CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU TRANSLATING, CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU INTERPRETING AND CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU COMMUNICATION CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU SUPPORT SERVICES CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU ACROSS THE PUBLIC CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU SECTOR IN SCOTLAND: CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU A Literature Review CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU
Central Research Unit CRU CRU CRU CRUCentral Research Unit CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU TRANSLATING, INTERPRETING AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT SERVICES ACROSS THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN SCOTLAND
A Literature Review
Joanna McPake and Richard Johnstone Scottish CILT
with
Joseph Lo Bianco Hilary McColl Gema Rodriguez Prieto Elizabeth Speake
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit 2002 Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office Ltd and addressed to: The Stationery Office Bookshop 71 Lothian Road Edinburgh EH3 9AZ Tel: 0870 606 5566 Fax: 0870 606 5588
The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers.
© Crown Copyright 2002 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to the Chief Research Officer at the Central Research Unit, 3rd Floor West Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG CONTENTS
SUMMARY I
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 AIMS OF THE REVIEW 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW 1 1.3 FORM OF THE FINAL REPORT 2 CHAPTER TWO CONDUCTING THE LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 BRIEFING FOR READERS AND INFORMATION OFFICER 3 2.2 SOURCING DOCUMENTS 3 2.3 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE 4 2.4 MEETING THE AIMS OF THE REVIEW 5 CHAPTER THREE DEFINITIONS OF TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT 8 3.1 SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE 8 3.2 LITERAL OR MEANINGFUL TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION 8 3.3 DIFFERENT ROLES OF INTERPRETERS 11 3.4 COMMUNICATION SUPPORT 12 CHAPTER FOUR EMERGING ISSUES AND THEMES 14 4.1 SOCIAL INCLUSION OR SERVICE PROVISION? 14 4.2 COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE 15 4.3 EMPHASES AND GAPS IN THE LITERATURE 16 4.4 EVIDENCE OF CHANGE 19 CHAPTER FIVE POLICY AND LEGISLATION BACKGROUND 21 5.1 EUROPEAN POLICY AND LEGISLATION 21 5.2 UK-WIDE AND SCOTTISH POLICY AND LEGISLATION: THE SHIFT TO ‘MAINSTREAMING’ 22 5.3 POLICY AT LOCAL OR ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL: THE NEED TO CATCH UP 23 5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT 24 5.5 THE CASE OF EDUCATION 24 5.6 PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES, POLICY, LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION, STRATEGIC PLANNING (AT NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS), PRACTICE GUIDELINES, STANDARDS/EVALUATION OF PRACTICE: A CRITICAL PATH 26 CHAPTER SIX SERVICE PROVISION 27 6.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTERS 6 TO 13) 27 6.2 WHO ARE THE SERVICE PROVIDERS? 27 6.3 KEY ISSUES CONCERNING SERVICE PROVISION 28 6.4 THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF SERVICE PROVIDERS 28 6.5 IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY IN PROVISION ACROSS DIFFERENT REGIONS OR LOCAL AGENCIES 31 6.6 CROSS-SECTORAL CO-ORDINATION 32 CHAPTER SEVEN MODELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY 33 7.1 ‘JUST LANGUAGE?’ THE ROLE OF THE INTERPRETER 33 7.2 DELIVERY PROCESSES 36 7.3 FUNDING MODELS 37 CHAPTER EIGHT SERVICE AWARENESS 39 CHAPTER NINE SERVICE USER NEEDS 41 9.1 RECOGNISING THE VALUE OF THE USER PERSPECTIVE 41 9.2 NEED TO RECOGNISE HETEROGENEITY OF TARGET GROUPS 42 9.3 VALUE OF FOCUS ON ACCESS FOR ALL 43 CHAPTER TEN TRAINING 44 10.1 PROVISION FOR TRAINING 44 10.2 TRAINING NEEDS OF INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS AND BILINGUAL SUPPORT WORKERS 44 10.3 TRAINING NEEDS OF OTHER STAFF 46 10.4 EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR THE WIDER PUBLIC 46 CHAPTER ELEVEN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 47 11.1 ENSURING QUALITY OF INTERPRETATION AND OF SUPPORT FOR INTERPRETATION 47 11.2 EXISTING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 47 CHAPTER TWELVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION 52
CHAPTER THIRTEEN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 54 13.1 SOCIAL INCLUSION PERSPECTIVE 54 13.2 COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUUM 55 13.3 EDUCATION AND TRAINING 57 13.4 STATISTICAL DATA 58 13.5 THE KNOWLEDGE BASE 59 13.6 SETTING STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTING THEM 60 REFERENCES 61
APPENDIX A LITERATURE IDENTIFICATION MATRIX 69
APPENDIX B FORMAT FOR READERS’ REPORTS ON DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED 70
APPENDIX C AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION 71
APPENDIX D AUSTRALIAN TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION SERVICES 78
APPENDIX E INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT SERVICES 85 SUMMARY
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW
The purpose of this review of research, policy and practice relating to translating, interpreting and communication support services across the public sector in Scotland is to inform the Translation, Interpreting and Communications Support Services Framework Group in its work to develop a national cross-sectoral framework of standards for these services. Guiding principles for the work of this group include the goal of ‘meeting the communications support and language needs of the community’ and avoiding discrimination through ‘failure to deal with these issues and other barriers to equal access’ (Scottish Forum for Public Service Interpreting and Translating, 2000: Good Practice Guidelines).
2. THE REVIEW PROCESS
The review was conducted by a team of researchers and reviewers based at the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research at the University of Stirling, over a period of ten weeks in the summer of 2001. In that period, approximately 100 relevant books, papers and other documentation were identified and reviewed by the team.
3. DEFINITIONS USED IN THE REVIEW
The following definitions of ‘translation’, ‘interpretation’ and ‘communication support’ apply to this review:
translation: the conversion of written texts from one language to another
interpretation: the conversion of speech from one language (including British Sign Language and other sign languages) to another
communication support: a variety of ways of supporting communication with those who do not use the conventional forms of spoken or written English, including Braille and other tactile forms of writing, lip-reading and lip-speaking, and various communication technologies.
Discussion of definitions also raises the following issues:
• the inappropriateness of expecting translation or interpretation to provide an exact word-for-word transposition of one language into another; the expectation of ‘verbatim’ translation or interpretation ignores the fact that different languages encode social and cultural experience in very different ways; • the importance of sensitivity to social and cultural differences between speakers of the two languages between which translation or interpretation occurs, both at macro level (i.e. the entire community of speakers of the language in question)
i and at micro level (i.e. the particular community, and in some cases, the individuals within that community); • the relationship of the interpreter to those for whom interpretation is provided, ranging from impartial professional to informed advocate.
4. KEY THEMES OF THIS REPORT
4.1 Social inclusion or service provision?
The service provision model focuses on communication barriers experienced by those who do not use conventional forms of spoken or written English in encounters with public sector agencies. This model entails supplementing established approaches to communication between providers and clients with specialist provision (e.g. the use of interpreters in interviews, the translation of leaflets and information sheets into other languages, the use of special telephone and computer technologies) and is problematic in that these supplementary services are regarded as expensive and difficult to obtain.
The social inclusion model starts from the perspective that everyone has a right to the information and support which will enable them to participate in the social and cultural life of their community, and that therefore alternative approaches to communication in every area of public life need to be built in to provision at the outset.
There is a shift in perspective in recent documentation, particularly at national level, from a service provision model to one of social inclusion. The social inclusion model has extensive implications for the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support, but these are only beginning to be explored by public sector agencies.
4.2 Communication and language
In the context of the shift from service provision to social inclusion, there is also a need for a shift in thinking about languages to thinking about communication. Monolingual English- speakers traditionally have a poor understanding of what multilingualism means, feeling both that language learning is an extremely difficult task, but also that interpretation and translation is easy for those who know two or more languages. Thus monolinguals cannot contemplate learning to speak other languages themselves, but devalue the skills of those who can. A shift in thinking, towards the importance of communicating with all those whom one encounters, would have more positive implications, given that ‘communication skills’ are always highly regarded by employers and employees. The concept of ‘speaking another language’ seems to suggest a requirement for native-like fluency; but the concept of ‘communicating’ can be understood to mean knowing enough to facilitate service encounters.
4.3 Emphases and gaps in the literature
More material related to health, social work and justice than to education, training and employment, raising the possibility of institutional discrimination. This is based on the notion that people for whom translation, interpretation and communication support should be provided are primarily the concern of certain agencies, given the nature of their ‘problems’.
ii 4.4 Evidence of change
There is little evidence of change in the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support services over the last ten years. While considerable attention has been devoted to reviewing provision and devising policy or guidelines, there is relatively little evidence that practice in public sector agencies has taken on board the criticism emerging from reviews, inspection or research, or that policy statements or guidelines are implemented. (There are of course some outstanding exceptions.) The shift from service provision to social inclusion will entail much greater attention to communication issues and much more extensive and more flexible provision.
4.5 User perspectives
Only a few documents were written by users of translation, interpretation and communication support services. A small number were based on extensive consultation with users. Where the user perspective is discernible, often very different issues are raised from those on which documents from service providers focus. Considerably more attention needs to be given to the experience of those who communicate in ways other than conventional spoken or written English. This should concern their needs, interests and aspirations, and also the communication strategies they use both to survive and to succeed in a society where it is difficult to make themselves heard.
5. POLICY AND LEGISLATION BACKGROUND
Legislation and policy at European level have focused, over the last ten years, on achieving greater social cohesion and helping to bring about a more equal, just and inclusive society. The reasons for these emphases are not simply altruistic: it is argued that the European economy needs the contribution of those who traditionally have been excluded, and that marginalisation of sections of the community itself entails high costs.
European and international law also provides a framework for rights and remedies against discrimination, and for UK and Scottish government commitments to promote equality. One of the major ways in which successive UK governments have tackled inequalities and discrimination is through anti-discrimination legislation, such as the Race Relations 1976 as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people under the Disability Discrimination Act, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way they provide their services, and will also be required by the updated race legislation to ensure public access to the information and services they provide.
There has also been a recent shift in both UK and European policy towards ‘mainstreaming’ (i.e. ensuring that equity and rights issues are incorporated into all programmes and legislation) as well as towards promoting inclusion and the empowerment of communities so that they can take an active role in planning and providing services. The implications of such a shift for TICS services are likely to be considerable, as these services are required to facilitate inclusion and empowerment and to promote the participation of those who are marginalised because of communication barriers. Local authorities and other regional agencies will need to take account of these changes in their future thinking about translation,
iii interpretation and communication support. As yet there is limited evidence that the shift at national level has translated into local or regional policy or practice.
6. SERVICE PROVISION
There are two groups of service providers. The first consists of interpretation and translation agencies, and free-lance interpreters and translators. The second group is the various public sector bodies, which provide services (e.g. health, social work, education, criminal justice services) to (among others) people with hearing or visual impairments, and people who speak languages other than English. These bodies are regarded as service providers in the sense that they need to find ways of communicating with service users who do not communicate in standard spoken or written English.
Three main themes concerning the problems facing service providers and some of the solutions emerge from the literature. These are:
• the knowledge base of service providers, important in order to enable them to identify and understand the needs of the groups they serve, but limited firstly because of the absence of accurate national and local statistics, and secondly by fragmentation of responsibilities for translation, interpretation and communication support services within and across agencies; • consistency in provision across different regions or local authorities, compromised by differences in the importance attached to translation, interpretation and communication support issues in different regions or authorities, partly on the basis of the perceived relevance (‘the numbers game’) and partly on grounds of cost, resources, support and training, and managerial experience; • the need for cross-sectoral co-ordination, given the complexities of the responsibilities of different agencies and the difficulties which individuals can have in understanding and negotiating these; it is suggested that the internet would be one way of enabling agencies to make links, eliminate overlap and fill gaps.
7. MODELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
7.1 The role of the interpreter
Two contrasting arguments emerge from the literature concerning the role of the interpreter. On the one hand, there is a powerful push towards the professionalisation of the interpreters and translators. This would enhance the quality of the interpretation and translation, and would ensure that the fee structure, training and qualifications were appropriate to the demands of the task. At the same time, it would outlaw the use of ‘informal’ interpreters and translators – family (including children), friends, bilingual staff who happen to be in the agency in question. The standard of interpretation of these ‘informal interpreters’ is often questionable, and their involvement can compromise confidentiality, as well as raise (particularly in the casual use of bilingual staff as interpreters) issues of institutional racism. On the other hand, are those who argue that the ‘neutral professional’ is not always the most appropriate role for interpreters or translators; on occasion, familiarity with the professional field, cultural sensitivity, and empathy with those for whom interpretation, translation or
iv communication support is provided is more important. These commentators argue for more trained bilingual workers, in addition to professional interpreters and translators. They are not always opposed to the use of ‘informal’ interpreters, particularly when the client has chosen them.
These positions, often seen as in opposition to each other, represent a continuum in provision which runs from ‘pure’ professional interpreting, at one end, through trained specialist bilingual support workers to informal family and friend helpers at the other. In all cases, issues such as linguistic skills, familiarity with the professional field, cultural awareness, relationship with clients and providers, and issues of confidentiality need to be taken into account.
7.2 The delivery process
The ways in which interpreters work have been studied in most detail in the literature relating to legal reporting. From this, it is clear that misinterpretation occurs from time to time, though it may not be easy for anyone (other than possibly the interpreter and/or the person for whom the interpretation is provided) to be aware of this when it happens. Good interpreters take their time and are not afraid to interrupt proceedings to ask for further clarification. Because of the possibility of misinterpretation, and other questions to do more generally with the competence of interpreters, several commentators recommend that all interpretation is audio recorded or, in the case of BSL interpretation, video recorded. Then, if necessary, the person for whom interpretation was provided (and his or her lawyers if appropriate) can establish what was actually said. Currently this appears to be an unusual occurrence. One paper questions the value of this, however, on the grounds that errors can only be checked after the trial is over, when significant errors may have led to an outcome that more accurate interpretation might have changed. For these reasons, teams of interpreters monitoring each other at the time are preferred to recording, in the context of the trial. There is no alternative to audio- or video-recording in a police station
7.3 Funding issues
Funding of interpretation, translation or communication support is widely held to be problematic, but there are few examples in the literature of attempts to deal with this creatively. It is clear that many service providers condone informal interpreting primarily on the grounds of cost, and that this is detrimental to developing a commitment to high quality provision. Providers may also be unaware of the funding which is available to help with costs.
8. SERVICE AWARENESS
It seems clear that awareness of the public sector services available is low among people who do not communicate in conventional forms of spoken or written English. Ways of improving awareness include:
• translating leaflets into other languages and providing BSL video information; • employment of information officers;
v • outreach work; • using new information technologies to promote services.
The first two are the most commonly adopted approaches, although each has drawbacks. Outreach work targeting people who do not communicate in conventional forms of spoken or written English seems to be limited. The use of new information technologies also appears to be only in the very early stages of development and is controversial given that target groups are among the least likely to have access to computers and other technologies such as teletext.
9. SERVICE USER NEEDS
Very few documents represent the service user perspective in detail. Those that do, show that users’ concerns and interests can often be very different from those assumed to be significant by service providers. There is very clearly a need to go beyond stereotypical assumptions about the people for whom translation, interpretation and communication support services are provided, in particular the assumption that these people can be considered to be homogeneous groups (‘ethnic minorities’, ‘deaf people’, ‘disabled people’, etc.) or indeed ‘communities’. A greater focus on diversity and individuality could have beneficial effects, ultimately, in moving towards facilitating ‘access for all’ rather than limiting provision to specific categories of client in specific contexts, as defined by providers rather than users.
10. TRAINING
Training is needed for interpreters and translators, and for bilingual staff whose work includes responsibilities for facilitating communication. However there is a desperate lack of both appropriate provision for training and of funding to enable those who wish to work as translators and interpreters, and those who already work in this capacity with no or minimum level training, to take up the opportunities which exist.
Other public sector professionals also need training in communication skills, particularly (in this context) in understanding the roles of interpreters, translators and communication support mechanisms and making judgements about appropriate approaches to communication with those who do not use conventional forms of spoken and written English. There is also a need for education and training to enhance the communication skills of the wider public. Moves to improve the training situation include the development of the National Register of Public Sector Interpreters, which guarantees a minimum level of qualifications and experience; and the inclusion of communication skills training in other professional training courses for public sector staff.
Greater awareness is needed among educational providers of the importance of maintaining and developing existing skills in community languages (particularly literacy skills) and of enabling more people (particularly those with relatives or friends who are Deaf, or who can expect to encounter Deaf people in their professional lives) to learn British Sign Language.
vi 11. GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Guidelines or standards need to be established both in relation to the quality of translation, interpretation and communication support and to ensure equity in the contexts in which translation, interpretation and communication support is used. Currently there are no clearly established guidelines or standards relating specifically to translation, interpretation and communication support. A range of documents relating to codes of practice, standards, guidelines, advice, etc. relevant to broader fields such as racial equality or disability rights have a degree of relevance, however, and some make detailed recommendations concerning provision.
However, few of these documents include strategies for ensuring that their recommendations are implemented. Such strategies would include establishing a timescale for change to occur, considering the funding implications, setting up monitoring and evaluation procedures, proposing rewards for compliance or sanctions for non-compliance, and making a commitment to publishing the results of evaluation studies. Much work appears to be devoted to the development of standards or guidelines, but much less attention to how these can be implemented. The effect is that little changes on the ground and that in time, the same recommendations are repeated by the same or different organisations.
12. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Few documents address questions of how to conduct monitoring or evaluation exercises in relation to the provision of translation, interpretation or communication support. We point to some checklists, performance indicators and benchmarks of relevance, and suggest that interest in the question of monitoring and evaluation may be increasing, given a number of recent documents that include discussion of this issue. There are few examples of evaluation reports; if these are understood to systematic studies measuring services against agreed targets.
vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
This constitutes the final report of the literature review of research, policy and practice relating to translating, interpreting and communication support services across the public sector in Scotland, conducted by a team of readers and researchers based at the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (Scottish CILT) at the University of Stirling.
1.1 AIMS OF THE REVIEW
The aims of the review have been:
• to analyse all relevant and accessible published literature, unpublished documentation and work in progress relating to research, policy and practice in the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support services across the public sector; • to focus primarily on Scotland, but also on material from elsewhere in the UK, from other English-speaking countries, in particular Australia, and, if feasible within the time available, from other European countries, particularly Scandinavia; • to identify key issues of common concern or relevance to translators, interpreters and others providing communication support for a range of clients or users (who may be d/Deaf and/or blind and/or users of languages other than English as their primary mode of communication; or organisations, voluntary groups or others who act on their behalf, as intermediaries or in other supportive roles) in a range of public sector contexts (e.g. health services, justice and the law, education, housing, benefits, employment services); • to identify issues which are distinctive or different in relation to each group of clients/ users or in specific public sector contexts; • to identify significant gaps in the literature; • to identify innovative policy or practice in any or all fields; • to frame the review in the legal and policy context for the provision of these services; • to make recommendations for further research or development work required.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW
The purpose of the review is to inform the Translation, Interpreting and Communications Support Services Framework Group in its work to develop a national cross-sectoral framework of standards for these services. Guiding principles for the work of this group include the goal of ‘meeting the communications support and language needs of the community’ and avoiding discrimination through ‘failure to deal with these issues and other barriers to equal access’ (Scottish Forum for Public Service Interpreting and Translating, 2000: Good Practice Guidelines). These principles have therefore also informed the focus of the review.
1 1.3 FORM OF THE FINAL REPORT
This report is in five sections. The first section (Chapters 1 and 2) describes the remit for the review and the extent to which the authors believe that they have met the aims set. The second section (Chapters 3, 4 and 5) explores some of the key themes emerging from the review and provides detail of the policy context in which the review is set. The third section (Chapters 6 to 12) deals with specific aspects of the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support which the original specification for this review raised as significant: these include, service provision, service delivery, service awareness, training, standards and guidelines, and monitoring and evaluation. The fourth section (Chapter 13) draws conclusions from the review and makes recommendations for those involved the task of developing a framework for translation, interpretation and communication support provision in Scotland. The last section summarises the principal documents reviewed, in relation to major public sector fields: health, social work, education, etc.
2 CHAPTER TWO CONDUCTING THE LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins by summarising the main stages of the review from the end of May, when work on the review began, and the submission of the final report in October. We then consider the extent to which the aims originally set for the review have been met or modified.
2.1 BRIEFING FOR READERS AND INFORMATION OFFICER
At the start of the project, three readers and an information officer were briefed on the aims and objectives of the review. The briefing drew on the original and the amended proposals submitted to the Scottish Executive and focused on the draft literature identification matrix and the draft format for readers’ reports on documentation reviewed, both of which were included in the amended proposal. (These are included as Appendices A and B to this report.)
2.2 SOURCING DOCUMENTS
Just over 100 relevant documents were identified by the Scottish Executive and by the information officer at Scottish CILT. All the documents reviewed are listed in the reference section at the end of this report.
There is a degree of bias towards documents available via the internet in the approach to sourcing used for this review. There were two reasons for our focus on internet sources. Firstly, much of the material we needed to review falls into the category of ‘grey literature’ – i.e. unpublished documents, or documents with restricted circulation, typical of policy or discussion documents from service providers or pressure groups. In the past, it has been difficult to track and source such documents easily, but the internet has made this kind of material much more accessible. The existence of the internet has encouraged those disseminating such material to update it more frequently and to focus more on readability than may have been the case in the past. Our readers noted considerable improvements in readability even within the last five years. We attribute these improvements to the greater access to information, which the internet has brought about and to a consequent greater awareness of the importance of presentation.
The second reason for our focus on material available via the internet has been the speed with which it has been possible to acquire this kind of material. In contrast, published material of relevance has been more difficult to identify, because we rely on second hand accounts (e.g. abstracts) which have not always been accurate in their assessment of the relevance of particular documents (whereas we can access and make immediate judgements in relation to internet material). They have been more difficult to source, as much material is published by small, sometimes defunct, publishing houses and difficult to acquire even via interlibrary loan. They have also been slower to appear, because of the timescales involved in securing interlibrary loans or receiving publications direct from publishers.
What are the implications of this potential bias towards documents available via the internet? Most of the internet documents are policy or discussion documents from service providers or pressure groups. Academic research tends still to be print-bound. Some of the academic research reports and articles which we have read appear more reflective, taking a more
3 balanced look at the roles and responsibilities of different ‘players’ and drawing on the experiences of individual service users as well as taking into account the views of providers and formally constituted groups. However, this is not true of all the research material we have been able to access, some of which has been of questionable value. In some cases, we feel that the distance between researchers or academic writers and practitioners has prevented the former from understanding or tackling some difficult questions. In contrast, practitioners and policy makers tend to have a commitment to the issues and an understanding of the implications based on experience. Any flaws in the material that they produce can usually be attributed to being too close to the situation and unable therefore to look beyond the immediate context.
2.3 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE
The readers used the format for readers’ reports on documentation reviewed (included as Appendix B) to summarise what they read. In order to write this report, the project directors then read all the summaries, and returned to the original documents for further information, where this was needed.
The literature identification matrix was used to ensure that the review covered as many categories and factors as possible, and that gaps were easily identifiable. The completed version of the matrix (included and discussed in Section 4.3) therefore maps the range of documents included in the review.
Two substantial discussions involving the readers took place, on 13 and 26 June. These discussions concerned issues emerging from the documentation, using the headings suggested in the Scottish Executive specification for this review:
• service provision – availability, access, barriers, appropriateness, urban/ rural; • models of service delivery – formal/ informal, funding, procurement, training, affordability; • service awareness – information, promotion, guidance; • service user needs – user groups and individuals, diversity and choice, unmet need; • training and standards – quality control, professionalism; • monitoring and evaluation – of demand and provision, of service delivery, standards; • innovative developments – partnership working, use of ICT.
Discussion focused specifically on these areas, but also raised wider, ‘overarching’ issues. Following these discussions, the interim report of the project was produced and circulated on 29 June to Scottish Executive staff and members of the TICS group. The interim report was discussed with those members of the TICS group who were able to attend, at two meetings, on 4 and 26 July, and issues raised in these discussions or in writing by members unable to attend the meetings have been taken into account in the production of this final report.
4 2.4 MEETING THE AIMS OF THE REVIEW
In this section, we look briefly at the aims of the review, as set out in the amended proposal and consider the extent to which we have been able to meet these aims, or to which they have had to be modified.
Aim 1 to analyse all relevant and accessible published literature, unpublished documentation and work in progress relating to research, policy and practice in the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support services across the public sector
While we believe that we have identified and reviewed most of the most immediately significant material relating to guidelines and policy, we are not convinced that we have been able to review all the available research, for the reasons mentioned in section 2.2, to do with the timescale for this work and the difficulty in obtaining access to this material.
We note that a shift in focus from ‘service provision’ to ‘social inclusion’ (discussed in Section 4.1 of this report) means that the scope of our reading should potentially be much wider (endless, according to one reader) and makes it difficult for us to assess the extent to which we have identified the most relevant documents.
However, it also seems clear that there has been no other work which attempts to bring together issues relating to translation, interpretation and communication support services in the public sector, in the way envisaged in this review, and that the review is likely therefore both to support the development of ‘joined up thinking’ and to generate new ideas and perspectives.
Aim 2 to focus primarily on Scotland, but also on material from elsewhere in the UK, from other English-speaking countries, in particular Australia, and, if feasible within the time available, from other European countries, particularly Scandinavia
The review deals principally with Scottish and other UK material. Additional material, which was acquired too late for inclusion in the main report has been included in Appendices D, (relating to the situation in Australia) and E (concerning international perspectives more generally).
Aim 3 to identify key issues of common concern or relevance to translators, interpreters and others providing communication support for a range of clients or users (who may be d/Deaf and/or blind and/or users of languages other than English as their primary mode of communication; or organisations, voluntary groups or others who act on their behalf, as intermediaries or in other supportive roles) in a range of public sector contexts (e.g. health services, justice and the law, education, housing, benefits, employment services)
The body of this report identifies common ground in these areas, based on our reading of the literature.
5 Aim 4 to identify issues which are distinctive or different in relation to each group of clients/ users or in specific public sector contexts
The matrix which was constructed for this review and designed to ensure that coverage of the field was as comprehensive as possible, shows the range of different clients/ user groups and of the various public sector context in which translation, interpretation and communication support services might be sought (see Appendix A). Clearly, there is potential for considerable specialisation within the cells of the matrix, and some of the documents reviewed are highly specific, dealing with one client group, or a subgroup, and in only one field within the public sector, or a particular element within that field. Others cut across a number of cells, for example, by dealing with the translation and interpretation needs of a particular client group, in a range of public sector context, or by dealing with the needs of different client groups (e.g. d/Deaf people, people with visual impairments, people who are deafblind, and people who do not speak English) in relation to one sector (e.g. the courts). Where differences between particular client or user groups, or between particular fields within the public sector are of significance, we have drawn attention to this in the report.
There are two ways in which ‘difference’ within the overall field seems to manifest itself. First, from the texts reviewed, more work seems to have been done in some domains than in others - compare for example the small number of entries in community care with the larger number in justice and law. Second, we believe the evidence suggests that much needs to be done in education if the conditions for an eventual ‘normalisation’ of a social inclusion model of interpretation, translation and communication support are to be created within our society. The 1995 CRE report on special needs in Strathclyde for example showed clearly that bilingualism among ethnic minority pupils was viewed as a problem rather than as a potential resource and that the instruments for detecting this potential were non-existent.
Aim 5 to identify significant gaps in the literature
The evidence which we have thus far been able to gather suggests to us that there are gaps: (a) in coverage of particular domains of public policy, already mentioned above; (b) in the provision of a national information database which could be easily accessed by key stakeholders and which would allow an authoritative 'map' of the overall area to be created, monitored and up-dated, enabling stakeholders in one sector to see where they were situated in the overall 'wood' as well as confront the particular ‘trees’ which were immediately in front of them; (c) in the participation of client groups in the development and monitoring of national and local initiatives; and (d) in robust research studies. In this last regard, we find that most of the documentation has been concerned with policy development or policy monitoring/evaluation, but that there has been relatively little high quality research. There is undoubtedly a major research agenda to be developed, agreed and addressed, with scope for both specialist researchers and professional practitioners to contribute.
Aim 6 to identify innovative policy or practice in any or all fields
Identifying innovative policy and practice has proved more difficult than expected. Our reading has not enabled us to identify definitive and strong policy guidelines specifically in relation to translation, interpretation and communication support, although we have found
6 valuable material of more general relevance to racial equality and disability rights issues from which inferences relevant to translation, interpretation and communication support can be drawn.
We have found it difficult to identify practice that incorporates the social inclusion perspective, which we argue in this review, is becoming a fundamental principle on which provision should be based. There are undoubtedly committed public sector agencies in Scotland which have made strenuous efforts to make appropriate provision. However, in the absence of effective monitoring and evaluation, and particularly evaluation which incorporates the views of service users, it is difficult to identify effective or innovative approaches.
