines and research; and also through surveys with deaf users of telecommunications services, and interpreters with experience of working in video relay call centres.

The Heriot-Watt University team are also involved in Task 4 – to evaluate the communicative aspects of the calls made during demonstrations of the platform. Our evaluations take place through observation, focus groups, interviews, and analyses of recorded calls. So far there have been two demonstrations: one at the EU Parliament in Brussels on 9th April, and the other at a workshop for participants attending general assembly of the European Union of the Deaf in Athens on 15th May.

We have now completed a summary of the results from the user survey and the interpreter survey for Task 1, which are presented by Robert Skinner in International Sign with English captions (20 minutes long):

Basically we found that deaf users and interpreters have varied experiences with video relay services, but that in principle people are keen to see a service such as Insign, so that people can access European institutions in their preferred language and mode of communication.

We have also completed a research update report, which summarises all the work we have completed on Tasks 1 and 4 during the first 6-months of the project from January to June 2014. The report provides recommendations on how the Insign platform can be improved to ensure a quality service, which will feed in to the final demonstration, and the final recommendations to the European Commission.

If you would like a copy of the written English report, please email me at:

The final demonstration will be at the EU Parliament on 25th September, and deaf and hard of hearing people are encouraged to attend.

Posted in Interpreting, Research, Sign Language, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Deaf juror research update

After a brief summer hiatus, LifeinLincs is back with plans afoot to rejuvenate the regularity of the blog posts….

In the meantime, I wanted to post an update about the deaf juror research that I am involved in with colleagues in Australia. I posted a previous blog about this topic in February this year, and have recently returned from Australia where we completed the data collection for the Australian Research Council funded project.

The data collection involved the organisation of a mock trial involving 11 hearing jurors, a deaf juror and two sign language interpreters. The trial involved other participants who were genuine legal practitioners: legal aid solicitors, advocates and a retired judge. Two actors were hired to play the role of defendant and witness, and the case was adapted from a real drugs case tried originally by one of the advocates. The whole 1.5 day mock trial and 2 hour jury deliberation was filmed and all participants were interviewed on completion of the trial. We are now in the process of analysing the data, to determine the nature and level of impact that the presence of a deaf juror and interpreters may have on the jury deliberation process.


The data collection went extremely well, due to the careful planning of the research team and the support from Legal Aid NSW in identifying a suitable case and legal personnel to participate, Deaf Australia to assist with recruiting a deaf juror, Sign Language Communications NSW and the NSW Deaf Society in providing the interpreters, the Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association (ASLIA) on advising on legal interpreting issues, and the NSW Department of Attorney General & Justice in securing us a courtroom to use at the Parramatta trial courts precinct.

photo copy

The research received a great amount of Australian and international media attention. I was recently interviewed by Radio National New Zealand about the research and the mock trial. For people who can hear, you can listen to the interview (19 minutes long) at:

In order to provide access to the Deaf community to the interview, I have had it transcribed (thanks to our HWU research associate, Robert Skinner). The transcript can be found below. Apologies for the length of this posting, but this is the only way I can make the transcript available.

This research has the potential to effect major international law reform, so is of interest to researchers and practitioners in legal, forensic linguistics, interpreting studies and deaf studies disciplines.

Interview between Presenter Bryan Crump, on Radio National NZ Nights program and Prof Jemina Napier, on Wednesday 20th August 2014

BC = Bryan Crump, JN = Jemina Napier

BC Justice is blind!

Well, in an ideal world it should be but it could cope with the deaf if it wanted to, at least that’s the
argument from Professor Jemina Napier from Heriot-Watt University, which is in Scotland, but her recent
work has been in Australia encouraging the court system in New South Wales to embrace deaf jurors.

Jemina is on the line now from Edinburgh, Scotland, cue to Jemina. Welcome to Nights.

JN Thanks very much for having me on.

BC What’s the situation with deaf jurors in most countries? I think it might be possible to be deaf and be on
a jury in New Zealand?

