The Translating the Deaf Self project: Where are we now?

By Zoë McWhinney and Jemina Napier

On behalf of the whole Translating the Deaf Self project team

Click here to see a BSL version of the blog presented by Zoë.

As you may have seen in the earlier blogpost in March 2016, members of the Centre for Translation & Interpreting Studies Scotland at Heriot-Watt University (Jemina Napier and Robert Skinner) are working in collaboration with researchers from the Social Research with Deaf People (SORD) group at the University of Manchester (Alys Young and Rosemary Oram) on an 18-month interdisciplinary project funded through the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Translating Cultures Research Innovation Grant. Information about the project can be found here, and a summary of the project presented in BSL by Jemina Napier and Rosemary Oram as part of the EdSign lecture series can be seen here.

 Research intern

As mentioned in the March blogpost, the AHRC is keen to support the capacity building of young researchers, so Zoë McWhinney began her 20 day research internship with Heriot-Watt University at the beginning of June 2016 – spending two weeks on campus at Heriot-Watt University and then will be carrying out the rest of her internship by distance until the end of the project in October 2016. Zoë was involved in supporting the final Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in June 2016, and is involved in various tasks for the remainder of the project (including drafting and translating this blogpost!).

Data collection

Our research focuses on what it is like for Deaf sign language users to be known largely through translation. The Deaf experience of being constantly interpreted is markedly in contrast to the general hearing population’s experience, even that of other linguistic and ethnic minorities.  This experience often leads to an asymmetry of the ‘power dynamics’ and consequently the opportunities available to Deaf person in non-signing, hearing- dominated spaces. Some Deaf people’s well being may be adversely affected by the stresses created in such a situation – an area of exploration in this research project.

During the project, we have completed the following data collection:

• 3 parents of Deaf children participated in telephone interviews in spoken English
• 2 x focus groups were held with qualified sign language interpreters (7 interpreters in total) in spoken English
• 8 hearing colleagues of Deaf BSL users participated in face-to-face interviews in spoken English
• 3 Deaf BSL users who choose to speak sometimes in their professional work contexts participated in face-to-face interviews in BSL. We have coined the term ‘Deaf Contextual Speakers’ to explain how these Deaf BSL users sometimes use speech, even though they identify as BSL users.
• 2 x Community Participatory Groups were held in BSL with Deaf community members (7 in total). Each of the 2 sessions lasted for 2.5 to 3 hours and also had some activities to allow space for open discussions. The participants in this group were most responsive when watching and commenting on clips of scenarios with examples of Deaf and hearing people’s communication being interpreted by an interpreter.
• 5 x simulated recall interviews were held with Deaf professionals in BSL after one of the research team had filmed them in a real situation with interpreters. Originally we had planned to test the use of Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP) as a methodology (where people comment on what they are seeing while they are doing a task), but due to the complex circumstances and the reality of the participants being BSL users accompanied by interpreters in person, we adapted the approach to a ‘simulated recall (SR) interview’. The SR interviews involved participants being shown a video of themselves interacting with hearing persons via an interpreter and asking them questions about their experience of being interpreted based on what they could see in the video.

All the focus groups and interviews were semi-structured, with the participants given example questions and/ or topic outline beforehand. Time length for focus groups took from 1.5 to 3 hours, whilst the individual interviews took from 30 minutes to 1 hour each.

The research study gained full ethical approval from the Universities of Manchester and Heriot Watt.

Presentations of results

Presently, the team is conducting an in-depth qualitative analysis using both a thematic analysis approach and a critical inquiry methodology.  The findings will be published in a range of academic journals related to social research, deaf studies and interpreting studies, as well as present at different conferences and community events. BSL access to the main findings will be made available online as well.  For example, we presented some preliminary findings in a poster session at the 8th Critical Link International Conference on Community Interpreting between 29^th June to 1^st July 2016 at Heriot-Watt university; and will also be presenting a more detailed overview of results at the Association of Sign Language Interpreters UK Conference in Newcastle in September 2016.

Final Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting

On 7^th June we had our third and final meeting with the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) in Edinburgh, Scotland, with representatives from the British Deaf Association (Scotland), the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI) and Action on Hearing Loss (Scotland), where we presented the preliminary results from our analysis of the data. The role of the SAG has been to give the research team guidance on the research methods, data collection, recruitment of participants, interpretation of the results, and also about potential implications of the research, and we would like to thank all the people who have attended meetings throughout the project, including other representatives from Deaf Action in Edinburgh and Deaf Connections in Glasgow. One of the final recommendations from the last SAG meeting was for the project team to hold a roadshow to present the results of the project to members of the Deaf community in BSL. We will look for funding to enable us to do that.

What’s next?

The research team are now working with AC2.Com Productions and Mutt & Jeff Pictures to develop scripts for 3 short video dramas in BSL in order to illustrate some of the key findings from the research project. We plan to disseminate the videos through various platforms, including social media.

 

As well as working on the video production, Zoë will be assisting the research team to organise a dissemination event in September, where the whole team will present final results from the project and launch the videos. The event will be hosted in collaboration with our partner Action Deafness at their new venue at the Royal School for the Deaf in Derby – so look out for future announcements!

 

Heriot-Watt University BSL interpreting and community placements

By Jemina Napier

 <Click here to see this blog post in BSL>

 

As many people in the Scottish Deaf community and BSL/English interpreting profession will know, this year is the first time that we have a group BSL/English interpreting students completing their final year of studying in a 4-year undergraduate programme. This is the only university in Scotland that offers a training programme that is approved by the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI) and the National Registers of Communication Professionals with working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD) as a route to professional qualification and registration to practice as a sign language interpreter. The first group of students will graduate in June 2016.