Aim 7 to frame the review in the legal and policy context for the provision of these services
Chapter 5 contextualises the review in relation to European, UK-wide and national (Scottish) policy and legislation.
Aim 8 to make recommendations for further research or development work required
Chapter 13 makes recommendations for the work of the framework group. These imply further research and development work.
7 CHAPTER THREE DEFINITIONS OF TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT
In the course of our reading, we became aware that a variety of different definitions or understandings of the terms ‘translation’, ‘interpretation’ and ‘communication support’ was in operation among different bodies and different writers. For the purposes of the review, we feel it is necessary to draw attention to differing perspectives here, and also to form ‘working definitions’ for the terms as used in this report.
3.1 SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE
Conventionally, translation is seen as relating to the rendering of a document written in one language into another, while interpretation is understood as the representation of what has been said in one language in another. Clearly, in the context of this review, translation could be seen to include the rendering of written English in Braille or other tactile forms accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. Similarly, interpretation here includes the representation of spoken English in sign language. In passing, we note that other spoken or written languages apart from English could on occasion require translation not only into English but also into Braille or other forms of tactile communication or into sign language (not necessarily British Sign Language). In reality, we have come across few documents which make reference to multiple translation or interpretation needs or provision.
Issues of terminology are raised when what is required is the transforming of written texts into spoken texts (e.g. the use of voice technology to read texts presented in writing on computers, or indeed the well-established practice of supplying audio tape versions of books, newspapers or other written documents) or the making of video sign language texts to stand as a record alongside written English versions (e.g. for courtroom ‘transcripts’). For the purposes of this report, unless otherwise stated, such activities should be regarded as included under the terms ‘translation and interpretation’ although they may not precisely fit this description.
3.2 LITERAL OR MEANINGFUL TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION
A second issue in understanding the terminology relates to the ways in which ‘lay people’ (i.e. in this case non-linguists) understand what is involved in acts of translation or interpretation. Often there is an expectation or even a demand that texts or utterances be conveyed ‘word for word’ or ‘verbatim’ in the other language (or mode of communication). In fact, there is extensive and complex debate among linguists about appropriate approaches to translation and interpretation in various contexts and to what extent the ‘verbatim’ model can be regarded as valid or desirable.
Different languages develop different conceptual models of the world, thereby making it difficult on occasion to convey in one word a concept which is well-established in one language but not in another. For example, one document (Cohen et al. 1999) pointed out that there is no word in Bengali for ‘stress’, making it less straightforward for Bangladeshi patients to discuss symptoms or understand diagnoses connected to stress. Conversely, there
8 are many concepts in other languages that cannot easily be translated into English. A number of Scots words such as ‘slaister’, ‘dreich’ or ‘swither’ are good examples. From other languages, words such as ‘zeitgeist’ (German for ‘the prevailing mood of a certain period’), ‘koyaanisqatsi’ (Hopi for ‘nature out of balance’) or ‘dharma’ (Sanskrit for ‘each person’s unique ideal path in life and knowledge of how to find it’) are sometimes used in English because of the lack of an equivalent term. Perhaps in the context of this review, it would have been useful if English had a comparable term to the French ‘animateur’ (‘a person who can communicate difficult ideas to general audiences’).
However, problems with the concept of ‘verbatim’ translation or interpretation run deeper than the need on occasion for paraphrase. Different languages reflect the different social and cultural understandings of the people who use them. A ‘literal’ translation from one language to another can be linguistically correct but culturally entirely inappropriate. For example, Saini and Rowling (1997) cite a leaflet concerning home care for people with AIDS, translated into Italian (for Italian-speaking Australians). Not only did the literal translation of this document produce Italian of a high level of complexity which the authors deemed beyond the literacy levels of most Italian Australians, but it also took no account of different cultural customs relating to home deaths and arrangements for funerals, simply translating advice relevant to the anglophone community without regard for different expectations and practices among Italian Australians. Another example comes from a study of cultural issues affecting interpretation provision for speakers of aboriginal languages in northern Canada (Fiola 2000). In one language, Kaska, there is no word for ‘guilty’ and thus it has been difficult to translate the standard opening question in a court case: ‘Are you innocent or guilty?’ in a meaningful way. The version eventually selected indicates how different Kaska speakers are, in cultural terms, from English speakers: in trials involving Kaska speakers, the question asked is ‘Do you want a chance to tell your story?’
More simply, slight differences in the implications of certain terms can make significant differences. The literature on court interpreting provides a number of examples of this, such as a Spanish-speaking woman convicted of murder rather than of homicide (i.e. manslaughter – the example came from the USA) because of a failure on her part, or on the part of the interpreter, to understand the significant legal differences between the two terms (Berk-Seligson 1990). Another legal example concerned a French woman appearing as a witness in a court case in England. Asked if she had a criminal record, the woman replied that she had, correctly – as every French citizen, for legal purposes, has a ‘criminal record’. However, this reply was likely to have influenced the jury inappropriately. It is noted in the literature that mistakes of this kind tend to be attributed to the shortcomings of individual interpreters, rather than seen as indicating a wider need for cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity in courtroom contexts (Morris 1995; MVA Consultancy 1996).
This means that translators and interpreters have to have more than simply an excellent command of both languages. They need to be sensitive to social and cultural differences between those who speak each language, both at macro level (i.e. the entire community of speakers of the language in question) and at micro level (i.e. the particular community, and in some cases, the individuals within that community) for whom the translation or interpretation is provided. Further theoretical discussion relating to these issues can be found in Jentsch 1998.
For example, a translator or interpreter working between Bengali and English needs not only to know about linguistic and socio-cultural conventions relating to Bengali speaking
9 communities in the countries from which the language originates (in India and Bangladesh) but also to be aware of the extent to which the Bengali-speaking community in Scotland converges and diverges from these conventions. This includes an understanding of the relationship between Sylheti (a dialect of Bengali spoken by many people of Bangladeshi origin in Scotland) and ‘standard Bengali’, knowledge of literacy practices in Scottish-based Bengali-speaking communities, and an understanding of how socio-cultural practices deriving from the community of origin have been adapted to the Scottish setting: for example, how practices relating to strict segregation of the sexes, which has been the norm in rural Bangladesh, are maintained, adapted or challenged by Scottish based communities. A useful account of language use and associated cultural practices among a range of different linguistic communities in the UK can be found in Alladina and Edwards 1991a and b.
The need for such expertise and such sensitivity raises complex issues about the community to which the translator or interpreter ‘belongs’. Different documents, discussing different contexts, make contrary recommendations in this regard. Some people regard it as important that the translator/ interpreter comes from the minority group (i.e. the particular linguistic minority in question, or someone who is d/Deaf or visually impaired). It is argued that translators or interpreters who come from the majority group (i.e. the English speaking community or the hearing or seeing population) cannot understand linguistic nuance or acquire the socio-cultural sensitivities required if they do not themselves belong to the ‘speech community’ in question (Kyle et al. 1997). Conversely, it is pointed out that the use of translators and interpreters from minority groups is problematic when issues of confidentiality are concerned. In a small community, everyone knows everyone else and people may be concerned that details of their private lives become public knowledge (Pankaj 2000).
In addition, we argue that translators and interpreters need to be aware of linguistic nuance and socio-cultural practices among both linguistic groups in order to do their job effectively. Sometimes this will involve difficult or even impossible choices. For example, from our own experience we recalled a research project involving Japanese families, for which all the relevant information concerning research procedures was translated into Japanese. Before use, the translations were reviewed by members of the Japanese community in Scotland who were adamant that the Japanese versions – literal reproductions of the original English text – would provoke a hostile response as they violated cultural expectations of indirectness in the provision of information. A second translation, which did not replicate the English text but described the research in a culturally appropriate way, was commissioned. However, this translation, which was extremely vague in relation to the research procedures concerned, violated the researchers’ commitment to an ethical code in which people who are invited to participate in a study should be in a position to give informed consent. Pragmatism led to the adoption of the second translation, but ethical questions remained unanswered (McPake and Powney 1998).
One solution to this problem would be to recruit more bilingual workers (rather than interpreters) who would, by virtue of their position as the interface between the agencies for which they work and the communities they serve, be in a much better position to bridge cultural differences and therefore to communicate more effectively. A number of documents make such recommendations or appear to be moving to this position: e.g. Kyle 1997, which reports that Deaf people would prefer to communicate with Deaf health workers rather than with hearing workers via BSL interpreters; and Pankaj 2000, which recommends that more bilingual mediators be recruited for family mediation services. In some circumstances, this
10 appears to be feasible: e.g. Rennie et al. 1991 report on a conference at which training and professional development for bilingual workers were discussed; and Corsellis 1998, making recommendations for the development of a multilingual probation service in the West Midlands, makes clear distinctions between the role of interpreters and bilingual workers. The implication from both of these documents is that bilingual workers are specifically recruited and are recognised as having a valuable and distinctive role to play, in some parts of England. Nevertheless, it is difficult to foresee a situation in which the communication needs of all linguistic groups could be catered for in this way. This report therefore assumes that interpreters and translators will continue to be necessary even if the number of bilingual workers increases.
We note here that the terms ‘translation’ and ‘interpretation’ are sometimes used in relation to the difference between ‘literal reproduction of the text in another language’ (= translation) and ‘socio-culturally sensitive representation of the meanings of the text in another language’ (= interpretation). We do not use the terms in this sense in this report.
3.3 DIFFERENT ROLES OF INTERPRETERS
The different contexts in which public sector interpreters work lead to the need for them to adopt different roles.
In court interpreting, the positioning of the interpreter is an issue discussed in some detail in the literature (Brennan and Brown 2000; Morris 1995). The interpreter tends to be placed in a highly visible position and therefore often becomes a ‘player’ in the courtroom ‘performance’. This has implications for others’ understanding of the interpreter’s role. For example, the interpreter can be seen as a substitute for the person for whom the interpretation is being provided, with questions being addressed to the interpreter rather than to the relevant individual (i.e. in the third person). It has been noted that interpreters sometimes adopt this role themselves, replying for the person for whom they are interpreting, rather than conveying his or her words. The literature tends to take a critical view of this (the ‘does he take sugar?’ approach) but interpreters themselves are unsure of the most appropriate way of handling this issue. To use the first person in some court cases can mean sustaining the full force of aggressive prosecution questioning in person, for example, or to be attacked verbally by the accused or witness as though the probing questions which the interpreter is relaying are being put by the interpreter her/himself.
The interpreter’s performance in the courtroom can – potentially – become the object of considerable scrutiny because of the possibility that misinterpretation or questionable interpretation might influence the outcome of the case. In practice it appears that the degree of monitoring and scrutiny which might be thought to form an appropriate safeguard in cases involving interpretation is rarely implemented. However, there is discussion about the possibility of different interpreters being employed by prosecution and defence, and of additional interpreters monitoring the performance of those doing the work, perhaps with the specific intention of identifying aspects of the interpretation which might be challenged at a later stage. Clearly the context in which court interpreters work has the potential to be highly stressful for these kinds of reasons.
In contrast, interpreters working in other services, such as healthcare or social work, are less likely to find their ‘performance’ so closely scrutinised, and are also, perhaps, less likely to
11 find themselves in open conflict with those for whom the interpretation is provided. However, in this context, the question is whether the role of the interpreter is simply that of conveying information between the two parties, or whether it becomes one of advocacy for the customer/ client. The literature reveals different views on this issue, with some convinced that it is inappropriate for interpreters to move into the advocacy role, both on the grounds of lack of preparation for this position and in view of the need to be impartial. Others, however, point out that a number of interpreters (particularly those who work with people who are d/Deaf or hearing impaired) come to this role from experience as social workers and in fact often fulfil both a social work and an interpreting function. In this context, it is argued, it would be inappropriate for the interpreter to take a ‘neutral’ or ‘disengaged’ stance. What is foregrounded from this perspective is the interpreter’s understanding of the ‘cultural context’ (i.e. an awareness of the lifestyle implications of having impaired or no hearing) and of the individual’s history (through relationships built up over time in a social work context) rather than purely linguistic skills (Parratt 1995).
3.4 COMMUNICATION SUPPORT
‘Communication support’ refers primarily to means of aiding communication which do not involve translation or interpretation. Examples include the use of lipspeakers to aid lipreading, and various technologies used to assist communication. Methods of communicating which supplement spoken or written English are referred to as augmentative and alternative communication.1 Issues surrounding provision of communication support can appear less complex than those associated with translation and interpretation, in view of the fact that communication support aims to assist communication in English and does not therefore involve the range of socio-cultural issues we have identified above. However, this may be an over-simplification. For example, we cannot ignore the long-running debate concerning forms of communication for d/Deaf people, including the question of whether lipreading is a mode of communication chosen or imposed, and the argument that a distinctive Deaf culture develops through the use of British Sign Language but is not facilitated by other forms of communication with and among d/Deaf people. In relation to augmentative and alternative communication, one writer compares learning to use some of the systems available as as challenging as learning a foreign language ((Murphy et al. 1996) and it is arguable that the same issues of ‘cultural imperialism’ as are sometimes raised in relation to attitudes towards users of British Sign Language could also apply in the case of those who communicate through augmentative and alternative communication.
More pragmatically, our reading has uncovered inconsistency in provision of communication support, which implies that those who develop communication skills based on certain types of support provision can easily become isolated when this support is withdrawn. For example, SASLI (1997) notes that levels of communication support available in schools are not available when deaf children become adults and require support for further education, job seeking and employment. Levels of support available also vary across the country and may be particularly poor in rural localities.
1 Material explaining in detail issues relating to augmentative and alternative communication was received after the draft final report was written. These issues are rather different from
those concerning translation and interpretation services. Rather than alter the structure of the final report, augmentative and alternative communication is dealt with separately, in Appendix D.
12 SASLI recommends further study into realistic costs of the provision of communication support services. This should ensure that employers set aside a budget allocation to provide training opportunities at both basic and post qualification level, and to purchase external professional support and consultation as necessary. There are also issues around the training of school students to use particular forms of augmentative and alternative communication, the equipment for which remains with the school. This can be seen as invalidating the training and removing the students’ ability to communicate. We have also been told of situations where schools sought to impose the use of particular technologies outwith school despite the fact that in social contexts, people preferred to use modes of communication they had developed among family and friends. These kinds of dilemmas, we believe, are best understood and resolved in the context of the recent shift from a service provision model to a social inclusion model. This shift is discussed in Section 4.1, in the next Chapter.
A second interpretation of the term ‘communication support’ which we had not identified in the early stages of this review but which now seems warranted, is in relation to the use of bilingual workers and other communicators (including those who support communication of deafblind people). More substantial discussion about the role of this group of workers can be found in Chapters 6 and 9, but we anticipate this here by noting that the role of bilingual workers has been obscured by arguments concerning the inappropriate deployment as interpreters of staff who happen to be able to speak the language of clients who present themselves. There are a number of reasons why this is to be avoided. However, we will raise in the chapters mentioned, issues to do with the appropriate deployment of bilingual workers whose job descriptions include communication with clients in appropriate languages. This work is not the same as interpreting, in that no intermediary need be involved, and the skills are different: although bilingual workers need to be competent in the languages they are using, the emphasis is on professional communication skills, as would be the case for staff communicating in English with English-speaking clients. This seems to us also to constitute communication support, rather than translation or interpretation, but in a language other than English.
13 CHAPTER FOUR EMERGING ISSUES AND THEMES
This Chapter presents some of the key issues and themes to have emerged from our reading. These include a perceived shift from a service provision model to a social inclusion model; a related shift from thinking about ‘other languages’ or ‘other modes of communication’ to ‘different ways of communicating’; a consideration of the implications of gaps in the literature identified at this stage; evidence of change; and the user perspective.
4.1 SOCIAL INCLUSION OR SERVICE PROVISION?
The most fundamental issue of all, in our view, concerns the shift in thinking and in policy away from notions of service provision towards social inclusion. This shift is particularly noticeable in Scottish Executive documents and other work influenced by the development of the Social Inclusion Strategy, dating back to the period immediately after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Very recent documents also indicate a similar change in approach at UK government level.
We believe that this shift has profound implications for translation, interpretation and communication support.
In the service provision model, translation, interpretation and communication support services are made available (or not) when someone (‘the client’ or ‘the customer’) who is d/Deaf or hearing impaired, blind or visually impaired, deafblind, or unable to communicate in English comes into contact with public sector bodies. The tendency is to see translation, interpretation and communication support services as provided by the public sector body (either in-house or bought in as required) for the benefit of the client/ customer. Less commonly, translation, interpretation and communication support services are seen as beneficial to the public sector body, in that they enable staff to identify and meet needs and therefore fulfil their responsibilities.
A key feature of this model is that translation, interpretation and communication support services are perceived to be required principally in encounters between the client/ customer and the public service body; in other words, when the client/ customer has a problem of some kind, requiring the intervention of health or social workers, justice or benefits agencies, etc. Consequently, most documents written from the service provider perspective focus on client/ customer needs and make little or no reference to aspirations, interests or aptitudes.
In contrast, a social inclusion perspective starts from the premise that everyone in our society is entitled to participate in all aspects of social life. Barriers to participation, often the consequence of design based on notions of ‘norms’ that fail to take into account disabilities of various kinds or modes of communication other than through spoken or written English, therefore need to be dismantled. The consequence of this perspective is that people who communicate in other languages (including sign language), people who cannot read (whether this is because they have not been able to develop functional literacy in any language, because they are literate in other languages, or because they cannot see well enough to be able to read) or people who require various forms of specialised support in order to be able to communicate in spoken or written English (e.g. through lip-reading, through the use of
14 augmentative and alternative communication methods) should be able to expect other forms of communication to be available whenever they require them.
Clearly encounters with public sector bodies would be one such context in which this expectation would need to be met, but inclusion implies more than this. Everyone should be able to achieve a level of education, and the requisite qualifications that would enable them to obtain work. Work opportunities should be open to everyone. Everyone should be able to participate in the range of leisure and cultural activities on offer. Everyone should be able to participate in democratic decision-making, including access to political manifestos and debates and the opportunity to take part in these, as well as voting and receiving information about the government processes and decisions (at local and national level) which influence all our lives. The shift from the service provider model to the social inclusion model implies that individuals’ modes of communication need to be respected and accommodated in all aspects of social participation, and that the individual, rather than the service provider, should be able to choose when and where to draw on translation, interpretation and communication support services.
None of the documents read in the course of this review has fully explored the consequences of this shift and it is difficult for the authors to contemplate the full implications of this position.
A particular implication for this review, however, is that an inclusion perspective greatly increases the potential scope of the reading required: the focus in this case would not simply be translation, interpretation and communication services, but how translation, interpretation and communication services respond both to particular needs in particular ‘service’ encounters and to broader ‘everyday’ needs.
4.2 COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE
The preceding discussion on the implications of social inclusion entails a shift in focus from ‘languages’ to ‘communication’. As linguists and language teachers the authors have considerable experience of the ‘non-linguist’ perspective on issues concerning the use of languages other than English. Many people find learning other languages difficult and tedious. Many people have experienced failure in attempts to learn other languages. A consequence of these attitudes and experiences is that few people within Scotland or in the UK as a whole understand or value what is entailed in cross-cultural communication, using more than one language. A good example of this situation is to be found in extensive research over a number of years into the views of the business community on the value of staff learning and using languages other than English in the work context. Employers – even those whose field involves extensive overseas contact – tend to rate skills in languages other than English very low on any list of desirable attributes in potential employees. However, communication skills are almost invariably perceived as the most important skills of all. It seems to be the case that employers do not relate skills in languages other than English to ‘generic’ communication skills.
Similar examples of ‘doublethink’ are likely to be encountered in the public sector. Most service providers would see the ability to communicate with the public as an essential skill for most staff. However, some of the components of the kinds of communication skills staff require are currently either absent or undervalued. A number of examples of this situation
15 have been encountered in the reading for this review. Local authorities have information about their services translated into a range of community languages but do not necessarily ensure that there are staff to answer queries or facilitate uptake of these services in the relevant languages. Bilingual staff are asked to interpret for people who speak the languages they know, but staff are not given credit for their skills, not only in terms of financial enhancement but even of recognition that their own work has been disrupted. In these kinds of situations, bilingual staff may or may not possess the particular skills required of interpreters, but this issue is rarely given consideration. In addition, bilingual staff may find it difficult to be promoted to posts that take them away from front-line services because of a de facto, but unacknowledged, reliance on their interpreting skills. Social workers who regularly work with d/Deaf clients find it difficult or impossible to access training in sign language, lip- speaking or other appropriate forms of communication because this is not seen as a high priority or to be cost-effective (Parratt 1995).
We believe these oversights occur because of society-wide negative or dismissive attitudes towards languages other than English, or other modes of communication, and because of the consequent undervaluing of those who can communicate in more than one language or mode, or wish to develop the skills to do so. There is an underlying assumption in our society that Scotland is and will remain an monolingual society, and a failure to understand that not only is this not the case now, but that worldwide trends such as globalisation and migration will lead both to an increase in multiethnic multilingual communities and to a greater demand for workers who can communicate in several languages, in a range of work contexts. A focus on enhancing communication skills to enable staff in public sector employment to do their job more effectively is a more meaningful rationale, in which specialist skills in other languages or modes of communication clearly have a place. This focus is more in keeping with the spirit of inclusion.
4.3 EMPHASES AND GAPS IN THE LITERATURE
In order to identify the emphases and gaps in the literature, the reviewers were asked to classify the documents they read according to the matrix set out in Appendix A. Inevitably, not all the documents reviewed sat easily within the categories elaborated, and in these cases, reviewers were able to place documents in more than one category. The completed matrix shown on page 33 as Figure 1 represents all the documents read by the reviewers up to the end of June. (Subsequently, a number of other documents have been reviewed for this final report. It has not been possible to include these in the matrix, but we do not believe that their inclusion would make a significant difference to the question of emphases and gaps.)
This matrix reveals a preponderance of attention to translation, interpretation and communication support issues in the context of health and health education, social work (principally in the context of local authorities) and justice. There appears to be less attention in the context of education and employment services. It also seems to be the case that awareness of the issues raised by translation, interpretation and communication support is much less developed in these latter contexts.
This suggests the possibility of something akin to institutional racism, which has been termed ‘institutional discrimination’. As with institutional racism, ‘institutional discrimination’ is the unintentional outcome, in institutions, of unchallenged (often unstated) assumptions about ‘normality’ or ‘disability’. Inasmuch as people who are d/Deaf or hearing impaired, blind or
16 visually impaired, or deafblind, are assumed to experience a range of health and social problems which stem from these ‘conditions’, considerable attention is devoted to these problems among staff and researchers in these sectors. Staff in other sectors (particularly education), operating under the same set of assumptions, may well believe that the concerns of these groups of people should be met by other services, precisely because they are not trained in health matters or in social work. This clearly reflects a failure to see the whole person, and only the disability or the problem, and also reflects a set of narrow assumptions about the implications of the disability for the lives of the people so ‘afflicted’.
Similar blocks to understanding are encountered in relation to people who communicate in languages other than English, although the implications are slightly different. The solution to their ‘problems’ is often assumed, within the context of education, to be to learn English. This is, of course, the province of education, but one which is seen as both specialised and apart from ‘mainstream’ provision. Thus in many cases children and adults seeking to improve their educational prospects will be sent to English as an additional language (EAL) classes and ‘allowed’ to return to the mainstream only when their English is deemed sufficiently fluent. Research stretching back well over a decade shows that people’s linguistic skills develop best in contexts where they study or train in the subjects or skills they wish to develop through the medium of the language they need to know. However, the separation of language development from learning in other academic or vocational skills is still commonplace – particularly in Scotland, perhaps less so elsewhere in the UK. Despite evidence that people (adults in particular) drop out of EAL provision because it does not meet their needs, or because the amount of time needed to acquire qualifications or skills thus becomes unfeasibly long, little has been done to challenge this position. In contrast, health, social services and justice agencies may take the view that support sought by people who speak languages other than English requires a more immediate response and that waiting until they have learned English in order to explain their situation would not be appropriate. Thus for slightly different reasons (effectively institutional racism), greater attention again seems to have been devoted to translation and interpretation issues in the context of health, social services and justice than in education, training and employment.
We would expect that the shift towards social inclusion will challenge and change both the underlying assumptions, which lead to institutional racism, and institutional discrimination and the outcomes noted here.
17 Figure 1: Categorisation of documents reviewed
Major Categories of Users/ Clients A B C D d/Deaf/hard of hearing Visually Impaired Community Language Users Deafblind
a b c d e f g h I BSL lip- visual Braille audio enhan- languages languages Commun speaking & enhan- techn- ced of of isolated -ity ced audio ologies visual estab-lished groups of language techn- techn- commun- individuals users ologies ologies ities with other Key Fields communi -cation needs 1. *** *** * * * * *** ** ** Health 2. *** * * * * * ******* ******* ****** Justice ******* ******* ** and the law
3. *** *** *** *** ** ** *** ** ** * Education * 4. ** * * * * * *** *** ** Housing 5. ** * * * * * * * Benefits 6. ** * * * * * *** *** ** Employment Services 7. ** * * * * ** ** ** Scottish Executive 8. *** *** **** **** ** * ******* ****** ****** Local *** Authorities 9. ******* Community Planning 10. * **** **** *** Health Education 11. ** * * * * ******* Social Justice 12. ******** ** Community Care 13. ** ** ** Public Sector Partnerships 14. ** * * * * ** * ** Other
18 4.4 EVIDENCE OF CHANGE
The reading for this review shows that an enormous amount of work has gone both into identifying the kinds of issues raised by the need to communicate in other languages and modes apart from spoken and written English, and into finding solutions or suitable approaches – but there is little evidence that much has changed in practice. A major issue, from the perspective of the readers, but not addressed in the literature, is how to ensure that money or resources follow the conclusions of inquiry groups, inspectorate reports, etc. In some cases, documents from different ‘historical periods’ (which seems an accurate term, even though only a small proportion of the documents read predate 1995) show substantial changes in thinking (notably towards greater awareness of inclusion and its implications) but also that the same problems ‘on the ground’ continue to block progress. An ‘audit trail’ tracking developments within particular fields through documents from different points in time was suggested as one way of documenting these changes (or lack of them), and one example of this approach (comparing Department of Health policies on provision for deafblind people in 1997 and 2001) is included in Chapter 11.
A corollary of this situation is what was termed in one document (Reid-Howie Associates 2000) ‘consultation fatigue’. People of minority ethnic origin, people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing, people who are blind and visually impaired and people who are deafblind all, in different ways, indicate a certain resentment at ongoing attempts to ‘consult’ which do not lead to changes.
The discussion in Chapter 5 of the policy and legislation context for this review makes clear that the focus on social inclusion developing in UK-wide and national (Scottish) policy has the potential to change this situation. The literature puts considerable emphasis on ‘empowering’ and ‘capacitating’ communities. The shift is to neighbourhood renewal based on local participation. Provision will be developed not by outsiders but through leadership courses to enable people to bring about change for themselves.
For example, Scottish Homes considers the communities themselves the best positioned to deliver housing information for black and minority ethnic individuals and that therefore it will provide funding to relevant initiatives from the above communities. (Scottish Homes 2001). The NHS Executive has set up the London Health Strategy Steering Group and Coalition for Health and Regeneration to implement the Health Strategy for London (NHS Executive London Regional Office 2000). The documentation recognises the need to take into account the fact that the black and minority ethnic communities can deliver culturally sensitive services to their own communities. However, the Steering Group does not appear to include any users’ group despite the fact that the document makes references throughout to the need for bottom up initiatives involving the communities served. In the UK Cabinet Office’s National strategy for neighbourhood renewal (Cabinet Office 2000), there is an emphasis on minority ethnic leadership and the importance of involving minority ethnic groups in the planning of all local strategies if they are to be effective. This implies providing minority ethnic groups with training in the skills needed to assume these roles.
These perspectives have certain implications for translation, interpretation and communication support services. One argument might be that empowerment will involve much more extensive access to information than previously and that inevitably this information will be in written English. This means greater emphasis than before on ensuring that people are able to deal with this information, both by learning English (this means a
19 higher profile for EAL services, particularly in the context of lifelong learning and adult literacy) and by enhancing provision for translation, interpretation and communication support services, moving from ‘demand-led provision’ to an automatic expectation that information will be provided in a range of languages and modes (cf. extent of dual language information in bilingual countries such as Canada, or multilingual information in the EU.) There are therefore substantial resource implications. Multilingual provision in conjunction with empowerment also means that there will be greater need for provision to develop skills in community languages, and particularly in literacy in community languages.
20 CHAPTER FIVE POLICY AND LEGISLATION BACKGROUND
In order for the Scottish Executive’s emerging policy on translation, interpretation and communication support to be seen as relevant and effective in the modern world it must be in tune with national and international values, as expressed through policy and legislation.