JN That’s right. There has only ever been one case in New Zealand, shortly after the New Zealand Sign Language
Act was put in to place. A deaf man was called and he asked for an interpreter, and they provided it. I
think that’s been the only case so far that I know of but at least it has happened in New Zealand. In the
United States deaf people can systematically serve as jurors throughout the country, but so far the
majority of other countries like Australia, the UK and Ireland that have a similar adversarial court
system, don’t actually allow deaf people to serve as jurors for various reasons. There are slightly
different interpretations of the law and why that’s the case, but essentially they regard it as not being
able to participate in the judicial process.

BC Given Edinburgh is on the other side of the world to Australia what’s been the catalyst for you to get
involved in the court system there?

JN I was actually in Australia for 15 years, I’m British originally…[…] I was actually at Macquarie University
in Sydney for a long time and the research that I’m involved in was initiated by the New South Wales Law
Reform Commission.

About 10 years ago they actually set up a reference group at the request of the New South Wales Attorney
General to look at whether deaf people could serve as jurors. So they asked me to do some initial research
and it’s been an ongoing research agenda from then. We’ve had various projects to explore this issue from
different angles if you like. Just to try and test the different questions about the feasibility of deaf
people serving and then I came over to Australia again recently, after moving back to Edinburgh, but I was
back in Australia to do the last piece of the puzzle really.

BC Just looking at Australia for a start, what is the reason for excluding deaf people from juries?

JN It actually varies from State to State, because Australia is a federated system…

BC Yeah, yeah, each State and Territory has its different court system.

JN Absolutely, so for example in Queensland where there is actually a case, a woman is suing for
discrimination. She was rejected from serving on a jury, a deaf woman, the reason given to her, it came
under the definition of “mental capacity”. Whether she had the capacity to serve as a juror…

BC That was the judge’s reasoning? Did a judge rule on this?

JN Apparently a court officer. Yeah that’s right, it was a court officer’s reasoning, yeah.

BC Really? Because…

JN Yeah.

BC Ok, I’m going to give some judges credit here, because mental capacity has been applied to a deaf person,
surely a judge wouldn’t be that stupid? No. This is a bad call.

JN Which is why she took it to court, for discrimination. Because she says she does have the mental capacity
but she couldn’t access the proceedings because she needed to sign language and she asked for an
interpreter and they refused to provide that accommodation for her. She actually lost the trial initially
but she has gone to appeal and she is planning on taking it to the United Nations under the Convention for
the Rights of people with Disabilities if she doesn’t get through.

BC What’s been the response to the Queensland legal system to that? Has there been a debate in Queensland
about this?
JN There’s definitely been some media coverage. I think the interesting thing is that the appeal Gaye Lyons is
taking forward is because the judge had considered she wasn’t treated unreasonably and that she wasn’t
discriminated against. The judge felt that the judicial officer who made the decision had made a reasonable
decision at that time with the information that was presented to them at that time. It’s an interesting
debate around disability rights, civil rights but also what’s called “reasonable accommodation”. So
normally under disability discrimination law you have to demonstrate if you have been discriminated
against. If someone can’t reasonably accommodate for your needs, and so the argument really is against what
is considered to be reasonable or not.

BC Now this is possibly where your work comes in, because you have been involved in setting up an experimental
trial. A ‘trial’ trial in Sydney is it? Using at least one deaf juror?

JN That’s right, the reason I was back in Australia recently, like I said for the last piece of the puzzle,
running a mock trial.

Ultimately all of the different research that we’ve done has shown there doesn’t seem to be any impediment
for deaf people serving as jurors. We know this happens in the United States.

The argument is there is a Common law, if you like, that there can only be 12 people in a jury room, in a
jury deliberation room. So if you had a deaf person in there with a sign language interpreters that then
means there is 13,, potentially 14 people, in there because of the working conditions they often need to
work in twos. But no one has been able to test what the impact of that would be in a deliberation room
because no one can go into a deliberation room. So what we did was set up this mock trial. We ran a trial
for a day and a half, which was based on a real case, a drugs case. We had a deaf juror and 11 hearing
jurors who went in to the deliberation room with two sign language interpreters working, and we filmed
everything, and we also interviewed all of the participants. Now we’re in the analysis phase to analyse
what actually happened in the deliberation room. How did the deaf person participate as a juror with the
interpreters there? Did there seem to be any negative impact on that deliberation process. That will
hopefully be the final piece of evidence that might demonstrate that convince the judicial system that deaf
people can in face serve as jurors.