Students heading out on interpreting work placement for the first time

From January – May 2016 it is the current 4^th year students’ final semester and one of the compulsory requirements is for students to complete an interpreting work placement. During this placement students will be shadowing professional interpreters in real interpreting assignments.

The aim of the interpreting work placement is to:

1. To give students the opportunity to access authentic ‘real-world’ interpreting situations
2. To provide students with the opportunity to observe the professional practice of qualified interpreters at work
3. To facilitate the opportunity for students to try interpreting in ‘real-world’ interpreting situations, in a safe and supported environment, where appropriate and with the agreement of all parties
4. To enable students to discuss, critique and reflect on their observations of other interpreters and their own professional practice

 

The interpreting work placement will take place in two 1-week blocks (22-26 February and 4-8 April).

The organisation of the interpreting work placement would not be possible without the support of the key organisations SASLI and NRCPD who have endorsed that interpreters can received Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for acting as mentors.

But even more importantly, it could not take place without the collaboration and support of professional sign language interpreters in Scotland, who are giving their time, energy and commitment to supporting these students. We would like to specifically thank the list of interpreters below who have agreed to take on students this year:

1. Paul Belmonte (Edinburgh)
2. Andy Carmichael (Edinburgh)
3. Lesley Crerar (Aberdeen)
4. Andrew Dewey (Ayr)
5. Linda Duncan (Fife)
6. Marion Fletcher (Edinburgh)
7. Rebecca Goodall (Inverness)
8. Donna Jewell (Falkirk)
9. Brenda Mackay (Fife)
10. Paula Marshall (Denny)
11. Robert McCourt (Glasgow)
12. Mary McDevitt (Falkirk)
13. Drena O’Malley (Glasgow)
14. Mark Sherwin (Edinburgh)
15. Linda Thomson (Glasgow)
16. Helen Dunipace
17. Yvonne Waddell

 

We know that there are many more interpreters all over Scotland that might be interested in becoming a student mentor, and in future years we will be looking for more mentors as student numbers increase, so if you are interested please contact Jemina Napier as the interpreting placement coordinator by email.

We would also like to thank Deaf BSL users in Scotland in advance for their support of our students, and hope that you will encourage them in their efforts to develop their skills to become professional interpreters. The students to look out for are:

1. Rachel Amey
2. Jude Caldwell
3. Greg Colquhoun
4. Niamh Cochrane
5. Virginia Dugo
6. Scott Ellerington
7. Rachel Evans
8. Jill Gallacher
9. Nadia Krupova
10. Helena Laverty
11. Lisa Li
12. Grace McNeill
13. Samuel Rojas
14. Marie Elliott

Community placement

We would also like to acknowledge the support of all the organisations throughout the UK that are providing community work placement experiences for our 3^rd year students. The 3^rd year placement is different from the 4^th year placement as it takes place over a whole year, and students are required to work in two different organisations where BSL is used every day so that they can have immersion in the language and culture of Deaf people every day. While on placement, the students do project work or other tasks (but not interpreting) and participate in general organizational activities.

This year is the second year that organisations have hosted students on community work placements, and we are appreciative of the efforts that the organisations go to in order to support our students to develop their BSL skills and Deaf community and cultural awareness.

It has been a steep learning curve for us at Heriot-Watt University and also for our community organisation partners, as this is a new approach to sign language interpreter training and as far as we know Heriot-Watt University is the first programme in the world to require students to take a 1-year language immersion community placement. We could not make this happen without the close collaboration with Deaf BSL users and Deaf community organisations.

Graham H. Turner, Coordinator of the BSL Community Work Placements notes that:

“Heriot-Watt’s BSL team members have many years’ experience of interpreter education. We were very conscious of the widespread feeling that university-educated interpreters tend to know what to do in the classroom, but do not have the kind of profound appreciation of Deaf lives that comes from being close to the ‘beating heart’ of the community. Our partners are working with us to change that. We simply couldn’t create on our campus the kind of learning experience that they can offer. If our programme fully achieves its aims, it will be in no small part because of the contribution partner organisations are making to developing the interpreters that they wish to work with in the future.”

So we would like to thank all of the organisations listed below who have so far hosted students on community work placement:

Action on Deafness (Leicester)

Birmingham Institute of the Deaf (BID)

British Deaf Association (BDA Scotland & Northern Ireland)

Deaf Action (Edinburgh)

Deaf Connections (Glasgow)

Deaf Direct (Worcester)

Deafness Support Network (Northwich)

DeafPlus (London)

Deafway (Preston)

Deaf Links (Dundee)

Donaldsons School (Linlithgow)

Hampshire Deaf Association – Sonus (Southampton)

Manchester Deaf Centre (Manchester)

National Deaf Services/National Deaf CAMHS (London)

Nottinghamshire Deaf Society (Nottingham)

Royal Association for Deaf People (RAD) (London, Kent & Colchester)

Ericsson Access Services (formerly RedBee Media) (London)

Remark! (London)

Scottish Council on Deafness (Glasgow)

SignVideo (London & Glasgow)

Solar Bear (Glasgow)

 

We are always looking for new community partners, so any interested organisations can contact Graham H. Turner by email.