At the global level, there is a desire, expressed, for example, through international summits, to achieve greater co-operation between countries on issues which concern potential quality of life. However, it is very difficult to achieve consensus on a global level. This chapter, therefore focuses on European, UK and Scottish policy and legislation
5.1 EUROPEAN POLICY AND LEGISLATION
At the European level this desire expresses itself strongly through the Council of Europe, in its judgements and recommendations, and through the European Union whose legislation and other pronouncements make explicit the aim of achieving greater social cohesion, encouraging Member States to adopt and implement policies which will help to bring about a more equal, just and inclusive society.
In July 1994 the EU published a white paper, European Social Policy: a way forward for the Union which was an attempt to answer the question: ‘What sort of society do Europeans want?’ A recurrent theme was the vision of a Europe of equal opportunities for all. The preface to the document identifies the shared values that form the basis of the European social model:
• democracy and individual rights; • free collective bargaining; • the market economy; • equal opportunity for all; • social welfare and solidarity.
In Chapter VI, Section B, which deals with ‘Promoting the social integration of all’ the paper notes that:
the Union simply cannot afford to lose the contribution of marginalised groups to society as a whole… the Union needs to ensure that the most vulnerable people (including the disabled) are not excluded from the benefits of – and from making active contribution to – the economic strength of a more integrated Europe.
Action needed to realise this vision would include affirmative measures in all Member States to ensure access and to combat discrimination.
More recently, common objectives to combat poverty and exclusion were agreed by the European Council of Ministers in Nice. These included:
Objective 1: to facilitate participation in employment and access by all to resources, rights, goods and services; Objective 2: to prevent the risk of social inclusion; and
21 Objective 3: helping the most vulnerable.
It is not hard to see that efficient and easily accessible translation, interpretation and communication support is required to support the attainment of all of these objectives.
5.2 UK-WIDE AND SCOTTISH POLICY AND LEGISLATION: THE SHIFT TO ‘MAINSTREAMING’
At UK level these aspirations have been manifested in such legislation as The Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and their associated amendments and Codes of Practice. Service providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people under the Disability Discrimination Act, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way they provide their services, and will also be required by the updated race legislation to ensure public access to the information and services they provide. This legislation emphasises the need to provide accessible information for the groups that the legislation is intended to benefit; without effective translation, interpretation and communication support, equal access to information is not possible, and failure to provide accessible information may now be interpreted, in law, as indirect discrimination.
In recent years there has been a growing tendency to eschew positive action programmes in favour of ‘mainstreaming’. Thus, for example, issues such as equity and rights are now incorporated into all EU programmes, and national legislation regarding discrimination is incorporated into subsequent legislation. From some UK Cabinet papers (e.g. Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit 2000) it is clear that the principles underpinning UK social policy express the same aspirations. In its recent Action Plan on social inclusion, the UK Government reiterates its commitment to overcoming social exclusion, which ‘lies at the core of its political programme’ (Scottish Executive 2001c). That Scotland shares the same goals is evident, for example, from the range of research topics covered by the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit’s Social Inclusion Research Bulletins (Scottish Executive, bi-annually) and by the existence of 48 Social Inclusion Partnerships across Scotland for example. The Scottish Executive’s Equality Strategy is also intended ‘to integrate an equality perspective throughout our work and activity’ (Scottish Executive 2000i).
There appears to be a firm consensus about social goals uniting European, UK and Scottish policy-makers. However, there is a clear a shift in strategy between some of the earlier documentation and some of the policy documents emerging more recently, particularly those concerned with social inclusion, where ‘interventions are informed by a new approach to developing and delivering policy’ (Scottish Executive 2001c). The goals remain the same, but the strategy for achieving them has a different focus: ‘a more open policy-making process, that includes those who are affected by social exclusion, and on whose efforts policy will depend for its success’ (Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit 2000). It will no longer be enough to aim only to improve services for ethnic, disabled and other minority communities. Such action on its own will not deliver our national objectives; we also need to initiate actions which empower communities so that they themselves can take an active role in planning and providing those services. The Scottish Executive is firmly of the view that ‘Community empowerment policies are all about listening to what communities want, by providing the where-with-all for them to be heard and by devolving decision making for services right down to the people who want them’ (Scottish Executive 2000h). Effective translation, interpretation and communication support will be crucial in this new setting.
22 5.3 POLICY AT LOCAL OR ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL: THE NEED TO CATCH UP
In much of the documentation from service providers, the emphasis is still on improving services for minority groups. It may still be too early to detect documentation which reflects the newer focus. An exception to this may be the documents from the Department of Health; however, to judge from some of Department’s own inspections, these may not yet have had an impact on local practice (see for example Department of Health/ Social Services Inspectorate, 1997 on the outcomes of inspection of services for deaf and hard of hearing people). Where good practice is mentioned, consultation with local communities is commended and encouraged, but – judging by the reports from user groups – not always translated into practice. Indeed, there is substantial evidence of ‘consultation fatigue’: user groups complain that they are often consulted, but that no change results (e.g. Reid-Howie Associates 2000).
It suggests that local practice concerning interaction with the community is, by and large, out of tune with current national policy. If participation and empowerment are the goals, then consultation is really only a ‘halfway house’, at best allowing local communities to have a say in what and how services intended for their benefit are delivered to them by others. This is a more passive interpretation of community empowerment than seems to be implied by recent national and international policy documents to which we have previously referred.
In order to move forward on the more recent agenda, all government agencies will need to pay attention to empowerment as well as to services. The National Action Plan describes this as ‘mobilising all relevant actors in a joint multi-agency response’ (Scottish Executive 2001c). The Scottish Executive is committed to ‘integrated action and partnerships’ as key themes of its strategy to combat exclusion (Annexe A: Promoting Inclusion in Scotland, Scottish Executive 2001c). Social Inclusion Partnerships and community schools initiatives are harbingers of this approach, but the strategy must eventually be adopted by all service providers if national objectives are to be achieved. As the UK Action Plan on Social Inclusion points out,
The success of the UK’s social inclusion strategy will depend crucially on the contribution of local authorities, the social partners and individuals working in their own communities.
At present, judging from the documents from service providers, some see themselves as having a clear ‘service’ role but have a less clear vision of how they might be working together to empower the communities they serve. For example, they have an obligation to provide translation, interpretation and communication support for people who walk through their door, but they do little proactively in the sense of identifying potential clients who might need these services, disseminating information about those they can provide or monitoring the quality of such services. This was particularly noticeable in respect of services to deaf and deafblind people, but may be as prevalent elsewhere. It is also often the case that agencies provide translation, interpretation and communication support only when clients present themselves to access the particular service they provide. How such clients manage other aspects of their lives where no such support is provided is not considered. This tends to suggest that translation, interpretation and communication support services are at least as
23 much for the benefit of the service provider – to enable them to deliver the service – as for the client, and are sometimes seen by the agency as an unwelcome additional burden (cf. Benefits Agency 1998).
The UK Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit (2000) reports that overall, people from minority ethnic communities are as well qualified as white people. However, there appears to be no explicit policy designed to nurture and exploit such community resources or to create opportunities for those with professional skills to acquire levels of competence in English that are commensurate with those skills. Yet if communities are to be self-empowering, then they need opportunities to train and become qualified as professional providers of services – including translation, interpretation and communication support – as well as users of those services.
Discrepancies such as these, between policies developed by different areas of government, may serve to undermine rather than support the potential overall impact of social inclusion policy.
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT
The change in focus, from a service model to an empowerment model, has implications for the development of translation, interpretation and communication support. The two examples below illustrate this:
1a) The ‘improved service’ model sees funding made available for more people from the service agencies to receive language training in order to improve services to members of minority communities.
b) The ‘empowerment model’ sees funding also made available to create educational opportunities for members of minority communities both to maintain and develop their community language skills and to be trained as service providers.
2a) In the ‘improved service’ model, interpreters/translators/communicators provide services to members of the minority community. They themselves are, by and large, members of the majority community.
b) In the ‘empowerment model’, members of the minority community have opportunities to become qualified service providers, including providers of translation, interpretation and communication support.
Documentation from user groups seems to suggest that both these approaches are needed and that policy development would need to be flexible enough to provide a continuum of translation, interpretation and communication support provision to serve different purposes at different times. It seems likely that the existence of measures to support the empowerment model would also, overtime feed into and improve the service model as well.
24 5.5 THE CASE OF EDUCATION
In the area of Education, we were unable to find any documentation which mentioned the part the curriculum might play in empowering local communities. Students who speak languages other than English, for example, are often seen as primarily the responsibility of a cadre of staff whose area of expertise is ‘English as an Additional Language (EAL) and whose role is to enable students to acquire sufficient basic competence in English to access the education on offer. In Scotland, ‘children and young persons are not regarded as having a learning difficulty solely because of the language in which they are taught is different from that which has, at any time, been spoken in their home’ (SOEID 1996). However, in practice they are often taught separately, by ‘specialists,’ until such time as they are deemed able to cope in regular classes, and no attention is given to maintaining or developing their home language skills. Despite the chronic shortage of interpreters, there has been (at least until very recently) no provision – or even encouragement – for speakers of other languages to maintain and develop their community language skills, and it is difficult for them to gain documented recognition of their existing skills.
Even within the EAL environment, there is a need to challenge the view that bilingualism is somehow bad for children and will hinder their acquisition of English. The same argument applies also to profoundly deaf children who are potential users of British Sign Language but who are sometimes denied the opportunity to acquire an additional and relevant skill due to lack of personnel able to provide tuition, or to deliberate policy decisions at local level. For many children British Sign Language is more naturally accessible than a spoken language, and access to British Sign Language learning and teaching is therefore essential to the child’s social, linguistic and cognitive development. (Direct communication. British Deaf Association.) While the development of provision for British Sign Language and community languages is now under consideration, the decision-making progress is very slow, and there is as yet no evidence that the communities likely to benefit have been consulted. If policy formulation is to be evidence-based, then more significant research may need to be conducted, as a matter of urgency, with the communities themselves. If communities are to be empowered to contribute to the pool of qualified translators, interpreters and communicators, or service providers capable of communicating with clients from minority communities, action required would include making changes in educational policy that will allow potentially useful skills to be nurtured by the educational system. The absence of such a policy has already led to the loss of skills by some of our ‘second generation’ citizens who might have been bilingual but who now speak only English. Unless this situation is rapidly reversed it is difficult to see how the Government’s commitment, for example, to improve access to health services by providing ‘free translation and interpretation service from every NHS premises by 2003’ (Scottish Executive 2001c) can possibly be met. The National Action Plan itself makes no suggestions about staffing such a service.
At the same time, the Scottish Parliament’s commitment to neighbourhood renewal involves a Social Inclusion Partnership programme which ‘aims to produce a better co-ordinated multi- agency and multi-sectoral approach to promote inclusion’. Of the 48 Social Inclusion Partnerships already designated, 14 are ‘thematic’, rather than area-based, and target groups of people with specific needs, such as minority ethnic communities. It is difficult to see how these can be fully effective without support from translation, interpretation and communication support services. The Executive is committed to publishing a Neighbourhood Renewal Statement for Scotland by the end of 2001. Perhaps this will clarify the role and resourcing of such services.
25 In considering the way in which translation, interpretation and communication support services are to be developed, an essential component of policy development must surely be the formulation of a ‘cradle-to-grave’ language and communication policy which is robust enough to support national objectives.
5.6 PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES, POLICY, LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION, STRATEGIC PLANNING (AT NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS), PRACTICE GUIDELINES, STANDARDS/EVALUATION OF PRACTICE: A CRITICAL PATH
The documents reviewed for this report fell into broadly these categories as regards their purpose, although some spanned more than one category. Quality of experience by service users is influenced, in particular, by practice guidelines, strengthened by standards and evaluation. However, not all practice guidelines are faithful to the principles and policy from which they derive, although they strive to comply with the associated legislation. In practice this means that some agencies comply with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. This may be in part because the original vision is lost in the process of handing down policy from first principles to implementation. It might be helpful for those using practice guidelines at local level, for example, to be able to ‘track back’ to those first principles and be aware of how and why they apply to their work. Some documents did this well, others seemed to exist in a policy vacuum, which made the demands they made on workers seem arbitrary. Certainly, user groups sometimes appeared to be more aware of discrepancies between policy and implementation than service providers themselves. Failure to communicate principles, purposes and objectives might in part explain why, in some areas, policies have had less impact on practice than was hoped.
Our review suggests that the knowledge base available to providers of translation, interpretation and communication support tends to be limited. Staff within providers are not always familiar with the range of translation, interpretation and communication support strategies available to them and nor are they always familiar with national legislation or policy or with guidelines in force within their own organisation. In addition, staff are often unfamiliar with the work of other organisations, both those engaged in similar work in different parts of the country, or those working in the same area in linked fields. Thus opportunities for ‘joined up thinking’ or indeed ‘joined up action’ can be limited.
Some suggestions for improving the knowledge base have been proposed, but to date there appears to have been little action. It seems clear that the internet offers extensive opportunities for the sharing of information, translated materials, or ideas. It should facilitate collaboration among different organisations, enabling staff both to learn more about the work of their counterparts in other organisations and to share the work involved in making information and support more accessible to people who communicate other than through conventional forms of spoken or written English. The Babel Tree Project (www.adec.org.au/babeltree) provides an example of this kind of collaboration, from Australia, where information on available translations of leaflets relating to different aspects of health has been collated on one web-site, from which the relevant documents in the different languages can be downloaded directly. Such resources would not be difficult or expensive to set up in the UK, and would be particularly beneficial to service providers and their clients.
26 CHAPTER SIX SERVICE PROVISION
6.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTERS 6 TO 13)
This chapter and those which follow (up to and including Chapter 12) look at specific aspects of the provision of translation, interpretation and communication support services. Following the categorisation of these issues in the original tender document, these aspects are: service provision (Chapter 6), models of service delivery (Chapter 7), service awareness (Chapter 8), service user needs (Chapter 9), training (Chapter 10), standards and guidance (Chapter 11), and monitoring and evaluation (Chapter 12).
In each chapter we comment on issues emerging from the documentation reviewed, aiming to identify:
• common ground (both in terms of different groups requiring translation, interpretation and communication support services and of the range of public sector fields); • contexts in which the nature of provision may need to vary, to meet the demands of different groups or in different fields; • gaps in provision; • recommendations for development or improvement.
The final chapter (13) presents our conclusions and recommendations, focusing on some of the key themes which have emerged, and summarising the principal recommendations deriving from the literature itself and from our analysis.
6.2 WHO ARE THE SERVICE PROVIDERS?
This report deals with two main types of ‘service provider’ in the context of translation, interpretation and communication support.
Firstly, there are those who provide these services directly: interpretation and translation agencies, many of which are commercial organisations. Some, such as the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI), are both agencies and representative bodies involved in the development of policy and practice. In addition, there are a number of free-lance interpreters and translators. Only a small proportion of the literature is concerned with the work of translation and interpretation agencies and free-lancers, most of it relating to legal interpreting, as this appears to be the context in which external interpreters and translators are most commonly called in.
Although agency and free-lance translators are perhaps more in demand than interpreters, given the need for the translation of public information, standard letters, etc., we have encountered almost no discussion of the qualifications, training, further professional development, employment prospects of translators. This may be because the work of translators is ‘invisible’ and the impact of their work difficult to judge. One research study in Australia (Saini and Rowling 1997) took a critical view of the approach of the translators whose work they studied (see Section 3.2). It seems likely that these issues need to be
27 addressed in an UK context too, but we have encountered no discussion of the appropriateness of translation. The question of literacy in community languages has, however been raised: commentators have pointed out that in some linguistic communities, levels of literacy are low and that therefore translating written information into community languages may not be a particularly effective way of providing access (Bowes and Meehan Domokos 1997; Scottish Office Social Work Inspectorate Services for Scotland 1998; Reid-Howie Associates Ltd. 2000). However, there appear to have been no systematic studies of the effectiveness of translating information for different linguistic communities.
The second group of service providers, to which the bulk of the literature refers, are the various public sector bodies which provide services to (among others) people with hearing or visual impairments, and people who speak languages other than English. These bodies include national organisations such as the Department of Health, regional organisations such as police forces, and local authority-based organisations such as social work departments. These bodies are regarded as service providers in the sense that they need to find ways of communicating with service users who do not communicate in standard spoken or written English. A variety of approaches emerge from the literature: some organisations employ agency or free-lance interpreters or translators on an ad hoc basis. Some (mainly local authorities) have in-house interpreters and translators, and some employ bilingual staff, particularly for ‘front-line’ services. Much of the literature we have examined focuses on an analysis of the comprehensiveness and the effectiveness of these different approaches.
As noted in Chapter 4, the focus of much of the work on service providers has been on health, social work and the law. There is much less material relating to translation, interpretation and communication support in the fields of education, training and employment services. But it is important to bear in mind that all public sector services have responsibilities in this regard. Only one paper included in this review dealt with access to public transport for the elderly, including those with visual or hearing impairment (British Medical Journal 1996. It may be that people responsible for public transport planning are rarely involved in discussion concerning communication with those who do not use standard spoken or written English and so it would be beneficial to extend contacts to these sectors less prominent in the debate.
6.3 KEY ISSUES CONCERNING SERVICE PROVISION
Three main themes concerning the problems facing service providers, and some of the solutions, emerge from the literature. These are:
• the knowledge base of service providers; • the importance of consistency in provision across different regions or local agencies; • cross-sectoral co-ordination.
Each of these is addressed below.
6.4 THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
It is clearly very important that public service providers are informed about the communication needs of the groups or individuals they serve, and about the translation,
28 interpretation and communication support services available to facilitate communication. This is not necessarily an easy task, as this review demonstrates. There is a substantial – and growing – body of information, but the field is fragmented, and it is likely that several different people within a local authority or other public sector body share the responsibility to keep up to date. However, it also appears that there is little communication within or across organisations concerning translation, interpretation and communication support (see the following two sections of this Chapter) and that it is easy to overlook the issues involved, partly because of a perception that a small number of people are affected, and partly because of perceived problems of cost and difficulty in finding appropriate solutions.
The ‘numbers game’ is a crucial issue: without knowledge of the number of people likely to require translation, interpretation and communication services, appropriate provision is unlikely to be made. Several UK documents make reference to the absence of relevant statistics (e.g. Scottish Executive Central Statistics Unit 2001a; Home Office Race Equality Team 2000; Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit 2000). The UK Department of Work and Pensions is currently considering the feasibility of research into the incidence and usage of British Sign Language (Direct communication, British Deaf Association). SASLI, commenting on the draft of this report, notes that another approach to data collection would be to monitor use of translation and interpretation services. In relation to court interpreting, SASLI’s own statistics suggest that a sign language user appears in court every 1.5 days throughout the year.
Schellekens (2001) specifically notes the consequences of the absence of this kind of data for education, training and employment services. There are no reliable data on the number of people in the UK whose first language is not English, and the number lacking the skills in English necessary for employment can only be estimated (at around 1.5 million). It is not known what proportion of this group is out of work, and it is thus impossible to establish the extent to which English language skills training is required. Of those with limited English skills who are in work, it is believed that many are working at a level below their skills and experience. Lack of data makes it difficult to calculate poverty levels among those with low level English skills, but this is estimated to exceed that among competent English speakers by a factor of between two and four.
It is possible that authorities do not collect their own statistics or make use of those available because this would then require them to meet identified need. In the absence of relevant statistics, it is easy to posit that there are too few people concerned to make provision cost effective. This is the conclusion drawn by Kyle et al. (1997) who found that there was a reluctance among health education professionals to address access for BSL users, on the basis that there were very few of them. However, Cant et al. (1995) show that the question of how many people with particular needs are required to make services cost-effective can be approached in different ways. Noting that the number of people of minority ethnic origin in Scotland is roughly the same as the number of teachers, Cant et al. question whether the needs and interests of teachers are habitually ignored because there are too few of them to matter.
Particularly in relation to translation and interpretation for minority language users, it is clear that not nearly enough is known about the range of languages spoken in Scotland (Reid- Howie Associates Ltd. 2000), both in terms of numbers of speakers and of specific community characteristics (e.g. to what extent is the Bengali-speaking community in Scotland in fact Sylheti speaking, and to what extent is this community literate in Bengali?).
29 While the Scottish Executive Central Statistical Unit’s Guide to Data Sources (2001b) notes that new approaches to data collection are likely to be more detailed and comprehensive, this remains to be seen.
Both the 2001 Census and the Scottish Household Survey ask questions relating to ethnicity which, past studies have shown, provoke an ambivalent response among some participants and have thus led to under-reporting of the population of minority ethnic origin. In addition, the numbers of people of minority ethnic origin are regarded as too small for separate breakdowns according to each category to make statistical sense, and therefore, in the Scottish Household Survey, a number of tables effectively differentiate on the basis of ‘white’ and ‘non-white’. This amalgamation of all minority ethnic categories into one contributes to the erroneous notion that all people of minority ethnic origin constitute a homogeneous group which can usefully be set against all ‘white’ people, and tends to produce nonsensical data. The National Management Information Systems (NMIS) project for schools promises to provide more detailed data on ethnicity. It should however, be noted that the School Census (which NMIS will replace) claimed to provide this information but in fact based this information on the number of pupils requiring English as an Additional Language (EAL) support. Clearly these pupils are not synonymous with the full school population of minority ethnic origin (many of whom will not require EAL support). More importantly, none of these national data sets collects information on participants’ language backgrounds. Neither data on ethnic affiliation nor data on the number of pupils requiring EAL support gives any clue to the range of languages in use in Scotland or to potential translation and interpretation needs.
The difficulties of collecting accurate information concerning the languages spoken in the UK (or indeed in other countries) are well established in the literature dealing with the educational needs of bilingual children. (For a review of these issues, see Nicholas 1994.) Particular problems include
• respondents’ (and researchers’) knowledge of the names of languages; • difficulties in conducting surveys in a language (whether English or a community language) in which the respondents may not be literate; • respondents’ interpretation of what it means to ‘know’ another language (e.g. they may believe that the surveyors are interested only in European languages, or in languages in which the respondents have formal qualifications); • respondents’ attitudes towards the languages they know (e.g. speakers of Creoles tend not to think of these as languages but rather as ‘slang’). In addition, surveys of school children’s languages (the most common form of survey) often rely on teachers’ reports of the languages their students know. This information can be highly inaccurate. Nevertheless, there is now a statutory responsibility in England (but not, as far as we are aware, in Scotland) for education authorities to collect data on the languages spoken by children in their schools. The potential value of this information, even although it is subject to many caveats as to its accuracy, is illustrated by Baker and Eversley’s map (2000) of the languages spoken by London school children, using data collected by London education authorities. The map established that over 300 languages were spoken by London school children and shows where different linguistic populations are concentrated. This information has been used by the NHS to target resources (including translation and interpretation services) more effectively (previously they had relied on Census data) and by a range of other kinds of organisations, including multinational businesses seeking to locate in areas where they can draw on the language skills of multilingual populations.
30 In addition to knowing about the groups and individuals likely to need translation, interpretation and communication support, public sector services need to know about the services available to them and how to use them effectively. This seems not always to be the case. For example, Corsellis (1998) implies that the West Midlands Probation Service did not know how to contact, commission, engage or brief interpreters. The Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters also found the many senior managers had little knowledge of the demand for sign language interpreting or how this was met by their own services (SASLI 1997). Beyond the pragmatics, public sector services also need to understand the work of translators and interpreters, to know what it means to convey information or ideas from one language to another and to be sensitive to cultural or individual characteristics which need to be included in order to ensure that those for whom interpretation or translation has been provided have really been able to access the information they need. Several commentators see this as problematic. These issues are dealt with in more detail in later chapters.
6.5 IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY IN PROVISION ACROSS DIFFERENT REGIONS OR LOCAL AGENCIES
In the interests both of social justice and of effective services, it would seem appropriate that those requiring translation, interpretation and communication support services should receive similar support in whatever part of Scotland or the UK they live, and from whichever public sector services they need to deal with. However, it seems clear that translation, interpretation and communication support issues have a higher profile in some regions or local authorities and in some parts of the public sector than in others (e.g. O’Neale 2000). Evidence for this comes from one study which noted the position of respondents answering questionnaires on equal opportunities: in some cases, this might be completed at senior management level, in others by staff at a much lower level within the hierarchy.
The question of why authorities should take such widely different perspectives on discrimination is answered in part by the report (Clarke and Speeden 2000) on the adoption and implementation of the Commission for Race Equality’s standards for local government, Racial Equality means Quality (CRE 1995). Although this report deals with broader issues than are covered in this review, the reasons for differences in implementation rates and for a lack of commitment to promoting racial equality in some local authorities are likely to be relevant to the specific question of translation, interpretation and communication support. Clarke and Speeden note that a key factor is whether or not a local authority has a significant minority ethnic population (i.e. ‘the numbers game’ as discussed in the previous section).
Other (possibly linked) barriers to implementation include
• cost • failure to accept that racial equality is central to service delivery • inadequate support from a variety of bodies • differences among ethnic minority communities • assumption that a level of understanding and managerial competence in quality methods exists.
In other studies, additional barriers are identified: in a study of the success of community care plans in meeting the needs of people with visual impairment, Lovelock et al. (1995) comment
31 on differing terminologies across local authorities which make it difficult to know whether the same or different issues are being addressed:
different labels are being used for the same thing and the same labels for different things.
Pragmatically, the Scottish Sensory Centre (2001), asked by the Scottish Executive to look at ways in which peripatetic sensory services can conduct self-evaluation of their work, suggests that the wide variation of practice from one authority to another in this field means that self-evaluation procedures need to be adapted to suit local needs.
6.6 CROSS-SECTORAL CO-ORDINATION
In addition to consistency of provision, co-ordinated provision is seen as highly desirable, but difficult to achieve. A number of documents comment on the isolation of different public sector services. Social work and health care tend to be the fields in which this issue is raised most frequently, although it seems clear that education is another field in which links between schools, social workers and health professionals would be particularly valuable. For example, the Department of Health (1997) notes that
the crucial liaison between social services and health services is still poorly developed.
Little had changed by 2001, when the Department of Health’s Deafblind Services Consultation states that deafblind people often receive a package of care from both health and social services and that close partnership working between those agencies is needed to ensure users receive well co-ordinated services. The implication is that the services at present either overlap or leave important gaps. Similar recommendations are made by Platt and Adam (2000) with reference to people with visual impairment and by the Scottish Accessible Information Forum (1999) for all those with disabilities.
One suggestion of ways in which cross-service links might be facilitated is to use the internet to enable translated materials and FAQs to be shared among providers (Budzak 2000). However, it seems clear that the development of such approaches is still at the early stages.
32 CHAPTER SEVEN MODELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
Much of the discussion concerning models of delivery relates to the role of the interpreter There is little discussion of service delivery relating to translation. With the exception of the literature on court interpreting, there appears to be very little discussion of the delivery process. There is also very limited information concerning funding models for translation, interpretation and communication support services, even although it is clear that the absence of appropriate resourcing strategies is a major concern.
Before looking at what we have found in the literature, we draw attention to Corsellis’s comments (1998) on service delivery strategies. These should, she argues, comprise a series of interdependent stages which include: finding out about the recipients of the service, adapting the service to meet their needs, informing non-English speakers about the service, negotiating and implementing service delivery, quality assurance, evaluation and development. In our review we have found very little evidence of the embeddedness of consultation and collaboration with services users which this vision would imply. This therefore constitutes a major gap in the literature – and possibly also, therefore, in practice.
This chapter looks first at the role of the interpreter and debate concerning the push to using professional interpreters only. We then consider the delivery process, drawing largely on the court interpreting literature. Lastly, we look at the available evidence concerning funding models.
7.1 ‘JUST LANGUAGE?’ THE ROLE OF THE INTERPRETER
The role of the interpreter comes under considerable scrutiny in the literature reviewed for this report. Decisions concerning models of service delivery to ensure effective communication with those who do not use standard spoken or written English are based on underlying (not always stated) positions concerning the interpreter’s role.
There is a very marked division between those who argue for enhanced ‘professional’ interpreting services as the key to improved communication channels, and those who argue that a more flexible approach needs to be adopted, including the appointment and development of bilingual workers and the use of what might be termed ‘informal’ provision – i.e. the use of family, friends, even children – in certain circumstances.
Those arguing for the professionalisation of interpreting services point to a wide range of problems which ensue when non-professionals are used as de facto interpreters. The belief that informal interpreting is acceptable devalues the skills of professional interpreters and is one factor in the low rates of pay and the widespread failure to understand and support interpreters in their work (CRE 1992; Ferry 2000; SASLI 2000). The CRE (op.cit.) points out that the use of bilingual friends or relatives as informal interpreters can be a stressful experience both for those who require interpretation and for those who act as interpreters. SASLI (op.cit.) found that ‘informal arrangements’ were reported by 92% of Scottish health authorities, risking the distortion or inadequate presentation of information and sometimes the deliberate suppression of information. In addition, SASLI notes, untrained interpreters can treat Deaf people inappropriately as dependent and in need of support and advice whereas the key issue is enabling communication to take place.