BC What were you testing? What questions were you asking?

JN That’s a good question. What we were looking at in particular is the process, the flow of the talk in the
deliberation room. The concerns that have been raised by the judiciary have been that the deliberation
process is suppose to be a natural sort of flowing conversation, where people can debate issues, and they h
have concerns if you have interpreters there it might stifle that communication, it might have a negative
impact on that flow of talk. So what we’re looking at is ok well… let’s look at that situation, let’s look
at that deliberation and how the communication happens. Whether there seems to be any miscommunications
happening and to what extent. Then we can have a better body of evidence, because so far this discussion
has been based on conjecture. No one knows what happens in a deliberation room with an interpreter because
you can’t get in there to observe it. So try creating this mock trial to replicate a case as closely as
possible, a real life case as closely as possible, means we’ve actually got some evidence then we can
analyse and present.

BC This mock trial was based on a real case. So did you know what happened in the real case? And how long it

JN We did, yes. The real case took slightly longer. We had to adapt, we adapted it slightly so that we
reduced, for example the amount of evidence and witnesses that were used, because we needed to be able to
control how long the trial ran for to then estimate how long the deliberations might take. Obviously you
can imagine running a mock trial with a film crew filming everything and for research purposes we couldn’t
let it go on ad infinitum.

BC Did you find the process was slowed in any way using an interpreter, meaning in conversation? Regardless of
the content of that conversation and it’s usefulness? Did it take longer?

JN That is an interesting question that people often ask, and I think if you going to be very matter of fact
about it then yes the conversation will always take slightly longer because you’ve got that extra layer in
the conversation going through an interpreter. One of the advantages if you like for sign language
interpreters and working with deaf people is that we work simultaneously. One of our languages is silent,
so for example Bryan when you speak if there was a deaf person here present I could be interpreting
simultaneously while you’re speaking and signing to that deaf person. Where as a spoken language
interpreter, working between two spoken languages unless they have got special equipment they have to work
what we call ‘consecutively’. So you would have to pause, allow the interpreter to relay the information
and then the person responds and then you pause because you can’t talk over the top of one another. So that
takes a lot longer than sign language interpreting does.

BC What if some of the evidence, I don’t know if you’ve looked at this, is taped?

JN That was actually another issue that came up about oral evidence and we tried to include some oral
evidence in the mock trial but we weren’t able to in the end. But we did interview the various participants
and we asked them if they had felt that there’d been some kind of oral evidence like a wire tap or
something like that, would the sign language interpreters have been able to convey that? The interesting
things is the interpreters said “yes” they felt they could convey that information. What you would do is
reflect the tone of voice grammatically in a different way in sign language. So you’d use facial expression
and other components of sign language to present that information visually, if you like, so it can be
conveyed. But I think that’s something the legal profession still needs to be convinced of.

BC Well here’s a slightly a side issue here, but is it possible for a deaf lawyer to work in an Australian
court? A New South Wales court? Because we’re dealing with just New South Wales here.

JN Actually, at the moment as far as know there are no qualified practicing lawyers working in court in New
South Wales. There are people who are qualified in law but they don’t practice. There’s one, there is one
lawyer I know in Queensland actually Kathryn O’Brien who does practice in court and she uses sign language
interpreters in court. She was the first deaf person that I know of in Australia to be in that position.

BC I mean another thing that could come up is even if it’s not oral or recorded evidence, something that’s
played on a tape, a deaf person can’t hear the way somebody speaks but then I thought a deaf person can
watch the way somebody speaks. And therefore see how they are responding to a question, which can be just
as revealing if we’re looking for the credibility of a witness.