Finally, Gary Quinn, the Head of the BSL section at Heriot-Watt University says:

“As programme coordinator, I would like to thank all the interpreters and staff in the community organisations that are supporting the degree at Heriot-Watt University by giving our students the opportunity to develop more ‘real-life’ awareness of the Deaf and Interpreting communities in the UK. I know the students have appreciated your efforts to support their learning and each of you has contributed a vital part to our students’ development, which will undoubtedly make our graduates better prepared for the professional world of BSL/English Interpreting.”

In sum, we would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who has direct involvement in supporting students studying BSL/English interpreting at Heriot-Watt University and we wish our 4^th year students who are about to go out on interpreting placement the best of luck and hope that they have a positive experience.

 

Sign Language in Action

by Jemina Napier

Click here to see this blog in International Sign, British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language

Sign Language in Action is a new book just published by Palgrave as part of the Research & Practice in Applied Linguistics series.

The book is co-authored by Jemina Napier and Lorraine Leeson, who both have extensive experience as sign language researchers, educators and interpreter practitioners – Jemina in the UK and Australia, and Lorraine in Ireland, with briefer stints in Belgium, the UK and the USA.

We have both conducted research and written extensively on various topics which can be considered under the umbrella of applied linguistics, including sign linguistics, sign language discourse, sign language and identity, sign language learning and teaching, and sign language interpreting and translation.

After many conversations on our mutual research interests, we decided to collaborate on writing this book to draw together all the threads from our research into one overview.

So the book defines the notion of applied sign linguistics by drawing on data from projects that have explored sign language in action in various domains. The data sources have been drawn from various studies have been conducted by us both.

As well as defining key concepts and giving an overview of existing research, the book provides clear guidance on conducting applied sign linguistics research, with suggestions for new research topics.

The book is targeted at sign language and sign language interpreting students, sign language teachers, researchers, interpreter practitioners and educators, Deaf Studies teachers and students, educators working with deaf children, and policy makers.

It will also be of interest to other people working with minority language communities and to scholars and practitioners in applied linguistics research more generally.

Following on from an earlier blog post by Jemina that discussed the ethics of conducting sign language interpreting research without deaf people involved, we feel it necessary to position ourselves in relation to the focus of this book, as neither of us are deaf.

So here, we discuss our role as hearing people doing sign language research, and our goals in writing this book.

The involvement of non-deaf people in the deaf community has been an on-going and vexatious issue. There has been long recognition of the value that ‘hearing’ people bring to the deaf community if they embrace the values of the community and can sign fluently enough to engage with deaf people.

There have been attempts to separate the identity of hearing people that are involved in the deaf community from those ‘other’ non-deaf people who do not use sign language and who are considered as ‘outsiders’ (see Napier, 2002; Ladd, 2003).

In the USA, there is currently much debate about the notion of interpreters having ‘Deaf-HEART’.

Others have suggested that there should be no reference to audiological status, and instead we should refer to a community of ‘sign language users’ (Bahan, 1997), ‘sign language persons’ (Jokinen, 2001) or ‘sign language peoples’ (Batterbury, 2012; Batterbury, Ladd & Gulliver, 2007).

Whichever convention you prefer, we identify ourselves as hearing people; we align ourselves with deaf people and their values based on our long involvement in the community, and we bring that subjectivity to our research and our writing.

There is also much debate in the deaf community and among researchers about the potential oppression that deaf people face in having non-deaf people conduct research on their community, with emphasis on the need for research to be with deaf sign language users (Sutherland & Young, 2014; Turner & Harrington, 2000) and to adopt a ‘community participatory approach’ (Emery, 2011; Napier & Sabolcec, et al, 2013; Young & Temple, 2014).

Consequently there is an emerging body of work that explores the need for ethical approaches to conducting sign language research in order to ensure that there is involvement from deaf sign language users in conducting the research; that deaf people’s views are taken into consideration; and that the research is ‘deaf-led’ (see Harris, Holmes & Mertens, 2009; Hochgesang , Villanueva, Mathur, Lillo-Martin, 2010; Mertens, 2010; Singleton, Jones & Hanumantha, 2012; Singleton, Martin & Morgan, 2015)

We do not see ourselves as positioned only in Deaf Studies. As linguists and interpreting studies researchers we see our work within a broader context of applied linguistics and intercultural communication, and the languages that we work with happen to include signed languages.

Thus our focus in our book is on sign language use, and not deafness.

We acknowledge though that although we are allies of the deaf community, we are not deaf, and therefore do not have shared life experience with deaf people. We are guests in the deaf community (as suggested by O’Brien & Emery, 2013), but we do have a strong philosophy of collaboration with the deaf community collectively and individually in all our research and practice.

We believe that it is important for deaf and hearing researchers to work together for the best interests of the worldwide deaf community, but we recognise the power we have as hearing people in the community and the historical backdrop of hearing researchers dominating the field.

We have ‘hearing privilege’, but privilege does not always have to occupy a negative position. We would assert that we accept the responsibility of having hearing privilege (Storme, 2014), and we use our hearing privilege positively to broker engagement and educate inside and outside the community.

 Because of our hearing privilege we get invited to do things like write a book, but we believe that we act in a way that is congruent with deaf cultural norms and values, and one of those values is reciprocity.

Adam (2015) talks about the importance of disseminating information about sign language research in sign language, and you will notice that the majority of blog posts about sign language research on the LifeinLINCS page have links to signed versions (including this one).

We would like to take this one step further – all the royalties from this book will be donated to the World Federation of the Deaf to support their on-going work with deaf sign language users throughout the world. So we are using our hearing privilege to give back to the deaf community.