33 The use of children as interpreters attracts considerable censure (Scottish Office Social Work Services Inspectorate for Scotland 1998; O’Neale 2000). Kyle et al. 1997 comment that the use of hearing children as communicators for their Deaf parents means that there is a tendency for the hearing child to dominate the family from an early age, through their use of English. However, Deaf parents do not always insist that their children learn BSL and therefore their children may be unable to convey complex information. Decisions relating to education and health matters may be filtered or distorted by the hearing child. Futhermore, these practices often mean that children are placed in a decision-making position long before they are mature enough to make the necessary rational judgements. The British Deaf Association, commenting on the draft of this review, notes that hearing children of Deaf parents are often asked to interpret as a way of ‘helping’ their parents. This approach reflects the view of Deafness as a disability rather than a communication issue and obscures the demand for competent interpreters.
However, even on the question of child interpreters, not all commentators are agreed on the inadvisability of using children. The Benefits Agency (1998) recommends the use of children as a cost-cutting measure. A research study on the use of children as interpreters in GP consultations (Cohen et al. 1999) found that while the official position among GPs was that informal interpreters should be used only in emergencies, in practice, children were often used. GPs identified some benefits to using children: in some cases, parents preferred to communicate through their children than through interpreters or health advocates based in their own communities, for reasons of confidentiality. While conventionally, it is often argued that these practices place children in an invidious position (as argued by Kyle et al. above), Cohen et al. conclude that there is a question of ‘moral policing’ involved, if GPs decide, against parents’ wishes, that children should not take on this role. That the children’s own wishes were not considered.
Those in favour of a more flexible approach to formal and informal interpreting argue that other issues have to be taken into account in addition to the purely linguistic. Parratt (1995), writing of his own experience as a deafness worker, believes that the client’s right to choose should not be determined solely on professional interpreting qualifications. Deaf people’s lack of background information which hearing people take for granted cannot be supplied by a professional interpreter who sticks to the rules and conveys only the information uttered, so that the deaf person is still at a disadvantage. Reid-Howie Associates (2000) reporting on the views of participants at a Scottish Executive workshop on research into minority ethnic issues note that providing interpretation and translation was not felt to solve all communications problem: ‘Language was not seen to be the whole problem, nor the whole solution.’ The implication is that issues to do with cross-cultural understanding need also to be addressed.
A number of commentators argue that in certain circumstances, bilingual workers are more effective than professional interpreters, because of their familiarity with the field in which they are working, their greater cultural awareness, and their ability to empathise with clients. For example, Bowes and Meehan Domokos (1997), describing their research into the experiences of Pakistani women accessing health services in Glasgow, comment that the women were often critical of the effectiveness of professional interpreters in conveying information and preferred to work with bilingual Punjabi-speaking health workers. Ross (1993) argues for more bilingual solicitors for similar reasons Kyle et al. (1997) argue that the status of BSL interpreters, all of whom are from the majority hearing community, compromises their ability to convey the information in an appropriate way. Deaf people’s experience is of suffering and oppression and therefore their situation can best be addressed
34 by health workers who are Deaf themselves. In Pankaj’s report (2000) on the family mediation services for ethnic minorities, there is a strong line of argument against the use of professional interpreters because of the importance of cultural understandings in the work of family mediators and because of the need to understand nuance which is likely to be compromised by the use of interpreters. Participants in this study were convinced of the need for bilingual mediators. To get round the potential problem of confidentiality raised by the use of bilingual workers from the same small communities as clients, Pankaj suggests using bilingual workers from other towns.
Corsellis (1998) also notes that bilingual workers are of particular value in the context of counselling and in sensitive work, e.g. with sex offenders or with small children. In areas where there is a significant population speaking the same language, bilingual workers are to be preferred, she argues, but this entails establishing that these workers are linguistically competent and that they have the cultural skills required. She adds, however, that the skills of many workers who are bilingual are not recognised, leading to inappropriate deployment, or alternatively to a failure to deploy them where they could make use of these skills. Training and professional development are needed, in addition to incentives to make opting for this kind of work attractive. Rennie (1991) also raises the issue of appropriate training for bilingual workers. Others point to the potential value of bilingual workers, while stressing the need to avoid exploitation and to ensure that those who take on these roles are suitably qualified and supported (Scottish Office Social Work Services Inspectorate for Scotland 1998; O’Neale 2000).
The literature thus suggests a continuum for contexts in which communication in forms other than standard spoken or written English is needed, running from ‘pure’ professional interpreting, at one end, through trained specialist bilingual support workers to informal family and friend helpers at the other. There are important caveats concerning all those who provide communication support, concerning their skills (professional or otherwise), both in English and in the other language, their familiarity with the professional field concerned, their cultural awareness, their personal or professional relationship with those for whom interpretation is provided, and issues of confidentiality. This continuum is illustrated in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Communication continuum professional interpreter trained bilingual informal professional communication through family and friends
It appears that papers arguing against the use of bilingual workers or of informal (family and friends) interpreters do so out of a concern to avoid exploitation rather than because it is felt that such forms of support for communication could never be appropriate. However, the arguments against using children as interpreters, Cohen et al. notwithstanding, are convincing. In addition to the points made by Kyle et al. and others, we note from our own experience in schools that absence of children from minority ethnic backgrounds because of family translation duties can represent a substantial amount of lost school time.
35 7.2 DELIVERY PROCESSES
The literature on legal interpreting examines in some detail the ways in which interpreters work in court or in other legal contexts, and raises a number of issues, some of which are specific to interpreting in the legal context, while others are likely to have a more general relevance. It is not clear why interpreting in other contexts has not generated the same interest in the process and the problems which can arise. Possibly it is the semi-public nature of legal interpreting which makes it more susceptible to this kind of attention.
Colin and Morris (1996) focus mainly on the role of interpreters in the context of interviews between the police and witnesses, victims or suspects. They ask how it is decided that an interpreter is needed and – rather surprisingly – suggest that the person for whom interpretation might need to be provided should take a reading or comprehension test (raising questions about who devises such tests and how they can be obtained). They also note that guidance on how to engage interpreters is likely to be needed, and that this should include advice on the level of qualifications required.
For each stage of the process, Colin and Morris provide advice: this includes how to arrange the room, which interpretation approaches can be adopted, styles of communication between interpreter and interviewee (e.g. the importance of direct rather than indirect speech when conveying what one person has said to another), alertness to non-verbal behaviour, and working conditions for the interpreter.
They raise the important question of recording the interpreter’s interpretation. Without this, it is impossible to discover at some later stage whether an error in the interpretation has had any significant consequence for what follows. Interviewees have no evidence on which to base complaints. However, it seems that such records are rarely kept. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office are planning to begin a pilot project in December whereby police interviews in five police forces will be video-recorded. Provision for this will be made in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill (2001). The pilot is not limited to Deaf suspects, victims or witnesses (or minority language speakers) although it will be particularly beneficial in these cases. (Direct communication from British Deaf Association).
Both Berk-Seligson (1990) and Brennan and Brown (1997) focus on court interpreting. In Berk-Seligson’s case, the examples studied are principally of cases where Spanish interpretation was required, in the USA. Brennan and Brown’s study looks at the use of BSL interpreters in the courts in Scotland and England. However, many of the conclusions to be drawn from the two studies are similar.
Brennan and Brown note that even good BSL interpreters make a number of errors on occasion while interpreting. These include omissions, modification of what has been said by either party, and confusion, often deriving from difficulties with the grammar of BSL. They note also that the two-way interpretation usually required in a court context (i.e. the interpreter interprets both from English into the other language and from the other language into English) can be problematic in that interpreters are rarely equally fluent in both the languages they use. This can have significant consequences – e.g. English speakers in the court may not be convinced of the interpreter’s skills if they use idiosyncratic English. Alternatively, Deaf people or people from minority ethnic groups may have to work much harder than may appear to be the case, to make sense of interpretation provided by someone who has only limited skills in BSL or else in the community language in question.
36 Brennan and Brown also identified effective strategies among good BSL interpreters. These included giving themselves time and visual space and avoiding pressures for ‘literal translation’. Good interpreters were not afraid to alter the dynamic, challenge expectations, and were not intimidated by others’ views on what interpreters should or should not do. They were ready to stop the court proceedings and ask for further information when necessary.
Brennan and Brown’s views are similar in many respects to those of Berk-Seligson (1990) whose research predominantly concerned Spanish speakers. Berk-Seligson notes that the ways in which an interpretation represents the client’s words can make a considerable difference to the outcomes of a trial. In experimental studies, using mock jurors, the range of stylistic feature found to make a difference to jurors’ decisions include politeness, hyperformality, hedging, interrupting, prodding and mimicking. She noted that defendants and their lawyers were becoming increasingly aware of the implications of poor quality interpreting. The number of challenges to court rulings, based on arguments concerning the quality of interpretation in the original trial, has risen markedly in the USA, as people become more familiar with this problem.
Issues relating to the monitoring and evaluation of the work of court interpreters are discussed in some detail in the report of the MVA Consultancy (1996). They note that this is extremely patchy currently, with some organisations having formal systems in place, and others not yet having developed these. The Consultancy notes that tape-recording interpretation is a reasonably cost-effective approach to monitoring, but also that this cannot prevent the occurrence of misinterpretation. Steps to remedy problems cannot be taken at the time of the trial but only subsequently, when someone has had the opportunity to review the tape. Another solution is for experienced court interpreters to accompany less experienced interpreters to do ‘spot checks’ although this might inhibit interpreters’ performance.
7.3 FUNDING MODELS
It seems clear that funding interpreting services is problematic. For example, in the field of legal interpreting, the MVA Consultancy (1996) noted uncertainty for funding for translation, interpretation and communication support services for the courts in the period of local government reorganisation and the ending of Scottish Office Urban Aid Programme, which was the main source of funding. They thought it likely that an already inadequate funding situation would worsen. That this did, in fact, occur is confirmed by Ferry et al. (1999). In 1996, when these fears were raised, interpretation and translation agencies were urged to become more ‘commercial’, but it is clear that court interpreting does not generate significant income and that in fact some of the most ‘commercial’ agencies refuse to take on this work because it is financially unviable (MVA Consultancy op.cit.).
While acknowledging the issue, few documents deal with it in detail. More commonly, the relevant bodies are urged to review current practice and prioritise but without being specific as to how this might be done. The Scottish Accessible Information Forum (1999) noted that costs of providing an adequate translation, interpretation and communication support service should be weighed against other priorities and against the potential costs of non-compliance with legislation. Corsellis (1998), specifically addressing the funding of interpretation services and bilingual workers for the West Midlands Probation Service, noted the following sources of funding: the West Midlands Probation Service budget; National Probation Service via the Home Office; UK private charities interested in this type of development; EU funds.
37 In this context, it is instructive to consider views emerging from the literature on the use of Language Line, a telephone-based interpreting service set up in 1990. We have encountered no discussion in the UK literature on the advantages and disadvantages of using distance interpreters (information about the Australian Telephone Interpreting Service, TIS, is included in Appendix D, section 4.1), but two references to the excessive cost of this service (Colin and Morris 1996; Cohen et al. 1999). It is not clear, in either of these cases what the comparative costs were considered to be. In Colin and Morris’s paper, dealing with a wide range of issues influencing the use of interpreters in legal contexts, it is noted specifically that some prison services have abandoned the use of Language Line on the grounds of cost, but it is not clear that other approaches are used instead. In Cohen et al., the use of Language Line is implicitly contrasted with the use of child interpreters and therefore it is not compared with face-to-face interpreting, the use of bilingual workers or other acceptable approaches.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that there is some reluctance to pay for the kinds of interpretation, translation and communication support services which would enable organisations to deal effectively with all the situations in which support might be needed, and a tendency to cut corners where possible. We have already noted the Benefit Agency’s support for child interpreters on the grounds of (no) cost (Benefits Agency 1998) and throughout the literature there are pleas to avoid adopting ad hoc or informal arrangements because of the costs of more appropriate provision (e.g. Ferry 2000). As SASLI (2000) argues, it seems that the work of interpreters is undervalued, at least in part, because of a failure to understand the skills involved. This leads to low rates of pay even for highly qualified and experienced interpreters and to the mistaken belief that anyone who speaks the other language concerned – even children – can do the job adequately (See Chapter 4).
It seems also to be the case that awareness of help with costs is low. For example, access to work funding for Deaf employees who use BSL is available to pay for interpretation, but uptake may not be as high as it could be (Direct communication from British Deaf Association).
38 CHAPTER EIGHT SERVICE AWARENESS
Awareness of public sector services available is low among people who do not communicate in conventional forms of spoken or written English. In the research conducted by Kyle et al. (1997) into the health education needs of Deaf people they found that while health education professionals believed that their services were well known to Deaf people, this was not in fact the case.
The most sustained investigation into service awareness was conducted by the National Information Forum in England (2001), investigating the unmet information needs of people with disabilities. They found that people with disabilities are disadvantaged not so much because of the lack of services but because of their lack of awareness of the services available to them. Well over four fifths of their sample recounted difficulties in accessing information which would help them to live independent lives.
A number of strategies for enhancing target groups’ awareness of the services on offer are mentioned in this paper and others. These include:
• translating leaflets into other languages and providing BSL video information; • employment of information officers; • outreach work; • using new information technologies to promote services.
All of these contribute to the dissemination of information, but all have drawbacks. For example, translated leaflets or BSL videos are of limited value if, when contacted for further information or to discuss provision of a particular service, the service provider can do this only through English, or do not have a text-line service. Services which provide translated information need to be sure that their target audiences are sufficiently literate in the languages they speak. Literacy rates will vary depending on people’s opportunities to attend school and learn to read in their country of origin and on their opportunities to learn to read and to develop existing literacy skills in community languages when in the UK. (It should be noted that community language provision in the UK and particularly in Scotland is extremely limited: see Powney et al. 1998 and also Jiwa 1994.) Even when potential users can access information written in English, it was noted that problems ensue when this is jargon-loaded or demands high levels of literacy. People who are in the early stages of learning English, or those people whose education has been disrupted or inadequate as a consequence of disabilities, can cope better with ‘plain English’ than with complex and challenging texts. The National Information Forum recommends the development of ‘alternative versions’ of key written texts, including translations and simple English formats.
The National Information Forum stresses the importance of human contact in the provision of information, and therefore commends the use of information officers. However, well over a third of their informants said that they had experienced inadequate communication skills and negative attitudes from professionals from whom they sought information. Similar experiences were reported by participants in the Scottish Executive’s workshop on researching ethnic minorities in Scotland (Reid-Howie Associates 2000). Furthermore, there was criticism from the National Information Forum of the failure to update information when changes in services or in legislation occurred. Those people whose job it is to provide information need to focus not only on appropriate styles of face-to-face or distance delivery
39 but also on ensuring that they are themselves well informed. In addition, it was felt that organisations were not aware of what was provided by others in their field or in related fields. The Scottish Accessible Information Forum (1999) found that one of the central concerns of disabled people who took part in focus group discussions concerning access to information was the lack of knowledge of generalist advice providers with regard to the rights and entitlements of disabled people. A greater emphasis on networking would lead to higher quality information. Ideas for sharing the time and cost involved in providing cross- organisational, up-to-date information are given by the Scottish Accessible Information Forum which suggests one agency taking the lead on services for people who are visually impaired while another does the same for those who are hearing impaired, etc.
Although we found no specific discussion of outreach work, we encountered some suggestions as to how this might be done: for example, targeting mosques, or minority language media.
Although some services had aimed to enhance awareness of what they could offer through the use of new technologies, the National Information Forum found that both people with disabilities and those in the early stages of learning English were the least likely to have access to these technologies (not only in relation to the internet but also to Ceefax/Teletext). Given the considerable potential of web-based information services (see Budzak 1999 for a - preliminary discussion relating to the use of community languages on the web but there is much more to be said on this issue), the National Information Forum recommend computer training designed specifically to support the information needs of people with disabilities.
40 CHAPTER NINE SERVICE USER NEEDS
Very few documents represent the service user perspective in detail. Those from representative bodies/ pressure groups such as the British Deaf Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind or the Commission for Racial Equality are clearly rooted in the experiences, concerns and interests of the groups they serve. However, as most of the documents we have read from these groups are concerned with policy matters, they do not provide direct access to those experiences, concerns and interests.
It is easier to hear the voice of the user from research studies based on close involvement with the user groups in question. Papers which draw extensively on user perspectives include the National Information Forum 2001 (on the unmet information needs of people with disabilities), Mahmood 2000 (on the concerns of Deaf people from minority ethnic backgrounds and of their parents/ carers); Bowes and Meehan Domokos 1997 (on Pakistani women’s experiences of healthcare in Glasgow); Kyle et al. 1997 (on impact of health promotion initiatives on Deaf people, involving both providers and users); and the Scottish Accessible Information Forum 1999 (development of standards for disability information and advice provision in Scotland based on focus group discussions involving both service providers and users).
9.1 RECOGNISING THE VALUE OF THE USER PERSPECTIVE
Articulating an aim which is clearly in tune with the social inclusion perspective, the Scottish Accessible Information Forum (1999) sets out its intent ‘to place disabled people at the centre of the planning process for information and advice services.’ The authors state the importance of involving target groups in consultation and in development of support structures. They note the fact that some agencies tended to involve carer and other representatives of people with disabilities in consultation processes to the exclusion of people with disabilities themselves. However, they also point out that carers and parents of children with disabilities are users in their own right.
Mahmood’s study shows that work based on users’ views is likely to produce findings and recommendations which are quite different from those produced by providers. Commenting that there has been little research on the health needs of minority ethnic d/Deaf (and disabled) people who suffer ‘double disadvantage’ – both racial discrimination and the problems associated with hearing impairment - Mahmood identifies a number of issues specific to this context. For example, the stigma of deafness in Asian communities may be higher than in an Anglo-Celtic community, and therefore specific actions to raise awareness and combat negativity are suggested (e.g. an information pack aimed at Asian communities, an ‘Asian Deaf Awareness Day’). The multilingual context also creates specific needs – Asian Deaf people are unlikely to learn community languages and thus have very much diminished access to cultural and religious resources within their community. From this, Mahmood points to the desirability of introducing BSL into mosque-run religious education (and presumably other cultural and religious activities associated with different minority ethnic communities). The study also points to the importance of enabling Asian parents to learn BSL in order to be able to communicate with Deaf children. There is no discussion in this or any other document included in this review of the use of sign languages other than BSL,
41 although it is surely possible that Deaf people who have come to the UK from elsewhere are users of other sign languages.
9.2 NEED TO RECOGNISE HETEROGENEITY OF TARGET GROUPS
A number of documents make reference to the importance of understanding that neither people with disabilities nor people from minority ethnic backgrounds constitute a homogeneous group: (Scottish Accessible Information Forum 1999; Reid-Howie Associates 2000; Pankaj 2000; Kyle et al. 1997; Owen et al. 2000). User-oriented documents tend not to make this error. For example, it is noticeable that both Mahmood and Bowes and Meehan Domokos’s papers deal with very specific ‘subgroups’: in both cases, Pakistani communities based in Glasgow. Mahmood recognises as a limitation of the study that only one non- Pakistani participant was involved and that therefore generalisation to other Asian Deaf people may not be warranted. It is also the case that that two thirds of Mahmood’s informants were BSL users. Bowes and Meehan Domokos specifically deal with Pakistani women, enhancing the validity of their findings but also limiting their scope.
Other researchers sensitive to heterogeneity within target groups are able to identify important differences: for example, Pankaj (2000) reports that language barriers, in the context of family mediation, appeared to be more substantial for speakers of Chinese languages (Cantonese and Hakka) than for other ethnic minority service users. Owen et al. (2000), analysing data relating to the education, training and employment needs of people of minority ethnic origin report that levels of attainment indicate that all minority ethnic groups, with the exception of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, outperform the majority Anglo-Celtic population. The significance of this data – which could be obscured if comparisons were made simply between ‘white’ and ‘ethnic minority’ groups – is that the assumption that people of minority ethnic origin will continue to need significant support in achieving appropriate qualifications and entering employment in the future should be questioned. Support could be more accurately targeted to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities (and also to people who arrive in the UK during the course of their education or subsequently).
Nevertheless, the fact that other writers feel the need constantly to reiterate the heterogeneity of target user groups suggests that it is still difficult for some providers to understand this and to act accordingly, in terms both of localising and of adapting service provision, e.g. to take into account cultural differences among different minority ethnic groups.
Heterogeneity is not limited to the recognition that there are many different ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities in Scotland who have as little – or as much – in common with each other as they do with the majority Anglo-Celtic population; nor that d/Deaf people’s communication approaches differ markedly according to the onset of deafness and to the kinds of provision for learning to communicate. It is also important to include other demographic variables which are not connected to communication factors. For example Kyle et al. (1997) suggest that health education professionals need to consider the needs of the elderly Deaf, Deaf fathers, Deaf mothers and the young Deaf. Reid Howie Associates Ltd. (2000) note that participants in the Scottish Executive workshop on research on ethnic minority communities raised the question of the dual identity of Scottish-born teenagers of minority ethnic origin, differences between the needs and experiences of people of minority ethnic origin in urban and rural areas, and the existence of what were termed ‘communities of interest’ which could span several ethnic and linguist groups (e.g. Muslim women).
42 9.3 VALUE OF FOCUS ON ACCESS FOR ALL
A number of documents made the point that improving the service for the particular groups concerned would improve the service for everyone. Access for all means less labelling of disabled groups, and also that groups whose interests are rarely considered can also benefit. A good example of this, in the context of this review, are adults who have not yet achieved ‘functional literacy’ (defined as a reading age of 11 or over) and who are therefore likely to have difficulty in identifying relevant information from simple texts. According to the Moser Report (Moser 1999), one in five adults in the UK is not functionally literate. Therefore, although this group is invisible, in all the literature reviewed (of course some will be hearing or visually impaired of minority ethnic origin), they form a very substantial proportion of the population. All those who are not functionally literate are likely to benefit from a view of communication support which emphasises provision of a range of alternative approaches to the dissemination of information, including video, and the use of simple English in leaflets.
43 CHAPTER TEN TRAINING
10.1 PROVISION FOR TRAINING
This chapter identifies and describes the different types of training needed by interpreters and translators, by other bilingual staff and by other professionals. In addition there is a need for education and training to enhance the communication skills of the wider public. Before looking at the nature of training required and delivered, however, it is important to note that all those commenting on training issues point to the shortage of appropriate provision and the cost which, in many cases, interpreters and translators are expected to bear themselves, for little or no financial reward subsequently (Parratt 1995; Ferry et al. 1999).
10.2 TRAINING NEEDS OF INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS AND BILINGUAL SUPPORT WORKERS
Given the shortage of provision and the cost, it is not surprising many commentators identify a need for more trained bilingual support staff (Mahmood 2000; Pankaj 2000; Corsellis 1998), and the shortage of trained interpreters and translators (Brennan and Brown 1997; Corsellis 1998). Several writers are concerned about the low standards of interpretation and translation even among those who have had training. SASLI (1997) comments that the range of courses available is inadequate, and that they vary in quality. The trainers themselves lack guidance on what is required and there is inadequate funding to train trainers. In this context, ‘semi-trained’ staff who have taken some basic courses are, in the absence of further appropriate provision, often asked to act as interpreters even although they have not reached a level of competence which would enable them to fulfil this role effectively. SASLI (1997) also comments that the fact that people with low level interpreting skills are able to find employment deters them from seeking to upgrade skills. Their employers do not set standards that would require them to upgrade skills. These findings are echoed by Kyle et al. (1997) who report that few health authorities provide training for interpreters to improve language skills, medical knowledge or understanding of health system.
The MVA Consultancy (1996) suggests that increasing rates of pay for appropriately qualified legal interpreters would have the effect of encouraging more people to train. Kelly (n.d.) endorses this view, noting that, a national agreement on interpreting standards in criminal investigations and proceedings was signed by most criminal justice agencies in 1997. According to this agreement, by the end of 2001, commissions for interpreting services, whenever practicable, would be restricted to interpreters listed in the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). All those included on the NRPSI will have to be ‘suitably qualified or experienced’(NRPSI 1998): to gain full status in the register, this means holding the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting or the Metropolitan Police Test and public service interpreting experience of 2000 hours or more (NRPSI Newsletter 2001). It is not clear that registration has enhanced pay rates, however, given that this is reported to be the most frequently cited concern of interpreters belonging to the NRPSI (NPRSI Newsletter 2001). Scottish justice agencies have not signed up to the NRPSI.
There is also a need for higher level or specialist qualifications than those currently in existence. For example, Brennan and Brown (1997) comment that BSL court interpreters typically have no specialised legal interpreting training – indeed, many have often not even
44 trained as interpreters and sometimes have no sign language qualifications at all. The CRE (1992) notes that few health authorities had (by 1992) provided training for interpreters to improve language skills, medical knowledge or understanding of health system. Although this study is now out of date, we have seen no evidence to suggest that this situation has changed.
Corsellis (1998) argues that there is a need for a new higher level qualification, set at Master’s level, for public sector interpreters. Currently the highest qualification on offer is the Diploma in Public Sector Interpreting, equivalent to a first degree, offered by the Institute of Linguists. She also argues for formally structured continuous professional development for interpreters, which would include elements such as problem solving, updating on new legislation and changes in procedures, and on new terminologies.
Corsellis (op.cit.) notes that post-graduate professional examinations exist for translators (e.g. the Institute of Linguists Diploma in Translation). Additional experience is required to reach standard of the specialist translators, some of whom are qualified lawyers or doctors. Specialised translators can be contacted through professional language bodies such as the Institute of Linguists or the Institute of Interpreting and Translation.
In the MVA Consultancy’s investigation of the arrangements and standards for foreign language interpreters in the Scottish courts (1996), they found that interpreters themselves were concerned about the difficulty of accessing specialist training which enable them to gain better understanding of legal terminology. Agency co-ordinators reported that they could not always guarantee ‘well qualified, fully trained, experienced and competent interpreters’ because of a lack of commitment to training and because the existing courses do not reach the required standards. Criminal justice agency representatives reported the consequences of this lack of training: interpreters’ poor knowledge of the language for which they were providing interpretation; interpreters’ poor command of English; interpreters’ inappropriate approach to the task (e.g. showing evidence of a lack of impartiality or difficulty in coping).
The solutions suggested in the MVA Consultancy’s report give an indication of the barriers to ensuring that legal interpreters are qualified to DPSI standard: while recognising that this is a desirable option, the authors comment that difficulties in accessing relevant courses and the lack of funding to support those who wish to sit the examination mean that it is not a viable option for many. The more pragmatic recommendations here are provision for training to prepare interpreters for their first court experience, and one day courses which combine theory and practice, including video material showing common mistakes. They also commend short courses run by the immigration appeals tribunal and mock court cases set up by the Sheriffs Association, the Association of District Court Authorities and the Association of Community Interpreters – although these are also described as expensive. Despite the comprehensive approach of this research (involving interpretation agencies, free-lance interpreters and criminal justice agency representatives), the views of the Institute of Linguists and of local training providers (principally Further Education colleges) were not sought. Other documents in which the views of trainers are discussed have not been identified.
45 10.3 TRAINING NEEDS OF OTHER STAFF
Training is needed for other professionals, both in terms of awareness of the needs, concerns and interests of people with disabilities or from minority ethnic backgrounds (Kyle et al. 1997; Mahmood 2000), and in terms of understanding the interpreter's role, given that many professionals appear not to understand what is involved in interpreting, nor what it is and is not reasonable to expect an interpreter to do. Both the MVA Consultancy (1996) and Brennan and Brown (1997) stress the importance of enhancing understanding of the interpreter’s role in the context of court interpreting. Brennan and Brown recommend a basic level of training for all court officials and more in-depth training for some. A conclusion to be drawn from the work of Cohen et al. (1999) and Bowes and Meehan Domokos (1997) is that there is a particular need for GPs to undergo awareness-raising and communication strategy training.
In order to cut training costs, it has been suggested that awareness raising and communication strategies could be included in other profession development courses. Some good examples of this practice were encountered in the research for this review: for example, the City of Edinburgh Council provides training in use of BT type talk, sympathetic hearing scheme and the use of plain English, and all staff are encouraged to make use of RNIB common sense steps on design (CEC 2001). However, SASLI (2000) note that providers of training to mainstream professionals are reluctant to provide additional funding required to train staff to deliver high-level communication services.
10.4 EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR THE WIDER PUBLIC
Among commentators on issues affecting Deaf users of BSL and other deaf people, there is a particular awareness of the value of providing education and training for the wider public. Mahmood (2000) notes the need for parents of Deaf children to develop BSL skills. Kyle et al. (1997) conversely note the need for children of Deaf parents to learn BSL. More generally, it seems clear that all family members, friends and acquaintances of Deaf people would welcome opportunities to learn BSL, as might professionals who come into contact with Deaf people in a wide range of contexts (not only health and social workers, the professional groups for whom training is most commonly recommended). Similar needs can be assumed to exist for lip-reading and lip-speaking courses, including the importance, in this case, for hearing people who become deaf to learn to lip-read. SASLI (1997) note that lip- reading classes are often provided as part of adult education services, yet awareness of the availability of a lip-speaking service is poor, and trained lip-speakers encounter little demand for services.