JN Absolutely, one of my co-investigators on this project is Professor Sandra Hale, who is at University of
New South Wales. She has got a lot of experience doing legal interpreting research, Spanish is the language
that she focuses on. We’re working together because of our expertise in these areas, we’ve both worked on
another project which looks at witness credibility and how jurors perceive witnesses if they present their
evidence through an interpreter. The interesting thing is that judges will invariably, when they’re giving
instructions to a jury, they will advise the jury to observe the witnesses, to watch not just listen to
what they’re saying, to watch them because often when you’re reading someone’s body language then you can
actually make an assessment of whether you think their evidence is credible or whether they’re telling the
truth. You’re right deaf people have an even more perceptive skill I think in that sense, because they
always regard the world visually. They’re always reading people’s body language anyway.

BC Nights with Bryan Crump Radio National New Zealand on air here. Talking to Professor Jemina Napier from
Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh […] Anyway, we’re talking about Australia actually and a trial, a
‘trial’ trial! Jemina was involved in New South Wales. To see if the court system there can accommodate
deaf jurors. Are you still examining the results? Any conclusions yet that you can talk about?

JN I can’t really speak about any conclusion because the video footage is still being edited together for us.
All I can comment on are my observations of what happened and some of the thoughts that were shared with us
from the participants in the interviews that we did.

BC What did the other jurors make of what was going on? The ones that can hear?

JN Yeah, all the hearing jurors were interviewed in a focus group together. All of them actually were quite
surprised by how well everything had gone. They commented that they felt the deaf juror was very erudite,
contributed lots to the discussion, and they actually felt there was an added value actually in having a
deaf juror there and the interpreters there. They felt it helped the communication to flow because they
were conscious of making sure they were speaking clearly, so the interpreters could interpret for the deaf
juror. If anything rather than be an impediment they found it enhanced the communication process.

BC How did the deaf juror feel about the situation and the process?

JN He loved it. He was so excited to be involved. I think because up until now its never been possible for a
deaf people to serve as jurors in Australia, just to be involved, even though it was a mock trial, he said
it felt very real. He did comment that it did feel tiring, you know watching an interpreter and trying to
process everything, it’s quiet tiring on the eyes. The hearing jurors said they found it tiring too…

BC Anybody who has been on a jury and has tried, and has to deal with the difficult [information], and they’re
almost always difficult, finds it tiring. It’s not an easy thing to do.

JN Absolutely. You’re having to take on board a lot of new information. You’re having to determine what you
think about that, interpret what the outcome might be. It’s a very complex process. The deaf person said
that he felt because he had two qualified interpreters who have experience in the legal setting he felt he
had access to all the information. He didn’t feel disadvantaged in any way. He said, and we asked him, if
this ever became a reality would you be willing to serve as a juror for real? He said absolutely, 100% he
would. Yeah.

BC However, the sticking point it seems to me is the possibility of having another person in the juror’s room,
where there’s 12 people, just 12 people, are suppose to deliberate, isolated from the rest of the world not
prejudiced by anything going on outside, could be influenced by one or two interpreters. It might be too
soon for you to ne able to answer the question on whether you think that was the case.

JN Again, that’s a good question and another concern that has been raised. Interpreters do follow a code of
ethics. One really important tenet of the code of ethics is that we are to remain impartial. An interpreter
can facilitate communication but should never impose their own opinions or bring any of their own thoughts
into any conversation, regardless of if it’s in a legal context or any contexts. They’re just there to
facilitate the communication between the people who need to directly address each other.

Interpreters are trained to be impartial, to not impose themselves on a communication. You’re right we
haven’t analysed the evidence yet, so I can’t say for sure the extent to which the interpreters might have
influenced the interaction. Just by being there, I mean other research has demonstrated that just by
physically being present, of course you can’t pretend that the interpreter is invisible. They are there, so
by being there they do influence the interaction. They shouldn’t change the interaction in any way though
if you know what I mean?

BC Did the mock trial reach the same verdict as the real case?

JN That’s a good question, actually no they didn’t.