This book focuses on sign language in action; where and how it is used, who by, and how we can research sign language in action in order to better understand the relationship between sign language use, culture and identity. For us, we have deliberately focussed our discussion on how deaf and hearing people use sign language, and the implications for learning and teaching and professional practice, in the hope that the information in the book will benefit all sign language users and the values of the deaf community worldwide.

17th September 2015: A momentous day for the BSL Community

by Graham Turner

On a most extraordinary afternoon last week (17^th September 2015, a date to be remembered), it seemed that half of Heriot-Watt’s Department of Languages & Intercultural Studies re-located to the Scottish Parliament for a few hours. Why? It was the Stage 3 (final) reading in the chamber of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill.

 

The Bill passed with unanimous support from the assembled Members of the Scottish Parliament, and will be fully ratified following Royal Assent in 4-8 weeks’ time.

 

We can state it dispassionately in the clear light of a later week, but this was anything but a calm and sober occasion. For evidence, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u61__M7dUS4. You can watch the whole debate from about 1:03:00. But you really only need to see the audience reaction to the final vote (from about 2:35:00) to get a feel for the electrifying nature of the moment.

 

You could ask any one of LINCS’ eight British Sign Language (BSL) staff members, or our six research students, or indeed any of the 60-odd undergraduate students now enrolled in years 1-4 of our honours degree programme, and they would be able to tell you why this was such a momentous day for the BSL community.

 

You can read, or watch in BSL, a perspective about the thinking behind the Bill from Heriot-Watt’s Professor Graham Turner (published last year to encourage engagement with the first draft of the Bill) here: http://limpingchicken.com/2014/12/05/turner-bsl-bill/.

 

There’s an excellent blog summarising what the Bill does (and doesn’t do) here: http://bristol.verbeeld.be/2015/09/17/british-sign-language-scotland-bill-passed-final-hurdle/. It is designed to create an ongoing framework for national planning around BSL which will lead to continuous, incremental improvement in the way BSL is protected and, crucially, promoted across Scottish public life. The community’s priorities will need to be elicited and sustainably enacted: some future scenarios are contained in evidence (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EducationandCultureCommittee/BSL%20Bill/TurnerProfessorGHHeriotWattUniversity.pdf)  sent from Heriot-Watt  to the Parliamentary committee which reviewed the Bill.

You can see from sources like this http://scotlandfutureforum.org/assets/library/files/application/BSL_Report.pdf that Heriot-Watt has championed this cause from the front since at least 2010. In fact, five years’ campaigning doesn’t even scratch the surface of the deep and painful history that underpins last week’s success. Heriot-Watt BSL staff can tell you story after story after story of friends, family and colleagues who have lived and died in pursuit of proper respect and recognition for BSL.

 

As Avril Hepner, the British Deaf Association’s Community Development Manager in Scotland, told Parliament in her evidence before the Bill passed, this legislation finally enables BSL users to feel that they belong in Scotland, and Scotland belongs to them along with everyone else.

 

Scotland therefore becomes the only part of the United Kingdom to secure legal recognition of BSL to date. Needless to say, campaigners everywhere will be encouraging Westminster to follow Scotland’s lead, and Heriot-Watt staff will be fully engaged in supporting their efforts.

 

So if you see a BSL user anywhere in the UK in the next wee while with a huge, undimmable grin on their face – you now know why. This is huge. Shake their hand.

Mental health interpreting – considering some of the challenges

By Yvonne Waddell

Work in mental health settings is often unique from other settings the community interpreter works in. When we consider that language is the principal investigative and therapeutic tool in psychiatry, (Farooq & Fear 104: 2003) the interpreting process will have a direct impact on the way that therapeutic tool is applied. As interpreters working between languages and cultures, the approach we take to interpreting utterances in this area should be considered, especially when a change in a patient’s language may have implications for their mental health state (Pedersen 2012).

As my colleague Jonathan described in his recent post, during the mental health session the interpreter will have access to the form of the language and specific linguistic information that the clinician does not since they do not understand the language of the patient. This information may be lost in translation where specific patterns of speech (such as clanging) are of a different form in the interpretation. If these types of examples are not discussed between clinician and interpreter, the subtle language-based cues indicative of illness may be missed. In addition to these linguistic and paralinguistic considerations, the area of mental health contains many challenges for the community interpreter.

The idea of considering the thought world of the other participants in the interpreted interaction is not a new one, the term first being introduced by Namy in 1977. The participant’s thought world as part of ethical decision making has been developed more extensively by Dean and Pollard (2013) in their textbook for interpreters as practice professionals.  For those of us interpreting in the community for minority languages, I would suggest that we most often consider things from our minority language users’ point of view, so it can be useful to take some time considering the thought world of our majority language user/hearing participant. Working with interpreters is rarely a daily occurrence for mental health professionals. Bear in mind that this type of interaction is probably new to the professional, and the vast majority of medical professionals are only trained in the typical medical interview, where there is one other person in the room (the patient) and they share a language and culture (Rosenberg et al 2007).

Those of us in interpreting studies are aware of the advances the profession has gone through in terms of the role, degree of involvement and appropriate strategies of the interpreter. However, professionals express a preference for a conduit model of interpreter and consider a word-for-word literal translation as the most accurate (Dysart-Gale 2005, Rosenberg et al 2007, Hsieh 2010). While this fixed translation approach may be problematic for ensuring accuracy of meaning, this preference may reflect the importance of how something is said both by professionals and patients in mental health settings. The mental health professional will use deliberate and considered phrasing in their approach, and they are keen for that to be preserved in the interpretation.