If these needs exist for d/Deaf people and those who come into contact with them in social or professional contexts, it seems likely that they exist in relation to community languages too, although there is little reference to the need for enhanced provision in this context. There is a need for community language literacy courses for those who have not had the opportunity to learn to read in heritage languages either in the country where they lived before coming to the UK or while at school in the UK. In addition, it would seem appropriate to extend further education courses which provide basic knowledge of European languages for students training for jobs in various business or service industries, to the main community languages (including BSL) in use in Scotland.
46 CHAPTER ELEVEN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
This chapter looks at the range of guidelines and standards relevant to translation, interpretation and communication support issues. Chapter 12 considers how effective these have been, examining the extent to which monitoring and evaluation procedures are in place, and what the results of evaluation studies tell us.
11.1 ENSURING QUALITY OF INTERPRETATION AND OF SUPPORT FOR INTERPRETATION
We have seen in Chapter 9 that the training of interpreters is problematic, both because of the difficulty of accessing courses and the low level of incentives to acquire appropriate qualifications. We have also seen some evidence of attempts to improve the situation, particularly through the development of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Improving the quality and uptake of training is clearly one way of ensuring a higher standard of service.
Several of the documents relating to the context of legal interpreting draw attention not only to the need for standards for interpreters but also for the staff of the various criminal justice agencies who make use of interpretation and translation services. Colin and Morris (1996) and Ferry et al. (1999) argue for the establishment of a set of standards for court interpreting for all those (not only the interpreters) involved in the process. This would include an end to ad hoc arrangements and a commitment to enhanced cultural awareness. Colin and Morris suggest that these standards should be developed through a partnership approach involving all those concerned with court procedures, while Ferry et al. suggest that the Crown Office is the best-positioned body to undertake this task at a national level.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (2000) acknowledges the complexity of interpretation approaches ‘in the context of victims, witnesses and offenders’ and notes that the quality and availability of interpreting services for victims, witnesses and suspects is variable. They also comment that there is no evidence of quality control or validation of expertise in the compiling of lists of available interpreters. In addition, there is evidence that some police officers fail to identify the need for interpretation, leading to marked differences in service provision. They recommend that chief constables actively engage in the development of the national framework for translation, interpretation and communication support services (i.e. the exercise of which this review is part) in order to address these problems.
11.2 EXISTING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Apart from the establishment of the NRPI, which entails the particular standards relating to qualifications and experience noted in Chapter 9, there appear to be few established sets of guidelines or standards which relate specifically to translation, interpretation and communication support services. In Chapter 5, we have made reference to existing legislation and policy steers which can be seen as setting out the broad criteria for standards of service. For example Article 6.3 of European Convention of Human Rights outlines the linguistic rights of those charged with criminal offences:
47 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: • to be informed promptly, and in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; • to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
However, as Kelly (n.d.) comments, more specific statements are required: for example, there is ‘no mention of the qualification of the interpreter, their legal status or what s/he is expected to do’.
A number of documents set out standards which relate to wider fields (e.g. disability rights, racial equality etc.) from which some reference to what should be expected of translation, interpretation and communication support services and what support should be provided for them can, on occasion, be drawn. Around 30 of the documents reviewed fell into this category, and were variously described as codes of practice, guides/guidance/guidelines, standards, strategies, frameworks, policy statements, recommendations, circulars, advice and performance systems. These different titles appear to relate to the force the document is intended to have in bringing about change, although this is not always very clear.
Many documents are issued by government departments and agencies and by local authorities (e.g. the Department of Health, the NHS Executive, Scottish Homes, the Scottish Executive, City of Edinburgh Council), and are aimed at staff working in the departments themselves. In addition, there are documents from pressure groups such as the Commission for Racial Equality, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, or the British Deaf Association which set standards or present guidelines for other bodies to follow. By implication, all of these documents are relevant also to those for whose protection or support the standards or guidelines have been devised (i.e. people with disabilities or of minority ethnic origin) although this is not always explicit in the documents themselves. Nor is it always the case that the authors of the documents have aimed to make them accessible to these groups.
Codes of practice differ from the other types of documents in that they are quasi-legal documents that set out the implications of legislation for various bodies affected. For example the Disability Discrimination Act: Code of Practice for Post-16 Education and Related Services (Disability Rights Commission 2001b) sets out to provide practical guidance on how to avoid discrimination against disabled students; and to help disabled people to understand the law and what they can do if they feel themselves to be discriminated against. The force of the document is described as follows:
The code is not a substitute for taking legal advice. It does not impose legal obligations. It is not an authoritative statement of the law, but it can be use in evidence in legal proceedings.
Although some of the other documents make specific reference to legislation and codes of practice in support of the standards or guidelines they set out, it is less clear where they would stand in legal terms.
Inspection reports have been included in the category of standards and guidelines: although they also fulfil a monitoring and evaluation function, one of the principal purposes of publishing these reports is to point the services inspected to relevant legislation and guidelines and to make recommendations for how these should be implemented.
48 To illustrate the range of documents, authors and potential audience, and the extent to which issues relating to translation, interpretation and communication support are raised, six examples are set out here.
1. Disability Rights Commission (2001a) sets out a code of practice for schools to explain new duties in relation to Part IV of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act which comes into force in September 2002. Guidance relating to translation, interpretation and communication support services has to be inferred from broader statements. For example, the key duties for schools are not to treat disabled pupils less favourably, and to make reasonable adjustments to avoid putting disabled pupils at a substantial disadvantage. Thus it might be possible to claim unlawful discrimination if support for children who communicate in BSL is not made available, but legal interpretation of whether this would constitute a reasonable adjustment to avoid putting pupils at a substantial disadvantage would be required. It is not clear whether this code of practice covers the Scottish Qualifications Agency and whether it could be used to press both for assessment opportunities in BSL for Deaf students, and for exemption from the oral/aural components of English, communication and modern languages examinations.
2. ACPOS (2000) sets out guiding principles for the achieving of racial equality: pursuing intolerance; engaging communities; ‘sharing information and concerns between the community and the Police’; effective Alliances to ensure shared knowledge, experience and information; encouraging confidence. Specific reference to communication issues in this context include commitments to ensuring that ‘victims of racist crime will be informed of the progress of Police investigations in language they easily understand’ and to providing information which is accessible and easily understood. It is also stated that interpreting facilities should be made readily available. The appropriate use of language will be monitored through the appraisal system.
3. In the context of the inspection of social services for ethnic minority children and their families, O’Neale (2000) points to standards and criteria already established. These include the need to involve appropriate translation and advocacy services and the need for planning to take into account the racial, religious, linguistic and cultural backgrounds of children. Receptionists need be trained to deal with communication difficulties and staff need to know how to make use of the translation and interpretation resources available to them. The importance of consultation with ethnic minority families and with advocates is also emphasised. The Social Services Department has written policies and guidance which acknowledge the needs of ethnic minority children, and how they will be met with regard to race, culture, language, disabilities and gender.
4. The NHS Executive (1999) gives specific advice on the length of appointments, independent advocates, staff awareness training, complaints procedures. It also provides detailed statistics and guidelines on improved communication for deaf and hard of hearing people, blind and visually impaired people, deafblind people, people with communication and learning difficulties or mental health problems and reminds providers to take account of carers’ needs, which may be in conflict with what the disabled person wants.
49 5. City of Edinburgh Council (2001) lists procedures and practices for the translation of all written communications into languages used by local ethnic minority communities and into alternative formats: tape, floppy disk, large print, Braille, use of e-mail/CDROM. All public meetings are to advertise availability of interpretation for deaf and deaf/blind people and in community languages, and also of induction loop/infra-red sound amplification systems. All staff are to be trained in use of the BT “Typetalk” service, specific communication tools such as the Sympathetic hearing Scheme and the use of Plain English. All staff are to make use of RNIB “common sense” steps on design issues
6. The Scottish Accessible Information Forum (1999) sets out standards aimed at extending the provision of accessible information and advice to disabled people – standards designed as practical tool for agencies, funders or services, representatives of disabled people and disabled people themselves.
Very few of the documents reviewed provide a timescale in which they expect guidelines to be implemented. Notable exceptions include ACPOS (2000) which states that Scottish police forces can implement the strategy in different stages but that all are required to report on progress within two years of the publication of the document; and City of Edinburgh Council (2001) which requires monitoring reports every six months. It is also rare for monitoring and evaluation procedures to be specified or for rewards or sanctions to be mentioned. No document raises funding or resourcing issues. These are significant omissions, because the impression gained from this review is that an enormous amount of thought and effort has been expended on developing standards and guidelines, to very little effect. The same guidelines, based on the same critiques, appear to be issued at regular intervals. For example, the Department of Health issued Think Dual Sensory, setting out good practice guidelines for social and health care services in relation to older people with dual sensory loss in 1997. This year, following a consultation exercise, the Department of Health issued a circular, Social Care for Deafblind Children and Adults (Department of Health Deafblind Services Consultation 2001) which implies that very little has changed:
The [consultation] exercise concluded that the needs of deafblind people are often not identified nor are those in need of community care always in receipt of appropriate services. It has become clear that more has to be done to identify, correctly assess and provide appropriate services for people with dual sensory impairment.
Many of the recommendations proposed in the 2001 document echo those of 1997; and in some cases, seem to tone them down. In comparing the recommendations relating to the use of interpreters in 1997 with those made in 2001, we can see that while the 2001 document contains more specific information about written or recorded formats which can make material accessible to deafblind people (the 1997 document does not address this issue in detail), it seems quite clear that the use of interpreters is presented as a ‘last resort’ in 2001, while the 1997 document presents the use of interpreters as a choice made by the deafblind user which services should support.
1997 Deafblind people who use deafblind manual or sign language, or an English signed system, or a spoken language other than English, may need or choose to communicate through an interpreter. […] Managers need to ensure that
50 their staff know about, and have ready access to interpreters with a range of communication skills, including British Sign Language and community languages. […] Budgets should enable staff to use trained interpreters, to ensure a high quality service, especially in such formal situations as medical or legal consultations. Interpreters are professional people who maintain a strict code of confidentiality and who are skilled in interpreting the sense and intent of what is said while preserving the content of interviews. However, since the availability of interpreters is patchy, people will often have to rely on friends or relatives. The goodwill and effectiveness of all these volunteer helpers can be bolstered by offering them training. CACDP’s training resource packs Touch and Go and Interpreting for Deafblind People provide useful training material.
2001 Deafblindness poses particular challenges in ensuring that information and services are accessible in ways that conform with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In the same way that councils ensure that information they produce and issue about services, procedures etc. is accessible to those with one sensory impairment, so they should ensure that such information is also available in formats and methods that are accessible to deafblind people. Councils will need to consider not only various sizes of Large Print, as well as Braille, Moon, audio or video (subtitled or signed) versions but also computer disk or use of e-mail (to be accessed by specialist technology), text-phones and Type-Talk. For some deafblind people no method of communication other than tactile communication delivered by another person is available (e.g. hands-on sign, deafblind manual). In these rare circumstances a provision of a suitably skilled communicator to deliver information would be appropriate.
51 CHAPTER TWELVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The importance of monitoring and evaluating the impact of policy is now well established. Monitoring enables organisations to check on progress, while evaluation means assessing progress in relation to pre-determined goals. Checklists or performance indicators offer structured approaches to monitoring, while benchmarks enable judgements to be made about the extent to which aims and objectives have been met. Appraisal systems enable organisations to check the extent to which staff have internalised the aims and objectives of the organisation and how far, in terms of their own responsibilities, they have succeeded in implementing strategies for achieving these.
A number of conditions affect the extent to which monitoring and evaluation can be conducted effectively. These include accurate statistics, funding for monitoring and evaluation procedures, a commitment to involving users in the conduct of monitoring and evaluation activities, and the public reporting of the outcomes of monitoring and evaluation exercises.
This review found a relatively limited awareness of what monitoring and evaluation entail, or of the importance of the conditions noted above. There is, however, one excellent example: the Department of Health Social Care Group’s publication Stepping away from the edge: Improving services for deaf and hard of hearing people (1999). This document aims to provide a practical tool for social services and includes various checklists, ‘stepping stones to improvement’ and an audit tool. This document, particularly when read in conjunction with the preceding inspection report A service on the edge: inspection of services for deaf and hard of hearing people (Department of Health 1997), constitutes a model of good practice which would enable any authority to evaluate and improve its services. One caveat, however, is that there is no discussion of the funding needed to bridge the gap between what, according to the Department, is required to fulfil services’ statutory duties and the current situation, which the inspectorate found to be unsatisfactory (in seven of the eight local authorities inspected.) Possibly the only way to ensure adequate provision to support the communication needs of d/Deaf and hard of hearing people would be to make social services departments and other agencies statutorily responsible for providing good quality training in communication skills for their own staff.
It is possible that awareness of the importance of monitoring and evaluation is increasing, as most of the documents which make reference to checklists (e.g. Standards for Disability Information and Advice Provision in Scotland 2000), performance indicators (e.g. Scottish Homes 2001), benchmarks (e.g. National Deaf Children’s Society 2000) or appraisal systems (e.g. ACPOS 2000) have appeared in the last 18 months. There is, however, a major problem with the collection of accurate statistical information (as discussed in Chapter 6) and there are no references to the need to fund monitoring and evaluation. Some organisations make a specific commitment to the involvement of user groups in monitoring and evaluation exercises (e.g. City of Edinburgh Council 2001; Scottish Homes 2001) but only one on explicit commitment to publishing evaluation reports (Department of Health 1997).
It is not, perhaps, surprising that there are relatively few examples of systematic evaluation exercises: those which do seem to fit the category, in that they are evaluating either a service or the implementation of policy include the Commission for Racial Equality’s evaluation of the implementation of the 1984 Code of Practice for NHS Trusts (Racial Equality and NHS
52 Trusts, 2000); Clarke and Speeden’s evaluation, for the Commission for Racial Equality, of the adoption and implementation of Racial Equality Means Quality (CRE 1995); the Commission for Racial Equality’s Standard for local government (Measuring Up, 2000); Kyle et al.’s evaluation of health promotion initiatives among members of the Deaf community in Scotland (Deaf Health in Scotland, 1997); and Pankaj’s evaluation of family mediation services for people of minority ethnic origin (Family Mediation Services for Minority Ethnic Families in Scotland, 2000). Clearly, there are many more examples of critiques, arising principally from research, but these are distinct from evaluations in terms of their broader focus and consequent lack of specific goals or objectives against which to measure performance in some way. The evaluations we have reviewed deal with wider issues than translation, interpretation and communication support: although the implications of points raised have a bearing on translation, interpretation and communication support, we have not found any evaluations which deal with these issues in detail.
The evaluations conducted by or on behalf of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE 2000; Clarke and Speeden 2000) deal with wider issues than translation, interpretation and communication support. However, these two documents give an idea of the level of detail which well conducted evaluations, grounded in the legislation and other relevant documentation, can achieve – even although clearly, the points are only of tangential relevance to translation, interpretation and communication support services. Both evaluations very specifically measure the extent to which organisations have succeeded in complying with a pre-existing code of practice (CRE) or standards (Clarke and Speeden). The Commission for Racial Equality’s evaluation focuses on the management steps needed to move policy into practice: e.g. the drafting of equal opportunities policies and steps to implementing these – including informing staff (which had occurred in only a third of the 250 English trusts investigated) – and maintaining a high profile at senior management level. Clarke and Speeden sought explanations from authorities to explain why almost half of their sample (54 local authorities in Scotland and England) had been unable to implement the 1995 Standard. Their findings include a critique of the style of the 1995 document (insufficient guidance and supporting documentation) and of the failure to identify support mechanisms (e.g. linking integration of the Standard with other initiatives such as Best Value or Business Excellence; or encouragement of umbrella organisations such as the LGA and COSLA to support development).
53 CHAPTER THIRTEEN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, we identify the issues which we think are of greatest significance in developing a framework for translation, interpretation and support services in Scotland. Our intention is not to summarise the report here (a detailed summary is provided at the beginning of this report) nor to focus on recommendations made by other organisations, which are reported, as relevant, in the body of this review. This final section reflects the view of the review team and the intention is to draw attention to the implications of what we believe are the key findings to have emerged.
13.1 SOCIAL INCLUSION PERSPECTIVE
The importance of building a social inclusion perspective into the work of all public sector activities is becoming increasingly evident, with a range of publications at UK-wide and national (Scottish) level addressing social inclusion and its implications for all types of government activity. Particularly in Scotland, where social inclusion has been placed at the centre of social policy making, it seems essential that all public sector organisations will, in time, need to apply this radical rethinking of the nature of the task to their day-to-day practice.
It seems clear that few of the organisations whose work is discussed in the documents we have read for this review have yet understood this shift or addressed it. Given that the emphasis on social inclusion in Scottish policy has emerged only recently, and that the implications are still being explored at national level, this is not a surprising finding. It will perhaps take around ten years (we estimate, although others with more experience of the policy process may be able to provide a more accurate picture of progress from national policy to local practice) before we can expect to see evidence of the change – i.e. from social inclusion as a good idea to social inclusion as normalised practice.
What is needed at this stage is careful consideration of the implications of the shift to a social inclusion perspective for translation, interpretation and communication support issues, particularly in the context of the development of a national framework. This is partly because attention to these issues in policy documents concerned with social inclusion has been cursory, but also because it will be particularly important, in our view, to avoid developing a framework which seeks to standardise or build on existing practice. Existing practice is rooted in the ‘service provider’ model which we have outlined in Chapter 4 and elsewhere in this report and therefore, however effective on these terms, will become outdated.
The social inclusion perspective entails starting from the point of view of those who communicate in forms other than conventional spoken or written English. It means investigating the range of cultural and social contexts in which these people wish to participate (which we can assume to be at least all those in which everyone else participates), the communication barriers that they are likely to encounter, and ways of breaking these down.
Solutions will clearly include thinking through multiple communication approaches from the outset, rather than seeking to adapt conventional approaches only when those who do not use
54 them are present. They will also, we feel, entail much greater attention to the communication strategies which people who communicate in forms other than conventional spoken or written English currently use both to survive and to succeed. As teachers and researchers with a background in extensive debate in our own field concerning the strategies learners develop and use to learn foreign languages, we were particularly surprised to find little or no discussion of the communication strategies employed in this context. We have learned very little in this review about the experiences, the concerns or the aspirations of the people for whom translation, interpretation and communication support is provided, and we feel that this is a substantial gap both in the research literature and in the debate which influences the nature of provision. It would be particularly enlightening to have read studies of prominent people (e.g. politicians such as David Blunkett or Emma Nicholson, activists such as Jeff McWhinney, or broadcasters such as Peter White) who communicate in forms other than conventional spoken or written English, investigating the strategies they use and the forms of support which they have found to be most valuable.
13.2 COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUUM
Considerable emphasis in the literature is placed on the need to professionalise the work of translators and interpreters, for important reasons. Clearly, much of what currently passes for interpretation is done on an ad hoc basis with questionable results. The willingness of some public sector staff to accept child interpreters is a clear indicator of low levels of understanding of what interpreting entails (‘even a child can do it’) and of the low priority placed on communicating effectively with those who do not use conventional forms of spoken or written English. We would concur wholeheartedly with moves to ensure minimum standards in relation to the qualifications and experience of interpreters (and translators, whose work receives much less scrutiny but who are probably affected by similarly low levels of awareness or professional respect). We also support the view that there is a need for higher level qualifications and provision for the continuous professional development of translators and interpreters and of public sector staff who make use of their skills.
At the same time, we feel it is important not to conclude that higher levels of professionalisation, coupled with increased awareness of the importance of translators’ and interpreters’ work and enhanced resources to employ them, will resolve all the problems raised in this review.
We argued at the outset that translators and interpreters need to be aware of linguistic nuance and socio-cultural practices among both linguistic groups concerned in order to do their job effectively. In some situations, this is a difficult or impossible task.
How easy is it for an interpreter who shifts from legal to medical to social work settings on a regular basis to convey fully in all cases the meanings of precise professional terms and contexts from one language to another, when the interpreter is neither a professional in the particular field nor – in the case of hired interpreters who have no pre-existing relationship to the person for whom they are providing the interpretation – detailed knowledge of the client’s circumstances or expectations? We have seen that in sensitive contexts (e.g. family mediation or investigations of sexual abuse), where professionals need to be particularly alert to nuance, tone, the meaning of silence and other complex verbal and non-verbal signals, interpreters are unlikely to be able to convey what to the professionals may be the most significant elements of a response.
55 To what extent does the fact that all BSL interpreters are members of the hearing community obscure aspects of the experience of Deaf BSL users? Some of the documents we have reviewed have suggested that it is important not only to be able to convert spoken English into BSL accurately, but also to know enough about the Deaf BSL user to be aware of contexts with which s/he is familiar or unfamiliar, given that much information which hearing people absorb almost unconsciously and take for granted is not necessarily accessible to d/Deaf people.
Where matters of confidentiality are concerned, is it always wrong to use a member of the family as an interpreter, particularly for those who belong to small linguistic communities and have therefore little hope of anonymity?
We have argued in the body of this review that, rather than pursuing a false dichotomy between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ interpreters and translators, where ‘formal’ or ‘professional’ is always to be preferred to ‘informal’ or ‘ad hoc’, it is more helpful to think of a communication continuum which we illustrated in Chapter 7 as follows:
Figure 2: Communication continuum professional interpreter trained bilingual informal professional communication through family and friends
For all concerned with facilitating communication between those who use conventional forms of spoken and written English and those who do not, the question of the most appropriate choice must focus on the linguistic skills (in both languages), the professional background (in terms of their understanding or experience of health matters, legal procedures, educational provision, etc.), familiarity with the social and cultural norms of both communities and/or of the particular individuals concerned, empathy with the client’s needs and expectations, and commitment to confidentiality.
We can posit a second continuum, which arises from our own thinking rather than from the literature, relating to the context in which communication is to be facilitated. At one end of this continuum, are ‘high stakes’ contexts, in which the consequences of miscommunication could be serious, even life-threatening (e.g. medical emergencies, court cases, etc.). In the middle are situations in which people may be seeking information, advice or support for decisions they need to take (e.g. about their children’s education, their own health needs, career prospects, etc.). At the other end are routine contexts, such as contact with receptionists, form-filling. etc. This second continuum is illustrated in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3: Contextual continuum
high stakes decision-making routine contexts situations
We are not suggesting that this second continuum maps directly on to the first (i.e. it is not necessarily the case the high stakes contexts require professional interpreters or that routine
56 contexts are best served by informal interpretation). However, we think that decisions about provision should reflect the context and the implications of failing to provide adequate support for communication in different situations.
We suggest that those concerned with developing the framework for translation, interpretation and communication support services consider adopting and developing this continuum in the conceptualisation of their work.
13.3 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
This communication continuum has very substantial implications for education and training. We have already noted the need for greater professionalisation of interpreters and translators. Training and qualifications need to take into account not only the development and certification of translators’ and interpreters’ linguistic skills but also the various issues listed above – familiarity with professional fields, social and cultural considerations, respect for individuality, empathy and confidentiality.
We see a need for the employment of many more bilingual workers than exist currently in Scotland. These bilingual workers would be trained professionals in their own fields but their job descriptions would include responsibilities to use the other communication strategies with which they are familiar, and their salaries and career development would reflect these skills. Clearly, bilingual workers would also require training and professional development in the communication skills they are to use. Again, there is a need to challenge the ill-formed assumptions of monolinguals that anyone who is to any degree bilingual can cope in any kind of communication context which involves the use of their other languages, regardless of how specialist the field or how sensitive the situation. Most people brought up in bilingual families in Scotland will be fluent in another language in terms of informal social conversation skills, and possibly also in certain specific cultural contexts in relation to religious expression or other cultural events and activities. However, given the very limited provision for education in community languages in Scotland, many will not be literate in community languages and few will have developed the specialised vocabulary relating to their professional field. Bilingual workers will need support to develop their linguistic skills in a professional context, in addition to the same kinds of training outlined above for interpreters and translators in social and cultural considerations, respect for individuality, empathy and confidentiality.
Bilingual workers need not only be drawn from minority linguistic communities. There is no reason why monolingual English-speaking staff should not learn community languages and/or British Sign Language. Multinational companies expect their staff to be able to operate in other languages, to varying degrees. This can range from reception staff recognising the different languages they are likely to encounter, greeting clients, and passing them on to someone who can deal in detail with their needs, in the appropriate language, to decision- makers negotiating at a sophisticated level with counterparts from other organisations. To think in this way may entail a major culture shift within public sector organisations but there are many gains to be made, not only in ensuring more effective communication in the particular languages learned but also in raising staff awareness of what it means to communicate in another language and what strategies can be used. As we noted elsewhere in the report, skills in other languages tend not to have a high profile in employers’ lists of employee attributes, but generic communication skills are usually top of the list, perhaps even
57 more so in the public sector than in business. Greater awareness of how language learning enhances generic communication skills will be needed.
Enabling people who use only conventional forms of spoken and written English to communicate in other ways ideally should begin with education, both in school and in provision for lifelong learning. This would mean, in addition to current provision for modern European languages, provision for community languages and for BSL. Recommendations to identify ways of including community languages in the school curriculum are included in Citizens of a Multilingual World: the Report of the Action Group for Languages (Scottish Executive Education Department 2000j) and could be strengthened by support for this from other sections of the Scottish Executive aware of the importance of enhancing everyone’s ability to communicate in the various languages in use in Scotland. In our view, social inclusion requires everyone to extend their communicative capacity beyond English, whether they are likely to need to communicate with people who do not use conventional forms of spoken or written English in a professional context, or whether their opportunities to do so will be primarily in a social cultural context.
We are not suggesting that it will be possible at some time in the future to do without interpreters or translators. In view of the number of languages spoken in Scotland (likely to be over 100, although there are no national figures) this would be difficult to achieve. We need to bear in mind also that those most likely to need support in communicating are those most recently arrived from elsewhere – people who have not yet had the opportunity to learn to speak English fluently –and that this means that it is not easy to predict which languages are likely to be most in demand. (This does not affect the desirability of making greater provision for people to learn BSL, however.) We are, however, arguing, that a greater commitment to developing communication skills generally follows from a commitment to social inclusion, and will have a number of benefits. These include the likelihood of being able to appoint more bilingual staff in organisations for which this is particularly important (e.g. family mediation services) and in certain types of position across the public sector (e.g. frontline staff) where basic communication skills beyond English would be of considerable value.
13.4 STATISTICAL DATA
In Chapter 6, we comment on the lack of accurate statistics relating to languages in use in Scotland. While awareness has risen in recent years of the limited statistical data concerning minority ethnic groups generally in Scotland and there are currently moves to develop data collection, we are concerned that current plans, which involve enhancing data on ethnicity will not be of particular value for the purposes of improving translation, interpretation and communication support provision.
Data on ethnicity is collected primarily for understanding the extent of racial discrimination and the impact of policy to promote racial equality. The importance of this is not in dispute, although the representativeness of the data collected has frequently been challenged, on the grounds that the question is frequently about colour rather than ethnicity, and because individuals’ notions of their ‘ethnic identity’ are fluid and influenced by the context in which questions about this are asked. The same person may, in different contexts, choose to identify themselves as ‘Scottish’, ‘Pakistani’, ‘Black’, ‘Asian’, ‘British’. etc. This raises particular
58 problems for those whose concerns are to do with racial discrimination, but even greater difficulties for those seeking to identify linguistic needs or capabilities.
In Scotland currently, the only language other than English whose speakers can be quantified is Gaelic. The 1991 census identified approximately 66000 speakers of Gaelic, and approximately the same number of people identified themselves as of minority ethnic origin (although this figure is widely thought to under-represent by a considerable margin the ‘true’ picture). There are thought to be around 70000 Deaf users – and many more hearing users – of BSL in the UK. These figures begin to give us an idea of comparisons between populations who communicate in languages other than English, and invite us to consider the differences in provision.
We would not argue that Gaelic needs or deserves less governmental support than it currently receives, and there are strong arguments for increasing that support, based partly on the socio-cultural needs and interest of Gaelic-speaking communities, and partly on the status of Gaelic as one of the main heritage languages of Scotland. If Gaelic were to disappear from Scotland it would quickly become a ‘dead’ language. This argument does not apply to other community languages in use in Scotland.
However, this does not diminish our need to know about the number of community languages in use in Scotland and the numbers of speakers of each. Currently there is no reliable data on which to base effective provision of translation, interpretation and communication support. Apart from the real difficulties of targeting provision, the absence of data enables those who lack awareness of the importance of communicating more widely than through English alone to argue on the basis of ‘low numbers’ that such provision is not a priority. In this context we note the significant difference which Baker and Eversley’s study (2000) of the languages of London schoolchildren made to the ability of the NHS to target health resources effectively to particular linguistic communities (documented in the report of this research). Similar data are needed in Scotland and we urge the Scottish Executive to investigate ways of collecting it.