BC Now you see that I’m afraid the establishment might struggle with that, mightn’t they? They might say “well
hang on… if all things being equal they should reach the same, with the same evidence, they should reach
the same [conclusion]”, although we know juries don’t do that in real life! There’s always surprise
verdicts in all sorts of cases. Has Gaye Lyons the Queenslander, the deaf Queenslander, whose taking on the
court establishment there, taken an interest in what you’re doing?

JN Oh absolutely. She actually really wanted to be involved in the mock trial, but we felt that she has got
too much of a vested interest.

BC Yeah that’s a bit too prejudicial I think.

JN Yeah, but we are going to be doing follow up focus groups because once we’ve done the analysis we’d like to
put forward some recommendations. So once we have our preliminary recommendations we’re going to take them
to key stakeholders, so members of the deaf community, interpreters, the legal profession, the judiciary
and so on. Just to say “ok this is what we’re going to recommend, what do you think? Is it feasible?”, and
so on. Get feedback and then finalise those recommendations for the Australian Research Council who funded
the project, and also for Governments – we’re hoping it might have wider ramifications outside of
Australia, for other countries, like here in the UK where they’re also waiting to see the outcome of the

We’re hoping that maybe Gaye can be involved in a focus group at a later date?

BC You must be fluent in sign [language] yourself Jemina?

JN I am yes, I use British Sign Language and also Australian Sign Language and I actually use a tiny bit of
New Zealand Sign Language as well!

BC Really we have dialects in sign?

JN We have different sign languages in every country, yes.

BC Different accents?

JN Kind of, yeah. It’s interesting in the same way that you know American, Australian, New Zealand British
English are mutually intelligible but there’s different vocabulary, so sign languages also have language
families if you like. So British, Australian and New Zealand Sign languages are related. They are more
mutually intelligible, for example than American Sign Language, which is completely different. Other sign
languages form other countries are completely different.

BC When do you get your final results through?

JN Well we’re aiming to have the final analysis ready by March…

BC March of next year?

JN Yeah. Then final recommendations by the end of 2015.

BC Jemina thanks very much for joining us, I don’t know if you can hear me but you’ve suddenly broken up.
We’ve gotta move on anyway, thanks very much Jemina.

JN You’re welcome.

BC That is Jemina Napier from Heriot University, in Scotland although she’s been working on a ‘trial’ trial in
Australia, to see whether deaf jurors in New South Wales can be incorporated into a jury system there
because at the moment they’re not allowed.

Posted in Interpreting, Research, Sign Language | 1 Comment

LifeinLINCS up for Three International Awards

Authors: Bernadette O’Rourke, Jemina Napier, Graham Turner, Jonathan Downie

It is great to see that, despite a recent hiatus, readers of LifeinLINCS really appreciate the blog. In fact, it seems like you appreciate the blog so much, you think it should receive awards. Thank you so much for nominating LifeinLINCS for three Community Choice awards.


Both the nominations and votes for these awards come from members of, the world’s largest community of professional translators and interpreters. While the site is not without its controversies, it still brings together over 700,000 translators and interpreters from across the globe.


It is therefore an incredible honour for LifeinLINCS to be nominated for the award for best blog in the “Interpretation-Related” section. This puts us up against such staples as The Interpreter Diaries, Unprofessional Translation and blogs from big associations like AIIC and NAJIT.


Two LifeinLINCS posts are also up for awards. Why Language Learning Will Not Reduce Interpreting Costs is up for best Interpretation-Related article and Inventions for Freelancers part 2 is up for Best Interpretation-Related blog post. In both cases, there is real competition from professionals and academics, which goes to show that high quality content on interpreting is never far away.


As if that wasn’t enough, Jemina Napier, one of the editors of LifeinLINCS is up for Best interpreting Conference Speaker and Jonathan Downie, one of our regular contributors, has received a nomination for Best Translation-related Training Course for his Webinar: Getting the Most out of Research in Translation and Interpreting.


We would like to thank everyone that nominated us and remind our readers that details of voting can be found on the relevant page on Voting closes September 22nd.

Posted in About LifeinLINCS, Events and News | Leave a comment