However, mental health professionals who are unfamiliar with the grammar of a minority language may not realise that literal interpretations of terms are not always possible and perhaps two words in English may require several sentences in the minority language to accurately relay the meaning. If we consider an example of BSL (British Sign Language) as one of those minority languages, professionals who do not realise that BSL is a full and distinct language from English and assume that BSL is simply ‘English on the hands’, may expect the interpreter to stop signing once they have stopped speaking.  As the interpreter continues to sign, although they are accurately relaying the meaning of the original utterance, if the professional doesn’t have access to what they are saying in this expanded interpretation, they may begin to feel left out of the conversation, or suspicious of what is being signed after they have stopped speaking.

In anticipation of these moments of tension that can arise, one strategy might be for the interpreter to keep the professional in the loop as to when a term may need expansion in the second language. The ideal time to have these types of discussions would be in the brief meeting the interpreter has with the professional before the appointment, or afterwards at the debriefing.  While best practice in mental health interpreting research may describe the benefits and necessity of these briefing sessions (Chovaz 2013, Tribe & Lane 2009, De Bruin & Brugmans 2006, Messent 2003,) I also work in health boards across Scotland as a community interpreter, and am aware of how rare those briefing sessions can be when you are a freelance interpreter booked for a one-off job, and dilemmas occur often.

When we are faced with a dilemma in mental health settings, being aware of the mental health professionals’ communication objectives is also important in helping us come to a decision.

Let’s take another example:

Imagine you are interpreting at a counselling session. In response to one of the counselor’s questions, the client’s answer lasts for 20 minutes. The counselor actively listens to this narrative but does not interrupt. The client is signing (or speaking) very quickly and displaying strong emotions, and you are struggling to pick up some of the names and other details that are being described. You feel like you should interrupt and clarify because you might have got something wrong, and you are missing details, but you also don’t want to stop them as they are in full flow, it’s the first time they’ve really opened up about this and the counselor does not seem to be making any moves to interrupt them. This is an example of where interpreting values (such as accuracy) come into conflict with the values of the setting (the counselors’ priority of the client’s narrative). This is where dilemmas arise for interpreters. Since both values are valid, deciding which value to forfeit is a process suited to careful consideration of all contextual factors relevant to the situation. I’ve found Dean & Pollard’s Demand – Control Schema an effective taxonomy to frame this consideration of the interpreted interaction.  If we know in advance that the counselor’s goal for this session is to allow the client the space to communicate their story uninterrupted and feel listened to, then we may decide to prioritise the value of the setting over repeatedly interrupting the patient to clarify terms in order to preserve accuracy. This can leave us with an uneasy feeling of, ‘I didn’t interpret properly, I should have interrupted to clarify that name.’ That uncomfortable feeling is due to the forfeiting of interpreting values, which is never an easy decision, but that feeling isn’t something we need to carry around with us, affecting our confidence and making us uncertain over whether we ‘did the right thing’. The feeling can be understood and explored in the context of a supervision session, or in debriefing with the counselor who may assure you that they were more keen on having the person express themselves that having them interrupted for less important details (for more on value conflict for interpreters see Dean & Pollard 2013 and Dean & Pollard 2015).

While interpreting in mental health settings may always be challenging, by continuing to be reflective practitioners, engaging in CPD, conducting further research in this area, and sharing good practice, perhaps we can move towards a more effective interpreting experience for all involved.

Yvonne E Waddell is a registered BSL/English Interpreter, working in community and conference settings. If you’re a regular attendee at the EdSign Lecture series you’ve probably heard her work into English, or seen her interpreting into BSL. She is currently a doctoral candidate in LINCS exploring strategies employed by mental health nurses when working with Deaf patients and sign language interpreters.

References

Chovaz, C. J. (2013). Intersectionality: Mental Health Interpreters and Clinicians or Finding the “sweet spot” in therapy. International Journal on Mental Health and Deafness, 3(1).

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice profession. CreateSpace.

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2015 in press). Re-discovering Normative Ethics in the Practice Profession of Interpreting. In L. Roberson & S. Shaw (Eds.), Signed Language Interpreting in 21^st Century: Foundations and Practice. Gallaudet University Press.

De Bruin, E. & Brugmans, P. (2006) The Psychotherapist and the Sign Langauge Interpreter. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.  11:3 Summer 2006

Dysart-Gale, D. (2005). Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical interpreters. Health Communication, 17, 91-103.

Farooq, S., & Fear, C. (2003). Working through interpreters. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9(2), 104-109.

Hsieh, E. et al (2010) Dimensions of trust: the tensions and challenges in provider-interpreter trust. Qualitative Health Research. 20 (2) 170-181

Messent, P. (2003) From postmen to makers of meaning: a model for collaborative work between clinicians and interpreters. In R. Tribe & H. Raval (Eds.), Working with interpreters in mental health. London & New York: Routledge

Namy, C. (1977) ‘Reflections on the training of simultaneous interpreters: A metalinguistic approach.’ In Gerver, D., & Sinaiko, H. W. Eds. Language interpretation and communication (Vol. 6). New York. Plenum Publishing Corporation. p25-33

Pedersen, D. D. (2013). Psych Notes: Clinical Pocket Guide. FA Davis.

Rosenberg, E., Leanza, Y., & Seller, R. (2007). Doctor-patient communication in primary care with an interpreter: Physi- cian perceptions of professional and family interpreters. Patient Education and Counseling, 67, 286-292.

Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1998). The linguistics of British Sign Language: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Tribe, R., & Lane, P. (2009). Working with interpreters across language and culture in mental health. Journal of Mental Health, 18(3), 233–241.

Hearing Loss or Deaf Gain? At the Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas

On Saturday 8th August, Jemina Napier and Noel O’Connell engaged in a heated debate on “Hearing Loss or Deaf Gain?” at the Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas. 

We’ve asked two members of LINCS, Heather Mole, a PhD student who is part of the BSL team, and Olwyn Alexander, Director of Academic English, to review the show.

Heather Mole writes: At Edinburgh’s Fringe Festival, in St. Andrew’s Square, there is a yurt where dangerous ideas, backed by research, are being debated and discussed, thanks to the Beltane Public Engagement Network. For the third year in a row now Heriot Watt’s BSL team have picked topics of interest from Deaf Studies. This year the issue up for debate was “Hearing Loss or Deaf Gain?” Researchers Jemina Napier and Noel O’Connell took on the challenge of engaging the audience and trying to convince them that either the definition ‘hearing loss’ was sufficient for deaf people, or perhaps the term ‘Deaf gain’ would be a better alternative.

Dr Noel O’Connell and Prof Jemina Napier

Susan Morrison, our compere for the afternoon took on the role of a Martian (dressed in a woolly hat with a third eye) who wanted to find out from Earth people what this ‘deafness’ thing was and which definition the Martian’s would decide to use themselves – should she go with the positive gain of being Deaf, or the negativity of a definition which involves ‘loss’?

Susan Morrison being interpreted by Andy Carmichael

With an audience of over 50 people, Jemina (hearing) and Noel (Deaf) took to the floor. They covered various issues during their debate including: Sound, Danger, Access, Communication and Visuality. Most hearing people think that not being able to hear people’s voices, or the calming, emotive or exciting impact that music has is a loss and a disadvantage in life. Noel pointed out that deaf people can enjoy music through vibration through the feet and body if they choose to, and that they have the benefit of being able to stand next to the speakers at a concert without any difficulty or concern for their hearing! It became clear that sign language users also benefit from being able to talk without losing their voices in this type of environment too (even though strobe lighting might make them look a little robotic).

Next up was Jemina’s concern that deaf people could be in danger because they cannot hear alarms, or children crying, for example. But this was easily combatted by Noel as he explained that with strobe or vibrating alarms and child monitors there really isn’t any difficulty for deaf people to be alerted to the same dangers or concerns. And additionally it was a benefit to be able to sleep through unwanted noise, like noisy neighbours, freight trains or sirens. Something I’m pretty jealous of right now, living under a flat that hosts festival goers throughout August.

At this point, Jemina realised she needed to up her game! So she brought up the issue of access to announcements, at train stations, or in airports. Surely this was hearing loss, a disadvantage of deafness. Noel reminded her that due to new technologies and apps, plus visual information being more and more available on public transport, this really wasn’t as much of an issue as she had imagined. And at this juncture we learned that the reason texting has become so popular and so widely available across different networks (something that was restricted in the early days of mobile phones) was thanks to the deaf community campaigning. So that certainly gave the argument for Deaf Gain an extra point!

The discussion moved on to communication and the fact that deaf people need sign language interpreters to communicate which must be a loss in terms of their freedom to access everything they want. Noel agreed that this could be frustrating at times, but there is an additional benefit to using a sign language. Imagine going abroad on your holiday? If you don’t speak any other languages apart from English, you may have difficulty making yourself understood. He explained that because of the visual and iconic nature of sign languages signers are able, through gesture and visuality, to make themselves understood and create a pidgin language very easily. In fact there is a phenomenon known as International Sign Language which is in essence a pidgin and it’s used at conferences and between signers from different countries. Jemina, subverting her own argument, gave the example of the Deaflympics (the Deaf Olympics, separate from the Paralympics) where rather than seeing the teams sticking to their country groupings were mixing and using International Sign to communicate.

Noel and Jemina debating…

Finally, they turned their attention to the visuality of deaf people. Noel gave us the example of how deaf people can communicate over distances and through windows without difficulty, something hearing people cannot. Jemina countered that though signing is so useful over distances if everyone signed then nothing would be private. But we were informed of the benefits of being able to sign under water (by Jemina again) and how in one situation two signers were diving and one panicked, but the other person was able to calm them down using sign language. If it had been a non-signing person the crude and basic gestures for ‘up’ and ‘down’ would have had little effect. Jemina, at this point, was hammering nails into her own coffin…. the audience were clearly finding the arguments for Deaf Gain pretty convincing.

Susan took the microphone and offered the floor to the audience to make sure they had a chance to ask their questions. The audience were very obliging and gave countless examples of Deaf Gain :- reestablishing a friendship through train windows, the nature of Sign Language which allows the expression of concepts that spoken language cannot, the invention of the wing mirror by a deaf person (Arthur James Wilson), the benefits of babysign, cheaper car insurance for deaf people because they are less distracted (!), better napping for deaf people (!) and due to the energetic nature of sign language the health benefits (losing the bingo-wings)! Not to mention ‘sniper-heckling’ from one young member of the audience who was secretly signing her comments to the presenters. I could go on…..

It was acknowledged during the question period that if a person was born deaf they would not ‘miss’ hearing music or spoken language because they had never heard it. However for people who are losing their hearing or have become hard of hearing later in life there are of course challenges and a sense of grief in losing the ability to communicate easily or enjoy the music they once did.