13.5 THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
Our review suggests that the knowledge base available to providers of translation, interpretation and communication support tends to be limited. Staff within providers are not always familiar with the range of translation, interpretation and communication support strategies available to them and nor are they always familiar with national legislation or policy or with guidelines in force within their own organisation. In addition, staff are often unfamiliar with the work of other organisations, both those engaged in similar work in different parts of the country, or those working in the same area in linked fields. Thus opportunities for ‘joined up thinking’ or indeed ‘joined up action’ can be limited.
Some suggestions for improving the knowledge base have been proposed, but to date there appears to have been little action. It seems clear that the internet offers extensive opportunities for the sharing of information, of translated materials, of ideas, and that it should facilitate collaboration among different organisations, enabling staff both to learn more about the work of their counterparts in other organisations and to share the work involved in making information and support more accessible to people who communicate other than through conventional forms of spoken or written English. The Babel Tree Project (www.adec.org.au/babeltree/) is an example of this kind of collaboration, from Australia,
59 where information on available translations of leaflets relating to different aspects of health has been collated on one web-site, from which the relevant documents in the relevant languages can be downloaded directly. We believe that such resources would not be difficult or expensive to set up in the UK, but that they would be particularly beneficial to service providers and their clients.
13.6 SETTING STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTING THEM
In the sections on standards and guidelines, and on monitoring and evaluation (Chapters 11 and 12) we have seen that there are no definitive standards or guidelines specifically for translation, interpretation and communication support provision although guidance on some issues can be identified from policy documents concerned with broader areas of racial equality and disability rights.
We were particularly concerned that strategies for ensuring the implementation of this kind of guidance appear to be underdeveloped, and that consequently the impression we have gained from our review of the literature is that despite extensive policy development work over the last decade, little appears to have changed in practice.
The literature on implementing organisational change is now well established and convincing. From this, it is clear that particular procedures need to be embedded in policy and understood and supported at senior management level within organisations for change to take place. These include establishing targets, responsibilities, resources and timescales (often with milestones) to make clear the nature of the changes required and the path to achieving them. A good example of this approach is the Scottish Executive’s Social Inclusion strategy, with annual reports on progress. Those concerned with the development of the framework for translation, interpretation and communication support may well therefore have existing expertise in this area and to consider how it can be applied in this context.
60 REFERENCES
ABRAHAM, D. and ODA, M. (2000). ‘The cultural/ community interpreter in the domestic violence court – a pilot project.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. ALLADINA, S. and EDWARDS, V. (eds.) (1991a). Multilingualism in the British Isles. Vol. 1 The older mother tongues and Europe. LONDON: LONGMAN. ALLADINA, S. and EDWARDS, V. (eds.) (1991b). Multilingualism in the British Isles. Vol. 2 Africa, the Middle East and Asia. London: Longman. Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (2000). Racial Diversity Strategy. Grampian Police: ACPOS. BAKER, P. AND EVERSLEY, J. (2000). Multilingual Capital: The languages of London's schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies. London: Battlebridge Publications. BENEFITS AGENCY (1998). Bridging the language barrier: a guide to communicating with deaf customers and provision of interpreting services. London: Benefits Agency. BERK-SELIGSON, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: Chicago University Press. BOWES, A. and MEEHAN DOMOKOS, T. (1997). ‘Pakistani women, general practitioners and health visitors: communication and service access’. In Bowes, A. and Sim, D. (eds.) Perspectives on Welfare: The experience of minority ethnic groups in Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate. BRENNAN, M. AND BROWN, R. (2000). Equality before the law. Durham: Durham University Deaf Studies Research Unit. BRISTOL CENTRE FOR DEAF STUDIES (1997). Sign on Europe: a research project on the status of Sign Language in Europe. Bristol: Centre for Deaf Studies. BRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION (1996). Deaf people’s participation in local services. London: British Deaf Association BRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION. Sign language policy. London: London: British Deaf Association BUDZAK, D. (1999). ‘A multilingual internet’. Occasional paper published on the internet by the EIP (Exchanging Information with the Public) Group: a collaboration between UK local councils: http://www.eipdg.org CABINET OFFICE (UK GOVERNMENT) SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNIT (2000). National strategy for neighbourhood renewal: minority ethnic issues in social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal. London: Cabinet Office. CANT, B., KELLY, E. WITH WONG, S. S. (1995). Roads to racial equality. Edinburgh. Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. CARR, S. and STEYN, D. (2000). ‘Distance education training for interpreters. An insurmountable oxymoron.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office Limited. CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL EQUALITIES UNIT (2001). Access to information: guidelines for City of Edinburgh Council staff. Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Council.
61 CLARKE J. AND SPEEDEN, S. (2000). Measuring up. Report of a study of the adoption and implementation of Racial Equality Means Quality, the Commission for Racial Equality’s Standard for Local Government. London: Commission for Racial Equality. COHEN, S. MORAN-ELLIS, J. AND SMAJE, C. (1999). ‘Children as informal interpreters in GP consultations: pragmatics and ideology’. Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (2). COLIN, J. AND MORRIS, R. (1996). Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press. COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1984). Race relations code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment. London: Commission for Racial Equality. COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1991). Code of practice (Scotland) for the elimination of racial discrimination in education. London: Commission for Racial Equality. COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1992). Race relations code of practice in primary health care services. London: CRE. COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1995). Racial equality means quality. London: CRE. COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (2000): Racial equality and NHS trusts. London: CRE. CORSELLIS, A. (1998). Working across language and culture. Report and recommendations. Birmingham: West Midlands Probation Service. CORSELLIS, A. (2001). ‘Training the trainers.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. CORSELLIS, A. and FELIX FERNÁNDEZ, L. (2001). Code of ethics and conduct and guidelines to good practice.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. CORSELLIS, A., OSTARHILD, E., GARCÍA TORRES DÍAZ, M., GROLLMANN, D. and MARQUANT, H. (2001a). ‘Selection of students for training at first degree and initial professional level, and at professional postgraduate MA level.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. CORSELLIS, A., OSTARHILD, E., GARCÍA TORRES DÍAZ, M., GROLLMANN, D. and MARQUANT, H. (2001b). ‘Training.’ Corsellis, A., Ostarhild, E., García Torres Díaz, M., Grollmann, D. and Marquant, H. (2001b). ‘Training at first degree and initial professional level, and at professional postgraduate MA level.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1998a). Educational achievements of deaf children. Research Brief. London: DfEE. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1998b). Effective communication between schools, LEAs and Health and Social Services in the field of special educational needs. Research Brief. London: DfEE. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (2000a). Language needs or special needs? Research Brief. London: DfEE. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (2000b). Provision for children with speech and language needs. Research Brief. London: DfEE. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (1997). Think dual sensory. London: Department of Health. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2000). Identifying and assessing people with sensory impairment. Letter to directors of social services in England and to chief executives of health authorities and trusts. London: Department of Health. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001). Deafblind services consultation. Local Authority Circular LAC (2001) 8: Social care for deafblind children and adults. London: Department of Health. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ NHS EXECUTIVE (1999). Doubly disabled: equality for disabled people in the new NHS. Access to services. London: NHS Executive.
62 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ SOCIAL CARE GROUP (1999). Stepping away from the edge: improving services for deaf and hard of hearing people. London: Social Services Inspectorate. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE (1996). Standards used by the Social Services Inspectorate Volume 5: Disability and mental health services. London: Department of Health. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE (1997). A service on the edge: inspection of services for deaf and hard of hearing people. London: Department of Health. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH/ SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE (1998). They look after their own don’t they? Inspection of community care services for black and ethnic minorities older people. London: Department of Health. DESCLOUX, I., MUTTER, K. and WESTPHAL, V. (1999). Analyse ausländischer Ausbildungsmodelle. (Publisher not known). DISABILITY AGENDA SCOTLAND (2001). Disability agenda for Scotland: UK General Election. Edinburgh: Capability Scotland. DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION/ DFEE (2001a forthcoming). Disability discrimination act: schools code of practice. London: Disability Rights Commission/ DfEE. DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION (2001b forthcoming). Disability discrimination act. Code of practice: post-16 education and related services. London: Disability Rights Commission. ERASMUS, M. (2000). ‘ “Community interpreting” in South Africa. Current trends and future prospects.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1994). European Social Policy: a way forward for the Union - A White Paper. COM (94) 333 final. Brussels: European Commission. FERRY, A. KELLY, E. AND ONIFADE, D. (1999). ‘Equality under the law: a matter of interpretation?’ Police (September). FERRY, A. (2000). Policy on interpretation issues. Glenrothes: Fife Constabulary. FIOLA, M. (2000). ‘The challenge of accrediting aboriginal interpreters.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. FRY, A. (1994) ‘Effective Communication with people with visual disabilities.’ Nursing Times Vol. 90 (44) GRANT, N. (1997). ‘Multicultural Education in Scotland: ourselves and others.’ Scottish Educational Review 29 (2). GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE (2000). The Power of language. Manchester: Greater Manchester Police. GROLLMANN, D., MARTINSEN, B. and RASMUSSEN, K. (2001). ‘Professional working arrangements.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. HM INSPECTORATE OF CONSTABULARY FOR SCOTLAND (2000). Without prejudice? A thematic inspection. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. HERTOG, E. and VANDEN BOSCH, Y. (2001). ‘Access to justice across language and culture in the EU.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool.
63 HOME OFFICE RACE EQUALITY TEAM (2000). Racial equality in public services. London: Home Office. JANS, D. and CLARK, S. (1998). ‘High technology aids to communication.’ In Wilson, A. (ed.) Augmentative Communication in Practice. CALL Centre, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh. JENTSCH, B. (1998). ‘The “Interpreter Effect”: rendering interpreters visible in cross-cultural research and methodology.’ Journal of European Social Policy 8 (4). JIWA, S. (1994). Mother tongue Learning. A study of the learning needs of the Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi communities in Edinburgh. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh Centre for Continuing Education. Occasional Papers Series: No. 5 (October). KANANI, D. (2001). ‘The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000’ Children in Scotland (June). KADRIC, M. (2000). ‘Interpreting in the Austrian courtroom.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. KELLY, A. (2000). ‘Cultural parameters for interpreters in the courtroom.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. KELLY, E. (n.d.) Legal interpreting and translation – a commentary. Glasgow. KYLE, J. et al. (1996). Deaf people in Scotland: issues for deaf people in health promotion. Bristol: University of Bristol Centre for Deaf Studies. LO BIANCO, J. (2000). Games Talk, Language Planning for Sydney 2000. A Legacy to the Olympic Movement. Melbourne: Language Australia Publications. LOVELOCK, R., POWELL, J. AND CRAGGS, S. (1995). ‘Assessing the social support needs of visually impaired people: the impact of “Community Care”.’ British Journal of Visual Impairment 13 (1). MASON, H. (1994). ‘OfSTED inspections and their challenge’. British Journal of Visual Impairment 12 (3). MAHMOOD, S. (2000). Promoting social inclusion for deaf people from a minority ethnic background: a partnership programme between Deaf Connections and Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust. Glasgow: Publisher unknown MCPAKE, J. and POWNEY, J. (1998). 'A mirror to ourselves? The educational experiences of Japanese children at school in the UK.' Educational Research, 40 (2). MESA, A.-M. (2000). ‘The cultural interpreter: An appreciated professional. Results of a study on interpreting services: client, health care work and interpreter points of view.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. MILLAR, S. and SCOTT, J. (1998). ‘What is augmentative and alternative communication? An introduction.’ In Wilson, A. (ed.) Augmentative Communication in Practice. CALL Centre, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh. MORRIS, R. (1989). ‘Eichmann v. Demjanjuk: a study of interpreted proceedings.’ Parallèles: Cahiers de l’Ecole de Traduction et Interpretation, Université de Genève. Vol. 11 MORRIS, R. (1995). ‘The moral dilemmas of court interpreting.’ The Translator Vol 1 (1) MORRIS, R. (2000). ‘Plus ça change …? Community interpreters at the end of the twentieth century.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2:
64 Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. MOSER, Sir C. (1999). Improving Literacy and Numeracy: A Fresh Start. The report of the working group chaired by Sir Claus Moser. London: Lifelong Learning UK. MURPHY, J., MARKOVA, I., COLLINS, S. and MOODIE, E. (1996). ‘AAC systems: obstacles to effective use.’ European Journal of Disorders of Communication 31 (1). MVA CONSULTANCY (1996). Foreign language interpreters in the Scottish criminal courts. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. NATIONAL DEAF CHILDREN’S SOCIETY (2000). Quality Standards in education – Scotland. London: NDCS. National Paramedical Advisory Committee (1996). The provision and support for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in Scotland: Equipment and Services. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. NHS EXECUTIVE LONDON REGIONAL OFFICE (2000): The London health strategy. London: NHS Executive. NATIONAL INFORMATION FORUM (2001). Face to face. An inquiry into the unmet information needs of disabled people. London: National Information Forum. NATIONAL REGISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETERS (1998). ‘Courts to use Institute of Linguists National Register of Public Service Interpreters in criminal cases.’ Press release. London: NRPSI. NATIONAL R EGISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETERS (2001). Newsletter Issue 4 (January). NICHOLAS, J. (1994). Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. O’NEALE, V. (2000). Excellence not excuses: inspection of services for ethnic minority children and families. London: Department of Health. OSTARHILD, E. (2001a). ‘Linguistic standards for legal interpreters and translators at Diploma of First Degree/ BA level and at MA level.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. OSTARHILD, E. (2001b). ‘Continuing professional development.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. OWEN, D., GREEN, A., PITCHER, J. AND MAGUIRE, M. (2000). Minority ethnic participation in education, training and labour market. London: DfEE. OZOLINS, U., (2001). ‘Inventiveness and regression: Interpreting/translating and the vicissitudes of Australian language policy.’ In Lo Bianco, J. and R. Wickert, (eds.) Australian Policy Activism for Language and Literacy. Melbourne: Language Australia Publications. OZOLINS, U. and BRIDGE, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting in Australia. Melbourne: Language Australia. PANKAJ, V. (2000). Family mediation services for ethnic minorities. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. PAPADOPOULOS, I. and ALLEYNE, J. (1995). ‘The need for nursing and midwifery programmes of education to address the health care needs of minority ethnic groups.’ Nurse Education Today. Vol 15. PARRATT, D. (1995). ‘Working with deaf people.’ Disability and Society Vol 10 (4). PÖCHHACKER, F. (2000): ‘The community interpreter’s task: self-perception and provider views.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal,
65 Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. PORTER, J., MILLER, O. AND PEASE, L. (1997). Access for deafblind children. London: DfEE. POWNEY, J., MCPAKE, J., HALL, S. AND LYALL, L. (1998). The education of minority ethnic groups in Scotland. A review of Research. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Rasmussen, K. and Martinsen, B. (2001). ‘Interdisciplinary conventions with the legal services.’ In Hertog, E. (ed.) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool. REID-HOWIE ASSOCIATES LTD. (2000). Researching ethnic minorities in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. RENNIE, S., CORSELLIS, A., THORN, L. (1991). Crossing the language barrier: developing bilingual provision in public services. Bradford: Horton Publishing. ROBERTS, R. (2000). ‘Interpreter assessment tools for different settings.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. ROPER, T.A. AND MULLEY, G.P. (1996): ‘Caring for older people: public transport.’ British Medical Journal 313 (17 August). ROSS, J. (1993). Access to justice for ethnic minorities. Report to the Scottish Consumer Council. Glasgow: Scottish Consumer Council. RNIB (1998). Working together for a healthier Scotland. Edinburgh: RNIB. RNIB (2000a). Consultation on Communications Reform White Paper. London: RNIB. RNIB (2000b). Strategic directions 2000-2006. London: RNIB. SAINI, F. & ROWLING, L. (1997). ‘“It’s more than literacy”: the assimilation effect of the translation model.’ Ethnicity and Health 2 (4). SAUVETRE, M. (2000). ‘De l’interprétariat au dialogue á trois. Pratiques européens de l’interprétariat en milieu social.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. SCHELLEKENS, P. (2001). English language as a barrier to employment, education and training. London: DfEE. SCOTTISH ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION FORUM (1999). Standards for disability information and advice provision in Scotland. Glasgow: Scottish Consumer Council. SCOTTISH A SSOCIATION OF SIGN L ANGUAGE INTERPRETERS (1997). Provision of communication support services for deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing: a framework. Edinburgh: SASLI. SCOTTISH COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS (1996). Working for Racial Equality. Training Workpack. Edinburgh: SCVO. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CENTRAL STATISTICS UNIT (2001a). Equality in Scotland. Additional sources. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CENTRAL STATISTICS UNIT (2001b). Equality in Scotland. Guide to data sources. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999a). Inclusive communities. Report of the Strategy Action Team. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999b). Press Release from the Race Equality Advisory Forum: 20 July. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive.
66 SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999c). Social justice … a Scotland where everyone matters. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999d). Social inclusion research bulletin 1. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999e). Social inclusion research bulletin 2. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (1999f). Social inclusion – opening the door to a better Scotland: Strategy. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000a). Minutes of the Race Equality Advisory Forum: 8 May. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000b). Minutes of the Race Equality Advisory Forum: 20 November. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000c). Press Release from the Race Equality Advisory Forum: 6 November. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000d). Social inclusion research bulletin 3. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000e). Social inclusion research bulletin 4. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000f). Social justice action note: Empowering communities. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000g). Social justice action note 2: Achieving the targets. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000h). Social justice … a Scotland where everyone matters. Annual Report 2000. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000i). Working Together for Equality. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000j). Citizens of a multilingual world. Report of the Ministerial Action Group for Languages. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001a). A report on responses to the consultation paper: Towards an equality strategy. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001b). Social inclusion research bulletin 5. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2001c). United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2001 – 2003. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE EQUALITY UNIT (2000). Towards an Equality Strategy: Consultation Paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE/ SCOTTISH SENSORY CENTRE (2001). Self-evaluation by peripatetic sensory services. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. SCOTTISH FORUM FOR PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATING (2000). Good practice guidelines. Dundee City Council: Dundee. SCOTTISH HOMES (2001). Housing Scotland’s black and minority ethnic communities. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes. SCOTTISH OFFICE (1997). A curriculum framework for children in their pre-school year. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. SCOTTISH OFFICE (1998). Valuing diversity. Having regard to the racial, religious, cultural and linguistic needs of Scotland’s children. Edinburgh: Scottish Office. SCOTTISH OFFICE EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT (1999). A manual of good practice in special educational needs. Edinburgh: SOEID. SCOTTISH OFFICE EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT (1994). Effective provision for special educational needs. Edinburgh: SOEID.
67 SCOTTISH OFFICE EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT (1996) Circular 4/96 Children and young persons with special educational needs: assessment and recording. Edinburgh: SOEID. SCOTTISH OFFICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES INSPECTORATE (1998). Sensing progress: social work services for people with a sensory impairment. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Social Work Services Inspectorate. SCOTTISH QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY (2000). Guidance on special assessment and certification arrangements for candidates with special needs and candidates for whom English is an additional language. Glasgow: SQA. SCOTTISH REFUGEE COUNCIL (2001). ‘Our response and responsibilities to refugees.’ Children in Scotland (June). SIGN (1998). Mental health services for deaf people: are they appropriate? Beaconsfield: Sign. SMITH, M. (1992). ‘Dual sensory impairment: rehabilitation and beyond.’ British Journal of Visual Impairment. Vol. 10 (3). Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. STEWART, D. and KLUWIN, T (1996). ‘The gap between guidelines, practice and knowledge in interpreting services for deaf students.’ Journal Of Deaf Studies. Vol 1 (1). WIEGAND, C. (2000). ‘Role of the interpreter in the healing of a nation. An emotional view.’ In Roberts, R., Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A (eds.) The Critical Link 2: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. John Benjamins: Amsterdam and Philadelphia. WILLETS, G. (1994). ‘Community care for the one in sixty.’ British Journal of Visual Impairment Vol. 12 ( 2). WILSON, A. (ed.) Augmentative Communication in Practice. CALL Centre, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh.
68 APPENDIX A LITERATURE IDENTIFICATION MATRIX
Major Categories of Users/ Clients A B C D d/Deaf/hard of hearing Visually Impaired Community Language Deafblind Users a b c d e f g h I BSL lip- visual Braille audio enhan- langua langua Commun- speakin & techn- ced ges of ges of ity g enhan- ologies visual estab- isolate language ced techn- lished d users with audio ologies commu groups other techn- n-ities of communi- Key Fields ologies individ cation uals needs 1. Health 2. Justice and the law 3. Education 4. Housing 5. Benefits 6. Employment Services 7. Scottish Executive 8. Local Authorities 9. Community Planning 10. Health Education 11. Social Justice 12. Community Care 13. Public Sector Partnerships 14. Other Note that this matrix has been modified since its inclusion in the amended proposal, to include people who are deafblind as a separate category.
69 APPENDIX B FORMAT FOR READERS’ REPORTS ON DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED
Document Title
Author(s)/ Date and place of Web source Other information Responsible Body publication relevant to source
One sentence summary description of document Matrix Co-ordinates
Aim of research/ purpose of producing guidelines
Key findings/ points
Identification in document of gaps in literature/ policy/ practice
Recommendations in document for further research/ development/ changes to policy or practice
Research methods
Reader’s assessment of status/ significance/ impact of document
Reader’s assessment of document’s contribution to review (identification of key issues/ gaps/ innovation)
70 APPENDIX C AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION
The material on which this Appendix is based was received from Allan Wilson of the Communication Aids for Language and Learning (CALL) Centre at Edinburgh University. This material included
• Allan Wilson’s own comments on the cost and availability of augmentative and alternative communication technologies; • two chapters from Wilson, A. (ed.) Augmentative Communication in Practice. CALL Centre, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh. • a report by a working group of the National Paramedical Advisory Committee (NPAC) on provision and support for augmentative and alternative in Scotland (NPAC 1996).
C.1: Differences between people who use augmentative and alternative communication and those who need translation and interpretation services
This material shows that the issues affecting people who use augmentative and alternative communication are rather different from those affecting people who require translation and interpretation services. One key difference is that people who use augmentative and alternative communication do so to supplement their communication skills in English, which may be very limited. However, the communication methods they use should enable them to communicate directly with English speakers. When people are well-trained and confident users of augmentative and alternative communication methods, there should be no need for an intermediary (e.g. an interpreter or a support worker). Thus debate centres on how to ensure that people who need augmentative and alternative communication acquire appropriate techniques and, in some but not all cases, appropriate technologies; that they learn to use them effectively; and that those who come into contact with them understand how to respond to users of augmentative and alternative communication. The goal is independence.
It is estimated that around 1% of the Scottish population may benefit from augmentative and alternative communication, and that this figure is likely to rise, as a result of technological development (NPAC 1996). The extent to which users are dependent on augmentative and alternative communication varies considerably, from those who need only occasional recourse, and perhaps only during a particular period of their lives (e.g. those whose speech is impaired as a result of an accident but who subsequently recover much or all of their former competence) to those who rely entirely on this means of communication, and will do so throughout their lives. For this latter group in particular, learning to use augmentative and alternative communication methods can take a long time and much painstaking work. Although many understand spoken English, to some degree, they may not have been able to develop a sophisticated linguistic representation of the world before having been introduced to augmentative and alternative communication, and it is therefore, in a sense, their ‘first language’. Although the ‘output’ of some augmentative and alternative communication systems, particularly those which are computer based, is in standard English, the ways in which users encode what they want to say can be through a different symbolic system. This
71 means that people who use augmentative and alternative communication may develop conceptual understandings of the world which differ quite markedly from those developed by people who use standard spoken English. Thus, although the issues of cultural difference which were explored in relation to people who communicate in languages other than English do not apply to people who use augmentative and alternative communication, complex questions of conceptual difference, likely to vary considerably from one individual to another, must be considered.
C.2: What is augmentative and alternative communication?
Augmentative and alternative communication is any method of communication which supplements English speech and writing. There is a range of methods in use by people whose speech is impaired. Typically, most people who use augmentative and alternative communication have a range of communication methods at their disposal and are not dependent on one method alone.
These methods are divided into unaided and aided communication. Unaided communication requires no equipment of any kind, using facial expression, gesture, mime and signing. It appears that British Sign Language is rarely used by people with speech impairment, but other, simpler signing methods (e.g. Signalong or Makaton) which they and the people with whom they have regular contact can learn to use, in combination with other communication methods.
Aided communication involves the use of objects or equipment such as charts, books, computers or voice output communication aids. ‘Low tech’ aided communication involves symbols, pictures, letters, words or phrases on charts, cards or books. ‘High tech’ aided communication involves electronic equipment of some kind. It ranges from relatively simple technologies such as message devices which relay a fixed set of simple messages, through the use of switches or buttons, to sophisticated computer-based technologies such as DynaVox which enables users to produce sentences using text or graphic symbols.
C.3: Acquiring augmentative and alternative communication methods
Identifying the particular methods of augmentative and alternative communication methods which are most suited to potential users is a skilled task which requires those who work with people with speech impairment (e.g. teachers and speech therapists) to have a good understanding of the individual’s communication history, comprehension of spoken English and intellectual capacity. Other physical impairments not directly connected to speech have to be taken into account: for example, some people will need to develop communication methods based on their ability to point at symbols with their eyes, or to hit switches with the most appropriate part of the body, or to blow or suck on a tube. In addition, those supporting people to develop augmentative and alternative communication skills need to have good – and regularly updated – knowledge of the range of methods and technologies available, in order to assess which are the most appropriate for individual candidates. Having selected particular methods, they then need to be able to train users to use them well and confidently. This can take several years and, given the need to adapt any method to the needs and aptitudes of the individual, requires considerable attention to the development of skills and ongoing reassessment of needs and abilities.
72 Learning to use augmentative and alternative communication methods is a challenging task, comparable to learning a foreign language, according to one commentator (Murphy et al. 1996). Millar and Scott (1998) point out that
Everybody using AAC as their means of communication will at least have to learn the following skills: • how to operate their particular ‘communication medium’ • how to use this in an interactive, communicative manner – and how to integrate this with their other ways of communicating, e.g. gesture, vocalisation, etc. Some people will also have to be taught • what communication actually is about • a symbolic language system • how to access their communications system, e.g. switch scanning skills (p8)
C.4: Using augmentative and alternative communication
… [I]ntegrating use of the [augmentative and alternative communication] system into daily life at home, school or work can prove to be a difficult and long term task. (Millar and Scott 1998) All those who have contact with people using augmentative and alternative communication are urged to help them to use communication methods effectively and to improve their skills. They themselves need training in how to understand and support users: this training needs to address the slower speed of communication, the importance of avoiding domination of the conversation, and an understanding of and tolerance for misunderstandings. The literature reviewed here appears to assume a fairly limited and fixed group of people likely to communicate with the augmentative and alternative communication user – e.g. family and friends, teachers, therapists, technicians and volunteer helpers. However, from the perspective of this review, the question of encounters with others in the wider world needs also to be considered. As with the other groups we have considered, the social inclusion perspective means that all public contexts need to be made accessible to people who use augmentative and alternative communication. To what extent are front-line staff and specialists trained to communicate with users?
C.5: Providers of services to support augmentative and alternative communication
According to the NPAS report (1996) a basic service to support people who can benefit from augmentative and alternative communication is provided in Scotland by the national network of speech and language therapists. Speech and language therapists have access to other specialists whose involvement may be required in identifying the most appropriate approach to augmentative and alternative communication for each individual (e.g. occupational therapists, teachers, medical physicists or bio-engineers), but this is often on an ad hoc basis, and often with no time or budget allocation made. Many health boards have appointed a member of staff with a specialism in augmentative and alternative communication who links to regional or national augmentative and alternative communication services such as the CALL Centre in Edinburgh or the Scottish Centre of Technology for the Communication
73 Impaired (SCTCI) in Glasgow; but fewer have allocated a budget, loan facilities or time for work specifically on augmentative and alternative communication.
Best practice would be multi-agency and interdisciplinary, with funding coming jointly from Health, Education and Social Work departments, enabling teams including speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, teachers, rehabilitation engineers/ medical physicists/ specialised technicians to be jointly involved in assessment and support. Such teams should operate from a base with a stock of equipment and should have an administrative system which supports an integrated approach. They should provide assessment, information and advice, equipment loans, support for users and training for staff users and carers. At the time of NPAS report, two such centres existed in Scotland, and a third, for children only.
The two national centres have different remits. The CALL Centre is a research and development centre funded by the Scottish Executive Education Department and the Social Work Services Group. It focuses primarily on pre-school and school age children, although its work extends to adults. Most of the referrals to the CALL Centre come through education services. SCTCI focuses on the provision of augmentative and alternative communication equipment, and is funded by the Scottish Health Boards. It serves the entire Scottish population, regardless of age, location of disability. Most referrals to SCTCI come through the National Health Service.
As with translation and interpretation services, there is scope for enhanced collaboration between health, social work and education. Cost of equipment and services is a major issue, particularly in relation to expensive technologies. The NPAC comments
Although there are good examples in Scotland of efforts to provide funding for services and equipment, examples of situations where each agency strives to define the provision of communication aids as the responsibility of another are not uncommon. (p8)
Another area where there is considerable potential for problems to arise is in the transition from education to adult life, particularly where augmentative and alternative communication equipment is deemed to belong to the education service rather than to the individual. It may be difficult or impossible for school leavers to acquire new equipment matching that to which they had become accustomed.
C.6: Service awareness and service user needs
The documents reviewed devote little attention to service awareness, although it is clear that the user perspective is discussed in other chapters of Wilson’s book, not seen by the research team, discuss users’ views. The NPAC report notes that the numbers of people seeking to use augmentative and alternative communication are likely to rise, both because of improvements in the technologies available and because more people are becoming aware of the potential benefits. It also points out that users’ needs and aspirations, and their competence in using augmentative and alternative communication methods need to be reassessed on a regular basis as these change over time.
74 As part of the data collection for the NPAC report, questionnaires were sent to parents of children who use augmentative and alternative communication and adult users. However, the data obtained from this approach have limited value, partly because so few questionnaires were circulated (19 questionnaires to parents and 16 to adult users, of which 11 and 6 respectively were returned). In addition, six adults with cerebral palsy who were users of augmentative and alternative communication were involved in interviews and group discussion. This is a very small sample to represent the views and concerns of over 50000 potential or actual users of augmentative and alternative communication in Scotland. Questionnaires may not have been the best research method to use in this case as questions are defined by the researchers and there is little scope for users to raise issues which the researchers had not considered. Issues which were raised by users included:
• dissatisfaction with the need to raise money privately in order to purchase augmentative and alternative communication equipment; • technical problems with the equipment; • need to find adequate insurance for equipment; • desire for enhanced support to use the equipment; • concerns about ownership of equipment (e.g. when a child leaves school).
The NPAC also includes some case studies, which help to illustrate some of the issues affecting individuals. For example, one case study (B), a woman with multiple sclerosis was referred by her GP to one of the national centres, for assessment in view of her deteriorating speech and writing. The woman was lent a Lightwriter (portable keyboard with text display and voice feature) for one month, and found it to be a successful approach to communicating. After one month, she had to return the loan (in view of a waiting list) but was unable to obtain a Lightwriter of her own, because of a dispute between Social Work and Health as to who was to pay for this. Her GP attempted to complain, but found that there were no channels for doing so, given that each service argued that responsibility lay with the other.
C.7: Guidelines and standards
The NPAC review identifies legislation at national and international level of relevance to augmentative and alternative communication:
• The United Nations’ Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for People with Disabilities (UN 1994) makes explicit reference to the use of augmentative and alternative communication equipment in its preconditions for the equal participation in society of people with disabilities. • The Social Work (Scotland) Act (1968) and the Children (Scotland) Act (1995) make no specific references to augmentative and alternative communication equipment, but broader provision can be understood to include this. • The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) which requires improvements to be made to accessibility to employment, goods and services for people with disabilities could be used to argue for greater provision for augmentative and alternative communication. In communication, Allan Wilson noted the Draft National Care Standards recently published by the Scottish Executive, which state that
75 You can expect that … you can have help to use services, aids and equipment for communication. Communication support, including assistive technology, is readily available for you at all times … You can have assessments or reviews for communication aids, services or equipment.
None of the documents we have reviewed make reference to any specific guidelines covering provision of augmentative and alternative communication equipment and training, although the conclusions to the NPAC review could be interpreted in this way.
The report identifies
• those who can benefit from augmentative and alternative communication (anyone, of any age experiencing communication difficulties); • how access to augmentative and alternative communication assessment and provision can be assured (by making sure that staff from health care, education, social work and voluntary organisations, particularly those likely to be the first point of contact for people concerned about communication difficulties, are aware of augmentative and alternative communication issues, can provide information and advice, and refer potential users on to specialist services); • appropriate approaches to assessment (recommending interdisciplinary approaches and the strengthening of the two national centres; seeking to outlaw assessment conducted by the manufacturers of augmentative and alternative communication devices; and noting the need for ongoing re-assessment and re- evaluation); • the range of equipment available (the need to select appropriate equipment, to recognise that costs include the amount of time needed to train users to use it, and also that as users become more competent they should progress to more sophisticated equipment; it is noted that costs of augmentative and alternative communication equipment are low compared with some medical equipment and procedures); • the importance of establishing stocks of loan equipment (stocks need to be kept up to date so that potential users can try a number of different systems before definitive purchases are made); • key issues in funding (this is seen as the joint responsibility of health, social work and education services and that the best approach to funding is a collaborative pooling of resources; long term budgeting needs to be addressed, given that the needs of users will change and develop over their lives); • the need for improved training and support (the importance of co-ordinated approaches to training for augmentative and alternative communication users, recognising their needs to communicate in personal, professional and academic contexts).
76 C.8: Monitoring and evaluation
The NPAC report makes no recommendations relating to a timescale within which the improvements they suggest might be implemented, nor for the need for monitoring and evaluation of developments brought about by the report.
77 APPENDIX D AUSTRALIAN TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION SERVICES
This Appendix was supplied by Joseph Lo Bianco, Chief Executive of Language Australia, with some additional material from colleagues at Language Australia.
D.1: Public policy for servicing immigration
Interpreting and Translating (I/T) arose as a practical response to the presence of large communities of non-English speaking immigrants in Australia. In turn this provision has roots in the decisions by Australian public authorities to bring about significant population expansion as a result of insecurity and national vulnerability experienced during the Second World War. This was a departure from the initial intention to recruit new Australians mostly from the British Isles. When this source of potential new Australians proved inadequate Australia's post-war immigration program attracted eastern European displaced persons in 1947, then southern Europeans and then moved progressively eastwards. By the late 1960s the source countries for immigrants was coming to undermine one of the main principles of the immigration program, the project of a ‘White Australia’. This was formally renounced as an acceptable policy objective in the late 1960s. Immigration has continued to add diversity to the national characteristics with the vast majority of immigrant arrivals from the early 1970s until the present day coming from Asian countries.
The initial rationale for settlement policies was to assuage majority community concerns about the assimilation of new arrivals into the mainstream. Accordingly a practical orientation policy was instituted, including settlement initiatives, English teaching schemes and other programs to facilitate settlement and to bring about adaptation by the large number of recruited ‘new Australians’ to the mainstream population. The most extensive measure consisted of programs for teaching English to immigrant adults, an initiative which, in 1997, celebrated its 50th anniversary.
The Federal government, which has constitutional responsibility for immigration, planned carefully so that the migrant intakes could be absorbed into local communities, and engaged in considerable social and linguistic engineering. In addition to English teaching schemes, reception centres were created to provide temporary accommodation for newcomers. New arrivals were encouraged by employment schemes to locate across different areas of the continent. Mainstream Australians were involved in schemes to bring about community integration, assimilation by new arrivals and local ‘good-neighbourliness’. In effect these provisions created an ethos whereby the government (unlike the usual immigrant-receiving nation’s response which is to leave the process of adaptation solely up to new arrivals) was to assume responsibility for settlement and integration of new arrivals in response to its concern that there be no community-disrupting effects from its build-up of population.
78 D.2: The beginnings of I/T services
As the immigration program expanded from its original aim of recruiting British-sourced immigrants, the assimilationist objectives receded. It was in this context that I/T developed. The first use of interpreters was in immigrant selection procedures in Europe and aimed to ease procedures in on-arrival reception centres. From these very modest beginnings voluntary assistance was provided as required in occasional circumstances, in hospitals or in dealings with administration, or policing. I/T was seen as a temporary complement to English teaching programs hastening the assimilationism that was the primary goal of all settlement endeavours. It was therefore an extension of settlement-assimilation policies.
Pragmatic local responses go back a long way. Some hospitals appointed interpreters in the 1950s, but progress in any systematic way was much slower. A Translation Section was set up in 1960 in the Department of Immigration to meet documentary needs for processing immigrant settlement procedures. Welfare needs as represented in the work of social welfare organisations became prominent in the criticism of inadequate communication policies, laying the groundwork for some development of systematic I/T.
The early history of I/T was entirely practically oriented and it was not until a much later time was attention paid to professionalism, standards or ethical practice. One of the most important initial obstacles was to work through a practice of professionalism, which distinguished the role and function of the language professional from both the client and the doctor/lawyer/judge or other professional involved.
A wide variety of attitudes and expectations had to be negotiated so that a public understanding of the distinctive role of the I/T could be shared between the parties involved. Interpreters in particular needed to evolve a role that was not the same as being an advocate for the immigrant client, or an employee of the agency that supplied the interpreter, as this would give rise to concerns that the interpreter was ‘on the side’ of the agency and not neutral. These problems were exacerbated by the employment conditions (casualisation, part- time engagements, transience of personnel, infrequency and inconsistency of use, and the occasional preference for language experts by professional firms as a way of attracting commercial business). These and other concrete aspects of the working role and function of the I/T services in Australia were further compounded by an absence of publicly attested qualifications, established training and professional organisations that might stimulate such developments. Cases of poor quality of translating and interpreting with the potential to put those for whom I/T was provided at considerable disadvantage became a concern for the management of this field and led to consideration of the consequences for legal liability of unprofessional work.
D.3: Distinctive features of I/T in Australia
Two distinctive aspects of I/T in Australia are the need for I/T services for indigenous languages, in addition to the languages of immigration; and services of d/Deaf people.
D.3.1: Indigenous languages The use of interpreters in Aboriginal languages developed largely in response to policing demands. Establishing I/T work in indigenous languages has proved very difficult, partly because of negative attitudes towards indigenous languages but also because originally
79 interpreting aides were regarded as assistants in policing work, rather than professionals with a language skill. The origins of indigenous languages interpreting are therefore even more strongly bound up in the need to separate the role and function of the interpreter from the client and from the provider of the interpreting service. This separation, or rather the evolving of a professional and distinctive role for interpreters has proved to be a significant issue, though now largely overcome. In addition, considerable terminological work was required to ensure that meanings exchanged between participants in cross-linguistic dialogue could be reconciled. The history of I/T work in relation to indigenous languages has therefore been rather haphazard, uncoordinated and still evolving from a low base of experience and professionalism.
D.3.2: Services for d/Deaf people The principal sign language used by Deaf people in Australia is Auslan. It is recognised as one of Australia’s community languages, with an estimated 15 400 users (out of an Australian population of around 18 million). While the Australians seem themselves as ahead of European and American developments in relation to the official recognition of Auslan as a language, it is also clear from the literature that the battle for public recognition is not yet won:
… the recognition of the signing Deaf community as a linguistic and cultural minority, and of the implications this has for communication needs and strategies, is still not widely shared among Australian institutions, governments or professionals who interact with the Deaf. Awareness of Deaf culture is as important as awareness of other cultures in Australia, and yet previous assumptions of disability, plus the general avoidance of contact with the Deaf still dominate mainstream attitudes. The never-ending advocacy and representation work by the Deaf community and those who relate to it will be fundamental in shaping attitudes and gaining acceptance of Auslan and Auslan interpreting. (Ozolins and Bridges 1999: 91)
Sign language interpreting is in the relatively early stages of development, and training reaches only to the paraprofessional level (see Figure 4 below). It is recognised that demand for higher levels of competence will increase. Until recently, most Auslan interpreters were supplied by Deaf societies in Australia, but other providers and freelance interpreters are now also available. This development, referred to in Australian literature as ‘mainstreaming’ has long term implications for the development of Auslan interpreting services as they will be affected by the wider policies in relation to I/T services generally, rather than continue as a separate service with distinctive features.
Ozolins and Bridges (op.cit.) predict increased demand for sign language interpreting, because of a national policy to support the signing needs of Deaf workers (the implementation of which is not yet under way) and greater provision for the use of Auslan in education:
The effects of greater educational participation of Deaf youth is already beginning to have a telling effect upon the supply of accredited Auslan interpreters with … many educational institutions signalling significant unmet demand and difficulty in finding accredited interpreters … A make or break issue is whether the education systems will encourage and resource the use of interpreters, or avoid their use as much as possible. The crucial variable will
80 be the actions and attitudes of Deaf students themselves. (Ozolins and Bridges 1999: 90)
They see the need for sign language interpreters in these contexts (education and employment) as one of the significant differences between the kind of provision required for sign language users compared with people who speak languages other than English. However, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the fact that very limited provision for translation, interpretation and communication support has been made in relation to education, training and employment services, does not reflect the absence of demand, but is rather the effect of institutional discrimination.
D.4: The community-servicing character of I/T in Australia
By the early 1970s a new ethos was beginning to be felt. Second generation immigrants were vitally important in the creation of a new phase of I/T services. Growing multilingualism and complex and diverse communication needs gave rise to thinking about effective provision of community services. This new ideology has in turn stimulated continual innovation in I/T over the decades.
As Uldis Ozolins (2001), perhaps the principal scholar of Interpreting and Translating in Australia, has observed, from its modest beginnings I/T in Australia has gone on to realise some considerable achievements, many of these world firsts:
• Invention of the Telephone Interpreting Service (TIS) and the creation of numerous specialised language services • Establishment of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) to provide a unique model of I/T accreditation which involves a comprehensive approach to accreditation, provision and training including for Indigenous languages and Australian Sign Language (Auslan) • High level I/T training in languages not normally covered in the education system; • Commercialisation of I/T activities • Long-standing commitment by public authorities to provide language services for interaction between non-English-speaking background (NESB) clients and a wide range of host institutions • An overall model of response to communication needs now being in varying ways emulated in other countries with increasingly multilingual populations.
D.4.1: The Telephone Interpreting Service In 1973 a major step was taken when the Department of Immigration created the Emergency Telephone Interpreting Service. Given population dispersal and great distances this model proved to be suitable to Australian conditions. The service grew to cover non-emergency calls and now caters for some 100 languages on a regular basis. In the 1990s charges were levied for some calls and institutional clients. Beyond phone-based I/T the TIS also offers site interpreting for situations where a face-to-face interpreter is needed. TIS today is a thriving and continually improving service. In some parts of Australia with less well-developed local I/T provision, TIS remains the main first point of contact in the public sphere.
D.4.2: National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters Collaboration between professional social services associations and social workers and the Department of Immigration as the largest user of I/T services intensified and over a period
81 time led to the formation in 1977 of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI).
NAATI devised several levels of possible accreditation for both interpreting and translating. Figure 4 sets out the levels and labels attached to these, with translation accreditation available at levels 2 to 5. These levels and descriptions apply to all languages, including Sign and Indigenous languages, and cover professional applications beyond immigrant servicing alone to incorporate international standard conference work and local contexts where there is regular use of a language other than English as an adjunct function to regular performance of professional duties. A further point to note is that these accreditation levels are for generalists and not for occupation specific categories, although the latter is possible through specialisations in training.
Figure 4: Accreditation Levels and Descriptions
Level of interpreting Description
Bilingual aide Not interpreting. For public contact personnel who use another (formerly level 1) language while performing their primary duties. Paraprofessional For individuals in whose mainstream role interpreting forms a interpreter small part of other duties, for straightforward and undemanding (formerly level 2) interpreting tasks. Interpreter The basic professional level, for full-time interpreters in (formerly level 3) community, welfare, health, law, education Advanced interpreter Simultaneous conference interpreter. (formerly level 4) Senior advanced Senior conference interpreters. interpreter (formerly level 5)
As is evident from the table the NAATI accreditation system incorporates bilingual functioning in regular workplaces within a framework of professional interpreting and translating work in both immigrant servicing and conference level professional work. The Bilingual Aides category entitles holders to a small salary supplement, called the Language Availability Performance Allowance, for public officials whose regular duties may from time to time require liaison work in their accredited language. It needs to be stressed that the NAATI system operates within a market place, there is no legislative requirement that NAATI accreditation be exclusively applied in I/T engagements.
There are three broad pathways to gaining accreditation. The first involves NAATI administered tests. Since these are for generalist competence they draw on wide situational characteristics that an accredited interpreter in a given language may be likely to encounter. Since the establishment of NAATI more than 50 languages have been accredited and about 20 000 individuals have attained accreditation. The second system involves the recognition of overseas qualifications, especially of trained interpreters and translators. The third mechanism has been through graduation from specially designed local courses of training.
82 Professional entry has been a major issue for I/T in Australia. Tests are prepared by language and I/T combined panels who devise, and control tests. In ‘rare languages’ it has sometimes proved a considerable challenge to constitute sufficiently expert panels. Commonality across all languages has also been sought via the use of standard English tasks, combined with occupation diverse and other language specific tasks. The tests therefore aim not merely to ascertain the linguistic proficiency of the applicant but also seek to test measures of I/T practice (e.g. language transfer skills, ethical knowledge, and other skills for transferring information cross-lingually)
Course-accessed entry into the profession is the preferred mode of access. During the 1980s and 1990s professional level (level 3) training courses were available in all the large Australian capital cities, in Universities and tertiary colleges. These courses had to devise curriculum, pedagogies and build appropriate facilities from scratch for the specific needs of liaison interpreting. In recent years there has been a contraction of course availability, due partly to general financial pressure on higher education institutions, and so the growth of new language programs, professional specialisations and other needed developments has slowed. The bulk of professional access has been via testing.
D.4.3: High level I/T training in languages not normally covered in the education system Language departments in higher education institutions have provided high level interpreter- translator preparation over the decades from the 1970s. National language policy funding allowed the University of Queensland in collaboration with Griffith University (also in Queensland) to establish a Masters degree program for interpreting and translating in Asian languages of commercial significance. Over the decades from the 1970s to the present time there have been similar initiatives in European languages. However several of these did not achieve viability and once external funding was no longer supplied many of these programs have been terminated. The result has been that the bulk of the entrants to the I/T profession are via testing or lower level course provision that has been certified by NAATI.
D.4.4: Commercialisation of I/T activities The publicly provided nature of the origins of I/T in Australia has not precluded a commercialisation of some aspects and sectors within the profession. Individual interpreters or translators have established themselves as commercial operations and some larger operations have also emerged. From the early 1990s the Language Line initiative of the US telephone carrier ITT became operational in Australia and has competed for market share with local providers. The growth of call centres (American Express re-located from Hong Kong to Sydney partly on the basis of the wider range of languages available in Sydney) also added a commercial dimension. The expansion of the Internet has meant that I/T work, especially text translation, has now in fact been globalised meaning that professional translators are able to tender for work anywhere in the world. During the 2000 Olympic Games the history of provision and experimentation in Australian I/T proved to be a particular national asset (Lo Bianco 2000) and there is a growing appreciation in business and commercial circles that there are considerable benefits available to servicing trade and tourism.
D.4.5: Long-standing commitment by public authorities to provide language services for interaction between non-English-speaking background (NESB) clients and a wide range of host institutions Some public authorities have demonstrated a consistent and now longstanding public commitment to language services. Most impressive in this respect have been the health
83 interpreter services in Melbourne and Sydney, and to a lesser extent, in some other cities. In addition the Ethnic Affairs Commissions (agencies of the state governments usually comprising a representative advisory structure and a bureaucracy with a professional team of I/T and others ‘on call’) in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South and Western Australia have operated professional language services for considerable periods of time, in the larger states for three decades. The effect of these has been to make working with language professionals a common expectation in the delivery of health services, less so in some other areas. The language services provided by Ethnic Affairs Commissions are made available ‘on demand’ and typically address legal, educational, policing and those health areas not covered by their own services.
D.4.6: An overall model of response to communication needs now emulated in other countries with increasingly multilingual populations There has been considerable interest in South Africa in the Australian I/T experience and a telephone interpreting service has been established there modelled on the Australian TIS. Health providers and other agencies have sought advice from their Australian counterparts about the nature of these services are adapting these to their circumstances.
D.5: Issues
Despite these considerable achievements Ozolins (2001) points out that there has probably never been a time when the I/T as a field has not encountered threatened marginalisation, an insecure basis of support, and administrative uncertainties.
These have usually been because of the lack of a secure administrative ‘home’ for I/T services, with ‘turf wars’ between departments of government and agencies such as hospitals and courts of law, contesting the ‘ownership’ of such services. Compounding administrative problems, there has been a continual struggle by I/T practitioners for recognition of professional status, both within the public sector institutions in which such services reside, but also within academic institutions.
Particular problems have beset professional access for Auslan interpreters, and general access and training in indigenous languages. In the latter case NAATI has preferred course-based entry and accreditation is available through courses in those parts of Australia where indigenous communities speaking traditional languages predominate.
Other issues that have proved difficult to resolve involve the geographic spread of testing, employment-engagement, and course availability and access. There are continuing problems of low remuneration for I/T, instances of poor use of I/T by professionals and related problems.
84 APPENDIX E INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT SERVICES
The material for this appendix comes from three documents:
• Roberts, R. Carr, S., Abraham, D. and Dufour, A. (eds.) (2000). The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the second international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia
This book, as the title indicates, contains papers given at a conference in Canada, in 1998, on the theme of interpreters in the community. It is not clear whether papers from the first Critical Link conference were published. The third Critical Link conference was held earlier this year (2001), and papers from this conference are not yet available.
• Hertog, E. (2001). Aequitas. Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the EU. Lessius Hogeschool: Antwerp.
This book contains a series of articles written by participants in an EU Grotius project (98/GR/131) was ‘to encourage the establishment of internationally consistent best practice standards and equivalencies in legal interpreting and interpretation’ (Hertog 2001:14). The four participating countries were Belgium, Spain, Denmark and the UK (but with the focus principally on England and Wales). Each article focuses on different areas contributing to the overall goal (e.g. linguistic standards, provision for training and professional development, codes of ethics and good practice guidelines, etc.).
• Descloux, I., Mutter, K. and Westphal, V. (1999). Analyse ausländischer Ausbildungsmodelle. (Publisher not known).
This report, based on evidence from an international conference in Vienna and some follow-up interviews, discusses different models for the training of interpreters in Switzerland and in other European countries.
Because these documents were received very late in the life of this project, the issues they raise have not been incorporated into the body of the report but are summarised in this Appendix, under chapter headings from the main report. References are to the authors of the individual chapters in the first two publications listed above, as they are collections of articles.
E.1: Definitions
A number of terms are used internationally to refer to what the UK literature tends to call ‘community’ or ‘public sector’ interpreting. These include ‘link’ interpreting and ‘liaison’ interpreting, preferred by Americans and Canadians and ‘cultural’ or ‘cultural/ community’ interpreting, which tend to be used by European commentators when writing in English. French distinguishes between interprétation, ‘the action of interpreting discourse in an economic or international context, often simultaneous; thus we speak of conference
85 interpretation’; and interprétariat, ‘the action of interpreting in everyday life between two people who speak different mother tongues, usually consecutive’ (Sauvêtre, 2000: 36; our translation).
It seems that a considerable amount of time was devoted to the question of terminology and the associated definitions at the first Critical Link conference (NB the collection of papers reviewed here were from the second conference; it is not clear whether papers from the first conference were published). This was possibly because participants did not all agree on the scope or limitations of the phenomenon with which they were concerned. At the second conference, there seems to have been less concern with this issue, although a number of different terms were used. Thus the issues raised in this report about the different undestandings of terms such as ‘translator’ or ‘interpreter’ receive relatively little attention in the material available to us.
E.2: Policy and legislative background
E.2.1: Europe Sauvêtre (2000) provides a useful historical overview of immigration into and within Europe since the second world war. He notes that it was not until the 1970s, when the oil crisis led to high levels of unemployment across Europe, that European states began to perceive the presence of immigrant populations as problematic. It was no longer possible to hold that the immigrant workforce was a temporary phenomenon, and that those who had settled would eventually return ‘home’. In this period, only two European countries – Sweden and the Netherlands – responded with legislation that specifically addressed translation and interpretation and issues.
In Sweden, following the setting up of municipal interpreting services in many of the larger cities, a national law passed in 1978 established that any administrative branch of the government should provide interpretation for those who needed it. This led to the establishing of an organised profession with specific functions, accreditation systems and its own union. The other Scandinavian countries have subsequently adopted the Swedish model (although with some limitations). According to the Linguistic Convention of the Nordic Countries (1987), all citizens of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden can use their mother tongue in public institutions, and interpretation must therefore be provided when necessary.
In the Netherlands, the state established six community interpretation centres in 1976, covering the whole of the country, and providing free interpretation services to the public sector and aid agencies. Interpretation services are also provided on a 24 hour basis by telephone.
In contrast, other northern European countries such as the UK, France and Germany, have, according to Sauvêtre, shown very limited state commitment to the provision of national community interpretation services, leaving those requiring such services to rely on minority communities, support groups and other specialist organisations. Immigration has become an issue for southern European countries only in much more recent times and as yet, there is little organised provision for translation and interpretation, particularly as many are illegal immigrants and making any kind of public assistance available is problematic.
86 Hertog and Vanden Bosch (2001) set out the principal European legislation relating to the provision of translators and interpreters in legal settings. According to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, all EU member states must provide interpreters, free of charge, for those who do not speak (or do not speak adequately) the language used by the police, the prosecuting authorities or the courts. They note that some countries only make interpreters available at the request of the accused, and that it is not usually the case that the interpreter has any recognised legal status. There is no legal definition of what a ‘court’ or ‘legal’ translator or interpreter does and therefore no requirement for screening, training or assessment.
In practice, most countries seek both university level education and a minimum level of experience. However, many of the languages for which translators and interpreters are required are not taught at degree level, in some cases even in the country from which the language originates. Few European countries (Austria, Sweden, and England being the exceptions) require legal interpreters to have knowledge of the legal system.
Hertog and Vanden Bosch provide a more detailed analysis of provision for legal translators and interpreters, and the relevant regulations in the four European countries involved in the Aequitas project: Belgium, Spain, Denmark and the UK. The main points are summarised in Figure 5.
87 Figure 5: Analysis of Provision for Legal Translators & Interpreters and the Relevant Regulations in four European Countries
BELGIUM SPAIN DENMARK UK (ENGLAND)
Language rights Defendant has right to use own language Those facing criminal charges have the Interpreters are provided if demanded by On arrest, people are informed in writing at all stages in criminal proceedings, as right to free interpretation the parties involved in the case of their right to an interpreter, and if do witnesses necessary an interpreter is appointed Costs Borne by state in criminal cases but by Paid for by the court in criminal cases plaintiff or defendant in civil cases but by the plaintiff or defendant in civil cases Lists of interpreters Kept by courts Translators and interpreters are enrolled National Commission of the Danish on regional registers and also on lists of police keeps an official list, to which local law societies. In larger courts, there authorised translators are automatically are in-house interpreters who are added. Unauthorised translators and employees of the court interpreters must pass an oral examination Recruitment and No national system – each court and A number of different initiatives to Interpreters must be ‘authorised’: A National Agreement (for England and certification each police department has own system assess and accredit interpreters including Danish nationality & residence Wales) exists to govern the and the passing of an ‘authorisation’ arrangements for interpreters to attend exam. However, unauthorised investigations & proceedings within the interpreters are used when no authorised criminal justice system. translators or /interpreters are available (i.e. for most non-European languages) National register of None exists National association for sworn By the end of 2001, every interpreter translators and interpreters interpreters (not necessary to hold working in the courts or in police formal qualifications to be accepted) stations should be selected from either the National Register of Public Sector Interpreters or National Dir ectory of Sign Language Interp reters Quality control Rudimentary – no national qualifications Staff interpreters sit two translation system papers and examination on knowledge of legal system, but no oral examination Ethical issues Rules have been set out concerning the recruitment of interpreters and administration of their services. These cover accuracy, completeness, impartiality, confidentiality and conflict of interest. Two different volumes are available, one for interpreters themselves and one for those who use their services.
88 Kadric (2000) also points to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as the background to national law in Austria, in relation to guarantees of due process in civil and criminal law and to the right of defendants to have access to an interpreter and to be informed of their rights in a language they can understand. There are, however, no regulations governing the functions of interpreters in civil courts in Austria, but in criminal courts, there is a guarantee of comprehensive ‘translation assistance’ to defendants which entails both the use of interpreters in court proceedings and the translation of important documents.
E.2.2: Canada In Canada, responsibility for public sector interpreting has been taken on by the federal governments (Mesa 2000). In Quebec, an act to respect health services and social services (1991) includes provision for organising services ‘to foster, to the extent allowed by the resources, access to health services and social services in their own languages for members of the various cultural communities of Quebec’ (quoted on p68). Orders accompanying the act stress the importance of establishing good communication with clients, and the obligation to provide relevant information. In certain circumstances, the public sector must call in interpreters. Because of this legislation, interpreter banks have been set out throughout Quebec.
Morris (2000) notes commitments to access to information in a language understood by those seeking access to justice understand in several different countries. In Canada, the Supreme Court has laid down the standard for all court interpreting:
The constitutionally guaranteed standard of interpreting is not one of perfection; however, it is one of continuity, precision, impartiality, competency and contemporaneousness. An accused who does not understand and/or speak the language of the proceedings, be it English or French, has the right at every point in the proceedings in which the case is being advanced to receive interpretation which meets this basic standard. (R. v. Tran 1994, quoted p253)
A Canadian ruling relating to sign language interpreting in the context of medical services has determined that interpreters must be provided where necessary for effective communication (Eldridge v. British Columbia 1997).