At the end of questions and comments Susan-the-Martian asked the audience to vote – hearing loss or Deaf Gain? You can probably tell which way it went. It was, though, perhaps a surprise that only one person voted for ‘hearing loss’ in the entire yurt.

So who’s going to write to the Oxford English Dictionary and let them know that ‘hearing loss’ has fallen out of usage and submit the new description of Deaf Gain?

The audience in the Yurt

 

Jemina Napier and the two interpreters – Yvonne Waddell and Andy Carmichael

For an article about the academic concept of Deaf Gain by H-Dirksen L. Bauman, Ph.D., and Joseph M. Murray, Ph.D follow this link.

Or for a facebook site dedicated to ideas about Deaf Gain go here.

 

Olwyn Alexander writes: The Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas is part of the Beltane Engagement Network, which aims to make academic research accessible to a wide variety of audiences. On Saturday 8th August LINCS colleagues Jemina Napier and Noel O’Connell held a light-hearted debate on attitudes to deafness under the title Hearing Loss or Deaf Gain. 

It was clear from the beginning that the audience comprised many from the deaf community as the visual cacophony before the show started was… er, deafening! The debate proceeded through a series of themes, such as sound, danger, access, communication, which enabled Jemina and Noel to tell witty stories about the benefits of signing if not the benefits of being deaf.

Jemina initially took the Devil’s Advocate position, challenging Noel to explain how he could appreciate music, listen to announcements on trains and planes or know when a fire alarm was sounding. Noel responded by explaining how he could appreciate music through vibrations and could stand right next to the speakers in a crowded bar or disco while speaking to a friend at the same time. Jemina countered with a very funny jerky display of how a signer might jumble a message on account of strobe lighting in the disco.

The two debaters then told more funny stories about their experiences of being able to communicate with friends across noisy streets or between trains passing one another or through the windows of cafés or even under water, before handing over to the audience to ask questions and tell their own stories. Members of the audience got up on stage to sign their stories and one even performed a little magic turn by pointing to a couple of women in the audience to tell them that one was called Fiona and they had met each other in Stirling. Gasps of admiration all round until he explained that he had “eye-dropped” (cf eavesdropped) on them as they were waiting in the queue for tickets.

I certainly learned some things I didn’t know before, for example about how visual and three-dimensional signing is and how signers’ peripheral vision becomes immensely sharpened so they are able to take in fast moving signals more quickly than hearing folk. I was also impressed at how much signing is a whole-body performance in a way that speaking isn’t and how much confidence that gave deaf people to stand up on a stage and tell their stories in very witty ways.

I laughed a lot and would recommend everyone to take in other sign language shows – definitely a great way to start my Festival going.

Passing as deaf or hearing: choosing cross-cultural identities

by Noel O’Connell

On 15^th June 2015, media reports raised questions about Rachel Dolezal’s background. A scholar of race and African-American culture and daughter of white parents, Dolezal had identified as Black. Stories of black people “passing” as white or white people as black have been a fascination for researchers and historians for many years. Racial passing is generally understood to mean identifying oneself as member of another race (historically the white race). In its simplicity, the practice of passing – presenting oneself as someone one is not – may be so intuitive or natural that people may not bother to ask: “What do you mean you’re black?” I would argue there is much to discover behind this simple question. We need ask why some people desire to transform their identity even while it is clear their persona contradicts the image of their original identity. I believe the issue around ‘passing’ mirror the experiences of deaf and hearing people. Ironically though this topic has rarely been given attention in Deaf Studies research. We actually know very little about what constitutes ‘passing’ or about how deaf and hearing people may want to claim an alternative identity.

In schools where policy prohibited sign language communication, deaf children were trained to ‘pass’ as hearing children in order to achieve a desired outcome. To pass as ‘hearing’ means to behave and act ‘normally’. The practice involves imitation – copying and displaying hearing people’s cultural traits, norms, and values. In postcolonial terms, we know that mimicry is the act of imitating the language, behaviour and attitude of the coloniser. Under oralism (an educational ideology that outlaws sign languages) mimicry is applied when deaf people copy hearing people’s attitude and patterns of behaviour. In passing-as-hearing or impersonation, the deaf person portrays an image of ‘hearingness’. By speaking, talking and listening to music, wearing hearing aids and cochlear implants, they reflect and highlight socially defined hearingness. Deaf people attending mainstream schools may be inclined to present a persona of hearingness given how are often exposed to hearing culture with little opportunity to learn British Sign Language (BSL).

Similar to what happened under colonialism, we assume people born into one particular category might end up being socialised into another category. Caitlyn Jenner (aka Bruce Jenner), former Olympic champion, for example, took on different gender or sex roles. When it was reported that Rachel Dolezal had been presenting a persona of a Black American, it drew comparison with Jenner. While the link between the two shows that race and gender have much in common, we find identifiable parallels exist with the experience of deaf people. But what does this say about hearing people? Do they claim to be culturally Deaf? I doubt there is any evidence that this is true. We might ask why anyone would want to claim an identity that, in the eyes of society, holds a less than ‘privileged’ status.

In terms of how a Deaf Studies researcher might approach the subject of passing, we might ask: how do people negotiate their identities around the deaf/hearing line? Do we assume we can change our deaf/hearing identities and become ‘hearing’ or ‘deaf’ while still displaying markers of our original culture? Are there obvious cultural markers that can be discarded? More research is required to find answers to these questions. In particular I’d argue that the notion of ‘passing’ should be analysed in Deaf Studies research where we can discuss how one constructs, claims, justifies or resists ideas around alternative identities.

On Deafhood Space

by Steve Emery

 

[English version]

Last week, I went to Paddy Ladd’s lecture. He was talking about “Deafhood – A Pedagogy”, which was about theories of teaching Deaf children.

It was really interesting, but there was one part of his lecture that really got me thinking,  when he was talking about  “Wounded Space”, which means “damaged space”…Well, what does he actually mean by that? This concept relates to the experiences of Deaf children through their development into adults and how the effects of oppression through oralism. The overwhelming and stifling experience of this has damaged Deaf children emotionally as individuals and subsequently as a community of adults. There’s a need to rebuild the community, to begin again.

During his lecture, Paddy Ladd explained what he meant by “Deafhood – A Pedagogy” and as he was doing this, it gave me a lot of ideas , and I was thinking about the process of change, how do we move forward and go through a transition from a Wounded Space to Deafhood?  To a place where we can become healthy, where we can improve, develop and build? I began to consider what we would need to do to be able to achieve this aim.

Paddy Ladd’s lecture focussed upon how the use of appropriate teaching methods is the way to achieve Deafhood. In my view, that is one part of it, to be able to advance and move forward, however, there are a number of other factors that need to be taken into account for us to attain this.

It’s very important for Deaf people to be a part of a collective group, this is essential. Yes we are all individuals, we have our own lives, but we need to be connected to each other as a collective, this is really important for us all,  it’s been recognised that we need to be a part of society.

The next thing that came to me, concerning the need to rebuild and develop a Deafhood Space, is that we need to have an input and participation from the wider community, not just from academics. Yes, academics are important individuals who have a place, but ordinary members of the community should not be excluded as the wider community of Deaf people need to participate and be involved in this process of development.

The third point I’d like to make is, that hearing people must be thinking, “Where do I fit in, into this Deafhood Space?”  This is really important , to be able to build a new space, Deaf and hearing people have to work together, as allies, to be involved in making and developing this new space.

My fourth and last point is about spirituality. Paddy Ladd talked about this in his lecture. Spirituality can mean many things, it can relate to religious beliefs for example. He gave his perspective that we Deaf people are of the Earth and that we are here for a reason. Our understanding and development of what that spiritual aspect of being Deaf means is a part of the development of Deafhood Space.

His lecture gave me a lot to ponder over especially this concept of Deafhood Space. Its very important for us to reflect and recognise the idea of Damaged Space, in ourselves and in others and how we can change this and make a transition by moving to and developing a positive space.  These are a few of the suggestions that I think are important for us to take into account when we are discussing moving towards Deafhood.

Can Scotland play a leading role in redefining Heritage?

The Intercultural Research Centre in LINCS is leading the next event in the Thought Leadership Series, which will take place on Wednesday 27th May 2015 at 6.00pm at the Postgraduate Centre, Heriot-Watt University, with the title “Can Scotland play a leading role in redefining Heritage?”

Before the referendum the SNP promised that in the event of a yes vote, Scotland would sign up to UNESCO’s Charter for Safeguarding of The Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH).

Given the result of the vote, Scotland is not in a position to sign the Charter unless it can persuade Westminster of the value of doing so – but should it? How do we define intangible heritage in Scotland today? Should language be explicitly identified as ICH and does this include British Sign Language and the languages of migrants? Does it include aspects of living heritage supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund? Has ICH any relevance at all for the Historic and Built Environment?

Involving representatives from across the heritage sector, this Thought Leadership Seminar will focus on the heightened awareness of ICH nationally and internationally. It will explore the implications of ICH for the public sector, from museums to the Historic Environment to universities. It will ask whether now is the time for Scotland to take a leading role in creatively re-defining the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage by pioneering a new holistic approach to heritage that will be of relevance on a global scale.

 

Programme

17:30	Arrival, refreshments and light buffet
18:00	Setting the Context Professor Máiréad Nic Craith Chair in European Culture and Heritage, Heriot-Watt University
18:10	Speakers Ann Packard (Chair) – Chairperson of the RSA Scotland Joanne Orr, CEO of Museums Galleries Scotland Luke Wormald, Head of Historic Environment Strategy, Scottish Government Janet Archer, CEO Creative Scotland Colin McLean, Head of Heritage Lottery Fund
19:00	Open Discussion
19:30	Informal discussion and refreshments
20:00	Event close

This event is free. You can now register online to attend

 

 

Upcoming EdSign Lectures

Tuesday, 3rd March 2015, 6.30pm – 8.00pm

[Title to be confirmed]
Frankie McLean
Paterson’s Land LG34, Moray House, School of Education, University of Edinburgh

Tuesday, 14th April 2015, 6.30pm – 8.00pm
Toward Normative Ethics in Community Interpreting: Moral Reasoning and Moral Discourse
Robyn Dean
Paterson’s Land LG34, Moray House, School of Education, University of Edinburgh

Tuesday, 12th May 2015, 6.30pm – 8.00pm
Seeing Through New Eyes – Deafhood Pedagogies and the Unrecognised Curriculum
Paddy Ladd
Paterson’s Land LG34, Moray House, School of Education, University of Edinburgh

~ Summer Signing Social Event ~
Tuesday, 2nd June 2015, 6.30pm – 8.00pm
Details to be confirmed!

All events are free. BSL / English interpretation available at all events (unless specified differently).

Please check for updates:
Website: www. edsignlectures.com / Facebook: www.facebook.com/edsignlectures / Twitter: www.twitter.com/EdSignLectures / Email: edsignlectures@gmail.com