E.2.3: Australia Australian policy relating to provision for translation and interpretation in legal contexts derives from two reports produced in the early 1990s on Access to Interpreters in the Australian Legal System (Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department 1991) and Multiculturalism and the Law (Law Reform Commission 1992). Recent evidence suggests that some of the principles established have been compromised by budget restrictions (Morris 2000)
89 E.3: Service provision
E.3.1: Similarities between issues affecting service provision in the UK and elsewhere The kinds of issues raised in our main report, concerning who providers are, their knowledge base, and consistency of provision within and across sectors are undoubtedly of relevance in other parts of the world apart from the UK. Because the range of international documentation we have been able to review is limited, what we have found are some very specific instances of these debates. For example, Abraham and Oda (2000) report on a project to train cultural/ community interpreters to work with services aiming to combat domestic violence (the police, the courts and hospitals) in Toronto. Their article provides very detailed accounts of practices relating to the provision of interpreter services; situations in which cultural/ community interpreters might be required; and expectations of cultural/ community interpreters. From these accounts, the authors draw conclusions about the recruitment of cultural/ community interpreters; statements of competence relating to knowledge and skills; statements relating to roles and responsibilities; and a code of ethics.
E.3.2: Differences between the UK and elsewhere: the case of South Africa Other articles reveal challenges which the UK has not had to face. Erasmus (2000) discusses trends and prospects for interpreting in the 11 official languages of South Africa. The ‘new’ South Africa offers a very different context for language services compared with European countries. The long apartheid period means that many people are unaware of their rights to access to services or to participation in decision-making processes. The running down of black townships and areas of the country mean that many problems apart from language issues require urgent attention, but there is little money for any of them.
During the period of apartheid, only English and Afrikaans were in official use, and therefore the development of formal interpretation services in the other nine languages (all African) are at an early stage. It is, however, recognised that informal or ad hoc interpretation has a long history in South Africa. Simultaneous interpretation is established for the Parliament and provincial governments. The activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have markedly increased the demand for interpreters, given the decision to allow victims to use their own languages to express their experiences.
The discussion in this article focuses on the model of delivery best suited to the South African situation. The recommendation is that full-time interpreters should be employed within institutions, along with ad hoc interpreters (known as the ‘add-in’ model), on the basis that the setting up of independent interpreting services is unrealistic at present. Erasmus also notes a type of community translation used in South Africa which may be unique or under- reported elsewhere: this consists of the conversion of written texts into pictorial information for those who cannot understand the standard written form.
An experimental approach to developing language services in one area of the Orange Free State is described in the article. This comprises the setting up of a Local Government Translation and Interpreting Service, which includes a simultaneous interpreting unit for council meetings, translation services for formal documentation (including simplified versions of documents for people whose literacy skills are limited) and liaison interpreting for primary health care clinics (a situation where communication difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that most doctors and health care staff are foreign aid workers). Training courses for interpreters have been set up in the area, which includes, among other standard components, work on the development of specialist terminology in African languages. In addition training
90 is planned for service providers in working with interpreters and in language awareness and cultural sensitivity for front-line staff. A telephone interpreting service for South Africa is also being considered. Also in South Africa, Wiegand (2000) looks at the experiences of interpreting for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Victims were able to present their experiences in their own languages, and interpreters worked between these languages and English. The linguistic issues raised in this context included cross-cultural influences, interpreting techniques, managerial influences and support structures in coping with the emotional demands of the work. The affective demands made on interpreters were considerable, reflecting cultural and political differences among the interpreters, and between the interpreters and those for whom they interpreted. Interpreters needed a range of skills, including language skills, ability to cope with stress, handle problems and management skills. Stress was a major problem, leading to the resignation of many interpreters. Sources of stress included the fact that the Commission moved from area to area, meaning that translators had to travel and spend time away from their homes. As many of the translators had not been employed before, they did not necessarily have the experience to cope with the usual work pressures. Interpreters were placed in prominent positions on stage, making them highly visible, and prone to stage fright in some cases. A major source of stress was the nature of the testimony they had to convey, particularly as this was done in the first person. This challenged the expectation that interpreters should not become emotionally involved with the victims. Many of the others involved in the work of the Commission (e.g. commissioners, journalists, statement takers) suffered from post-traumatic stress and other conditions such as depression, panic disorders, etc. These have clearly affected interpreters too. To relieve stress, various support structures were put in place. These ranged from debriefing sessions where interpreters could talk to each other and to the interpretation managers about their experiences and feelings, to the provision of therapists and other health specialists. Talking to friends and relatives about their experiences was difficult, partly because of the fact that they were often working long distances from home. Many of the interpreters tried to ignore the fact that their jobs were stressful. Wiegand sums up the achievements of the interpreters of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (in the context of South Africa) as follows:
! the most extensive continuous interpreting service ever provided; ! the largest number of interpreters, including many from disadvantaged communities, employed on a continuous basis; ! the most extensive use of African languages in a high status context; ! the most convincing example of empowerment for ‘ordinary people’ through language; ! the highest level of media coverage of the work of interpreters.
91 E.3.3: Summing up: issues facing service provision at international level At international level, the issues affecting policy and practice in relation to provision for translation, interpretation and communication support services at the end of the 20th century are summed up by Morris (2000), This article focuses on ongoing problems deriving from negative attitudes among service providers. Morris recognises that there have been many improvements in understanding in recent years: she cites the setting up of the National Register for Public Service Interpreters and the establishment of the Civil Justice Council in the UK (England?) as examples of changing attitudes. At the same time, other trends threaten the public perception of the work of interpreters and others who use more than one language in their work. In the USA, for example, the ‘English only’ has made significant progress in some states: in Arizona, state and local government business must be conducted in English, meaning that Navajo elected officials cannot speak to their constituents in Navajo; or that welfare workers trained to work in several languages can now operate only in English.
However, technological developments may lead to changes. For community interpreters, many of whom work in isolation, the internet and email allow them to make links with each other, impossible beforehand. Morris gives examples of internet discussion topics on qualifications for interpreters, arguments to persuade court officials of the need for better working conditions, codes of ethics, how to set up professional associations, etc.
Morris concludes:
Unimaginative people who take for granted their own communicative tools in a given situation will never understand the situation of those who lack those tools … Unless the attitudes and consequent behaviour of those who are involved in a hands-on fashion in community interpreting situations – doctors, nurses, administrators, principals, teachers, lawyers, judges, social workers, police officers and interpreters themselves – are up to the mark, those with limited proficiency in the language of the service providers will continue to receive sub-standard – or no – services. (pp262-3)
E.4: Models of service delivery
As in the main review, the question of the role of the interpreter has received considerable attention at international level. In the main report, we focused on debates concerning what we have termed ‘informal communication’ (the use of relatives, friends or acquaintances), the casual use of bilingual staff, the development of trained bilingual staff and the use of professional interpreters, and posited a continuum reflecting this range of possible interventions. The international literature has focused on the scope the professional interpreter may have to go beyond the direct transmission of meaning from one language to another, to dealing with misunderstandings which appear to be arising, explaining relevant cultural differences, or acting as advocates for clients.
E.4.1: General discussions of the scope of the community interpreter’s work Sauvêtre (2000) notes that different European countries have different understandings of what community interpreting entails. While the Swedes adhere to the principal that interpretation means direct conversion of one language into another without adding or changing anything, the French have developed the concept of ‘cultural interpreting’ which entails explaining cultural differences where these have a bearing on discourse. In his survey
92 of 45 organisations in 13 EU countries, Sauvêtre found that 60% agreed both that interpretation means ‘the simple conveying of what is said’ and ‘the possibility of cultural mediation’; but that only 2 of the 45 organisations accepted that advocacy could be part of the work of the interpreter. This kind of work should be done by others such as socio-cultural mediators, intercultural mediators, counsellors, support workers, etc.
Pöchhacker (2000) conducted a survey in Vienna into the views of 600 public sector staff and 32 interpreters (spoken language and sign) into the role of the public service interpreter. Starting from the assumption that everyone would agree that the role of the interpreter is to convey as accurately as possible the message, Pöchhacker asked his respondents to say what else they felt fell within the remit of the interpreter’s work. Most agreed that interpreters should also
• alert parties to any misunderstandings • help clients to fill in forms • clarify indeterminate statements by immediate follow up questions to the client • explain technical terms to clients • simplify technical terms for clients • summarise clumsy long utterances of client (sign language interpreters did not agree with this) • explain foreign cultural references and meaning • ask questions and give information at the request of the provider
However, only a third agreed that interpreters should omit utterances which are not to the point to avoid losing time.
Mesa (2000) investigated the extent to which users of the Inter-regional Interpreters Bank in Montreal felt that it met their needs. 500 users, including clients, health care workers and interpreters were surveyed. She notes the definition of the interpreter’s role adopted by the Bank:
Our definition of the interpreter’s role is based on two principles. First, the professionals in the health care and school systems … are the masters of their professional intervention. Second, clients’ autonomy and ability to make decisions regarding their own person must be respected, in the spirit of the Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. The Bank’s interpreters serve the client and the health care worker equally. … They transmit all verbal and non-verbal information in strict confidentiality, while helping each party to understand the values, concepts and cultural practices of the other. They do all this with neutrality, and using vocabulary adapted to each party. (p69)
E.4.2: The scope of the work of court interpreters Kelly (2000) investigated professionals’ views on the issue of whether court interpreters should resolve misunderstandings due to the cultural differences between the host country and the client. The significance of cultural diversity in court settings has been recognised by the Massachusetts Court System, although training for interpreters in Massachusetts does not currently deal with this issue. In a survey of Massachusetts court professionals (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and legislators) and interpreters and trainers of interpreters throughout the USA, this issue emerged as controversial, and divisive. In comments, it emerged that many of the court professionals were dubious about the expertise of interpreters
93 in providing cultural information in addition to their linguistic role, and several saw this as an evidence issue, arguing that the question of admissible evidence would have to be addressed. Suggestions about alternative approaches to raising the matter in open court are made (e.g. informing an attorney privately and leaving it to her/him to decide what to do with the information; or asking the person who has raised a matter in which cultural misunderstanding could ensure to clarify the meaning of key words of phrases, enabling the interpreter then to interpret these clarifications as well as the original message). Those who thought that cultural references should, at least in some cases, be explained in court were asked to give examples of where this would be appropriate. These were relatively limited in scope. Examples included gestures whose meanings are particularly culture specific, references to national holidays used to identify the date or time of year when an event took place. Given the possibility that cultural differences will be something courts have to take into account in future (the Massachusetts court system is considering doing so from 2022 onwards), respondents were asked what requirements should be met in order for an interpreter also to be considered a bi-cultural expert. Some respondents suggested advanced degrees in related fields such as cultural anthropology. The author of the article has some sympathy with this view, and believes that in time, interpreters may be expected to have training in law, anthropology, intercultural communication in addition to the linguistic demands of interpreting. However, she also expresses some reservations about cultural intervention on the part of interpreters, arguing that this cannot be at the expense of neutrality (i.e. interpreters should not introduce cultural issues out of sympathy for the client, or because s/he believes the client to be either innocent or guilty. She also argues that not all interpreters may wish to make cultural interventions, and that in time, different grades of interpreter, including those who are qualified to act as ‘bi-cultural’ experts in addition to interpreting, and those who interpret only, should be established, with pay differentials. Kadric (2000) considers a key questions in relation to interpreting in Austrian courts: does the interpreter serve primarily as an aide to the judge, or is the task to make the whole proceedings clear to the non-German speaker. On the evidence presented in the case study included in this article, it seems clear that the interpreter is seen primarily as an aide to the judge, and that this has important repercussions for defendants. For example, after the prosecution has produced a list of charges, these are summarised by the judge, and it is only the summary which is interpreted for the defendant, not the detailed list. While the full testimony of the defendant is interpreted for the benefit of the court, statements made by witnesses and experts are not interpreted for the client if the judge feels that s/he has ‘some understanding’ of German; if not, a summary of what is said is interpreted. The judge’s speech closing the evidence stage of the trial is not interpreted, nor are the closing statements of the prosecution or the defence. Interpretation of judgement and sentencing are often reduced, in the interpretation, to telling the defendant ‘what he got’; and it is also unlikely for an explanation of legal remedies to be interpreted. Kadric argues that these court interpreting practices in Austria are unsatisfactory, failing to ensure due process or equality of opportunity. In his view, full interpretation of every stage of the proceedings is required.
E.4.3: Working arrangements for legal interpreters and translators Grollmann et al. (2001) make recommendations concerning working arrangements to support good practice in the field of legal interpretation and translation. They recommend that all qualified legal interpreters and translators are registered, preferably on a national register, such as the UK National Register of Public Service Interpreters (seen as an excellent model),
94 and that police and legal services do not use unregistered interpreters or translators. In addition to ensuring that all those included on the register are appropriate qualified, it is also necessary to vet applicants (e.g. in relation to criminal records). Additional vetting may be required for sensitive cases (e.g. involving terrorism or organised crime.) When agreeing a particular interpreting or translation assignment, letters of agreement should be drawn up to cover details of the assignment itself, terms and conditions, fees and travel and subsistence costs. Legal interpreters and translators should ensure that they are covered by professional liability insurance. They should take steps to ensure their own security, and require that authorities do the same (e.g. by not providing home addresses and phone numbers of translators and interpreters).
The authorities need to provide adequate support for legal translators and interpreters. This includes making sure that they have access to relevant sources of information, that they provide feedback and mentoring on the performance of translators and interpreters and that they recognise and meet the need for psychological support, particularly in the context of traumatic cases.
Finally, they recommend that legal status is established for legal interpreters and translators, so that their rights and obligations are formally recognised and defined in law.
E.5: Service awareness
None of the international material reviewed addressed issues of service awareness.
E.6: Service user needs
The international literature reviewed reveals, as does the main report, only very limited attention to the user perspective. The only study which addresses this issue is Mesa’s survey (2000) of the views the users of the Inter-Regional Interpreters’ Bank in Montreal. She found that clients encountered linguistic barriers in accessing health care. They were reluctant to ask favours of family members or friends, by asking them to interpret for them, as they did not wish to feel under an obligation to such people. They did not want to discuss confidential matters in front of people, concerned that such information could be passed on to others in their communities. The majority said that they would prefer to use a professional interpreter when consulting health or social work professionals, or in an educational context. They also believed professional interpreters would interpret more accurately. Those who had experience of professional interpreters rated their services highly. (It should be noted that most of the survey participants had not had the opportunity to use interpreters from the Bank at the time they were surveyed.)
E.7: Training, assessment and accreditation
Training, assessment and accreditation are themes to which considerable attention has been devoted by different authors.
95 E.7.1: Training overviews Descloux et al. (1999) discuss different models for the training of interpreters in their own country (Switzerland) and in other European countries. Much of their data came from an international conference in Vienna plus selected follow-up interviews. Their paper points to the widespread importance of the interpreter's 'cultural mediation' role in view of the large influx of temporary or more permanent populations who do not speak a country's national language(s). As such it becomes important to draw on the skills and cultural background of the incoming as well as the indigenous population and to develop systems which will recognise any relevant education, training and qualifications which they may have achieved elsewhere.
They claim on the basis of their international evidence that the professional activity of the interpreter rests on an underlying tension between developing the science (knowledge and skills) of interpretation (usually in universities) and the claims of several different professions (e.g. health, social work, education, law). At present, they argue, the training of interpreters does not appear to bring these sufficiently together, which points to the need not only to develop interpretation skills but also to connect these into multidisciplinary knowledge and to different domains of practice.
Drawing on their international data, they discuss ways in which the training of interpreters might be improved, including: more co-operation needed between those bodies requiring interpretation and those providing the training of interpreters; more openness within training organisations to the needs of the market; training to be more closely related to actual work- based practice in order to help trainees develop subject competence, interpretation competence and cultural competence; and the importance of going beyond the 'birds' eye' perspective of interpretation where the interpreter hovers above cultures towards a view of interpretation that is more culturally-bound, involving issues of interpretation ethics and responsibility.
Sauvêtre (2000) conducted a survey of the training backgrounds of interpreters employed in 45 organisations across 13 EU countries. He found that about 50% had completed tertiary level studies, and that 80% of the respondents had received specific training relating to community interpreting when they joined the services employing them. Basic training tends to be short (between 10 and 20 hours), but longer training (from 100 to 300 hours) has sometimes been made available, usually to support experimental developments, or initiatives for which funding has been made available by the European Union.
96 E.7.2: Training programmes The project reported by Abraham and Oda (2000), to train cultural/ community interpreters to work with services aiming to combat domestic violence (the police, the courts and hospitals) in Toronto, identifies the key skills which this kind of interpreter needs:
! facility in both languages; ! understanding of the confidentiality of the situations in which the interpreter may be called on to provide services; ! understanding the importance of accuracy when interpreting during statement taking, as this will have an impact on the case […]; ! ability to give exact interpretations of officers’ questions and victims’ answers […]; ! reliability and impartiality, lack of bias; ! understanding of basic court and evidence procedures, basic criminal law, pertaining to statements and court attendance requirements, e.g. subpoena; ! understanding that the interpreter may be subject to being called to court as a witness; ! completion of a background criminal record check. (pp.168-9)
Their training programme designed to facilitate the development of these skills. The article includes an evaluation of the outcomes of the programme, from the perspectives of those who ran the programme, of the trainees and of the service providers.
Carr and Steyn (2000) describe the setting up of a distance learning programme for interpreters, run by Vancouver Community College, in collaboration with the Open Learning Agency, as one way of meeting demand for training from people in areas where this was not available. Some of the skills which interpreters require cannot easily be developed through distance learning: for example, it is not possible to offer distance-based training in specific languages. Screening examinations before entry to the course ensure that candidates are sufficiently competent in the languages they intend to offer as interpreters. Although this course was relatively new at the time of writing, it appears, it may be useful to revisit this work at a later date, if distance learning might be considered one way of addressing the dearth of training opportunities in Scotland.
E.7.3: Development of assessment tools Roberts (2000) discusses the development of national assessment tools for interpreters in Canada. Such tools exist for conference and court interpreting in Canada, but not for other areas of community interpreting. Roberts compares two locally developed tests which aim to establish applicants’ competence in interpreting from each of the languages they offer as interpreters and draws the following conclusions:
• The purposes of the tests need to be clear, and to be understood by those taking them, although it is acceptable to have multipurpose tests (i.e. tests which screen applicants before training, tests the results of a training programme and/ or accredit candidates for employment as interpreters). • The content of the tests must include both consecutive interpreting and sight translation, going into English from another language, and from the other language into English. Texts should avoid specialist vocabulary, as it is the generic skill of interpreting rather than specialist skills which is to be tested.
97 • Marking schemes need to be produced and understood by markers and minimum pass rates established. Candidates should receive feedback on their performance. • Tests should be piloted and adjusted in the light of what emerges from the pilot exercise. A minimum of one year should be set aside for test development, including piloting. • Provision for new texts to be added on a regular basis should be made, so that people are able to sit the test more than once. The tests themselves should not be changed, unless highly unsatisfactory, for at least five years, to ensure continuity and an understanding of what pass rates mean.
E.7.4: Cultural issues in training Fiola (2000) discusses dilemmas inherent in accrediting aboriginal interpreters, based on experiences of working with community interpreters in the Yukon. These dilemmas include the fact that aboriginal languages in the Yukon have no written form, and therefore no grammars, dictionaries or other reference texts. Instead, interpreters have to rely on other members of their community, and interpreting in this context can become a collaborative affair. Conceptually, aboriginal languages have developed very differently from European languages and it can be very difficult to find equivalent terms. This article does not put forward solutions to the dilemmas identified but argues that rather than trying to apply standards drawn from interpreting in the context of other kinds of languages, descriptions of the skills of people within aboriginal communities who are regarded as excellent interpreters should form the starting point in establishing goals for others who wish to train as interpreters.
E.7.5: Training for legal interpreters and translators Very detailed discussion concerning the selection of students for training at first degree and initial professional level, and at professional postgraduate MA level, the training courses themselves, provision for continuing professional development, and for training trainers is discussed in four articles in Hertog (2001). Each of these articles makes reference to the others, so that in combination, they form a comprehensive approach to training. Each is summarised in turn, in this section, but it should be stressed that these articles provide very detailed accounts of what, in the authors’ view, needs to be done at each stage of the training process. Those concerned with these issues are advised to read the articles in full.
Corsellis et al. (2001a) describe how students should be selected for training at first degree and initial professional level, and at professional postgraduate MA level. They comment that Students should be selected, not only for their potential ability to pass the qualifying examination, but primarily on the grounds of their suitability to join the profession. Legal service interpreters and translators bear grave professional responsibilities. The quality of people’s lives, and at times even their life or liberty, may rest upon the quality of interpreting and translation. (p89) They identify three types of selection criteria for training at first degree and initial professional level: • those determined by the needs of the clients (e.g. the particular languages most in demand, male/ female balance, needs of transient as well as resident people, patterns of geographical demand)
98 • those determined by the skills and qualities required (e.g. competence in the majority language of the country in question, competence in the other language, interpreting or translating potential, interpersonal skills) • those determined by course needs (e.g. language groups which can be catered for, optimum numbers)
At professional postgraduate MA level, candidates should, in addition to meeting the above criteria, show that they have the potential to study at a higher level, that they can study autonomously, that they are committed to the subject, that they can conduct objective research and that they possess intellectual curiosity.
Recommended selection methods training at first degree and initial professional level include advertising the course well in advance, in locations in which the best students are likely to encounter the advertisement (e.g. using the resources of local language communities), ensuring that selection assessment events are held at times and in places which are convenient to likely candidates, and using a range of assessment formats (including role play, sight translation exercises, self-assessment questionnaire, interviews with native speakers of both languages). Selectors should include experienced qualified legal interpreters and translators, course tutors, and graduate native speakers of the languages. Procedures for how to conduct the selection assessment and how to deal with those who do not pass should be agreed in advance.
At professional postgraduate MA level, the authors suggest conducting interviews with candidates, and aptitude tests which will reveal their knowledge of both languages, transfer strategies, knowledge and understanding of legal systems involved, good memory and relevant speaking skills for interpreters.
The nature of the training for legal translators and interpreters at first degree and initial professional level, and at professional postgraduate MA level is discussed in Corsellis et al. (2001b). While recognising that training courses will differ according to the needs of the students, the training approaches adopted by tutors and the particular educational conventions of different member states, they argue for a common core for the training of legal interpreters and translators in all EU states. This would allow for consistency in standards of practice, and make it easier for legal interpreters and translators to train or work in other member states. It would also support the sharing of training materials and trainers, the development of shared terminology, and enable all involved in this field to have access to a wider body of knowledge and expertise.
Their recommended common core objectives for first degree and initial professional level are: knowledge of criminal and civil legal systems; written and spoken competence in both languages; transfer skills (one way and both ways); code of conduct and guides to good practice; continuous professional and personal development; professional practice. There is detailed discussion of how courses should be managed, and how the core objectives should be realised.
Professional postgraduate MA level courses should build on the expertise developed at first degree and initial professional level, ensuring continuity and progression. A common core is needed for the same reasons as argued in relation to first degree and initial professional level provision, although encouraging the development of a wide range of specialisations at this level is also important. The main aims of these courses should be to:
99 • further the knowledge of the candidates in the criminal and civil legal system of the country hosting the course • provide European Law modules on issues such as immigration, family law, tax law, etc. • further the knowledge in the field of legal translating and interpreting • improve written and spoken competence in both languages in both formal legal language, everyday language as well as improvement of the ability to listen to and comprehend different varieties of a language • improve translation and interpreting skills (transfer skills, one- and two- way interpreting) in specific and specialised settings • improve communicative skills, including proper use and assessment of body language, efficient use of speaking techniques, etc. • be able to use translation and interpreting strategies such as adaptation, modulation, etc. effectively • and be able to work as professionals (pp118-9)
Again, there is detailed discussion of how courses should be managed, and how the core objectives should be realised.
Ostarhild (2001) addresses continuing professional development (CPD) for legal interpreters and translators. The importance of establishing good practice in this context is seen to lie not only in the need to keep practitioners abreast of new developments and to spearhead innovation, but also in establishing the professional status of a field which is a new or developing area in a number of European countries. A variety of areas are considered to relevant to the CPD of legal translators and interpreters, including the upgrading of translation and interpretation skills and of knowledge of legal systems, acquiring, updating and developing skills relating to new technologies in use in this field, ensuring familiarity with the latest ideas and research outcomes, and passing on expertise acquired in the field to others.
It is recognised that the ways in which practitioners engage in CPD are highly varied – including reading professional journals, attending conferences, researching and producing professional papers or articles, taking part in training courses to enhance existing skills or acquire new knowledge and skills. The article discusses the value of developing personal CPD plans, the need also for structured CPD provision in the work place, and the importance of recording and evaluating CPD activities.
Corsellis (2001) discusses training the trainers, arguing that the need for a specialist cadre of trainers is currently urgent because of the increased demand for interpreters and growing recognition of the importance of professional regulation. She recommends that trainee trainers are drawn from those who possess post-graduate level qualifications in legal translating and interpreting, have experience of practice, the potential to develop training skills, and an appropriate psychological profile. Four training modules are suggested: in educational theory, in teaching methodologies, in teaching practice, and in management. The assessment of trainee managers should include accreditation of prior learning and experience, an evaluation of their teaching practice, and a project. Newly qualified trainers will require continuing support, both from the colleges or universities in which they work, and from the profession.
100 E.8: Guidelines and standards
One of the main aims of the Aequitas project was to make recommendations on standards of selection, training and assessment, ethics, codes of conduct and good practice. Three articles in the book deal with this issue in some detail, looking at the linguistic standards required, proposing a code of ethics for legal interpreters and translators across Europe, and describing good practice guidelines both for interpreters and translators themselves, and for those who engage their services.
Ostarhild (2001) ‘aims to define linguistic standards for the main types of task which legal interpreters and translators may be required to perform’ (p42). The article addresses the standards required for one- and two-way interpreting, sight translation into both languages used by the interpreter, basic written translation, and professional legal translation. In summary, she states:
Interpreters and translators, who work as professional practitioners, do not only have to be in full command of the four language skills of speaking, listening comprehension, reading comprehension and writing, they also have to have particular interpreting and translation skills respectively. They all need knowledge of the countries and awareness of the cultures in which they work. (p44)
The article then addresses in some detail the standards to be achieved through diploma/ first degree/ BA courses in legal interpreting and legal translation, and through master’s level courses. The main areas covered are: for interpreters at diploma/ first degree/ BA level • interpreters’ essential speaking and listening skills (e.g. knowledge of legal terminology in both languages, high levels of fluency and accuracy, ability to recognise and use a range of idiom, register and forms of expression, cultural awareness); • interpreting skills (e.g. requirement to interpret everything said without addition or omission, neutrality, high level of concentration); • sight translation skills for legal interpreters (e.g. ability to convey completely and precisely the contents of a document in fluent, well-paced speech); • basic translation skills to support interpreting (e.g. produce an accurate translation of a document, conveying the meaning fully and clearly).
101 for translators at diploma/ first degree/ BA level • essential reading comprehension skills for legal translators (e.g. ability to fully understand information presented in complex legal language, identify social and cultural references in a text and their implications for full understanding, identify and seek to clarify ambiguities in text) • essential writing skills for legal translators (e.g. use a linguistic style most likely to achieve purpose of communication, express meaning clearly and unambiguously, used specialised and complex legal terms appropriately) • legal translation skills (e.g. translate factual information, concepts and opinions, reflect attitude and style of author of original text, explain cultural inferences which might be misunderstood or overlooked)
For both interpreting and translation courses, assessment guidance for each of these aspects are set out.
At Master’s level, Ostarhild suggests that courses should concentrate on:
• improvement of legal interpreting and translation skills • translators text revision • deepening, widening and updating of legal subject knowledge • developing specialisms • underpinning competence by interpreting and translation theory • developing skills for training the trainers • developing subject related research methodologies and skills • carrying out research projects • research publications • underpinning by selected areas of applied linguistics • management skills for legal interpreters and translators (p78)
Assessment criteria in these areas would build on those set out for diploma/ first degree/ BA level.
Corsellis and Felix Fernández (2001) propose a core code of ethics and conduct for EU member states, and set out guidelines for good practice in the field of legal interpreting and translating.
The core code of requires that legal interpreters and translators:
• Interpret and translate truly and faithfully, to the best of their ability, without anything being added or omitted; summarising only when requested and with the knowledge and consent of all parties […] • Only undertake assignments for which they are competent […] • Disclose any professional limitations which may arise during an assignment and take steps to remedy them or withdraw […] • Do not delegate accepted assignments, or accept delegated assignments, without the consent of the parties concerned […] • Declare any conflict of interest arising from an assignment and withdraw if any of the parties so require […] • Observe confidentiality […] • Observe and be seen to observe, impartiality […]
102 • Do not use any information gained in the course of their work for the benefit of themselves or anyone else […] • Decline any reward arising from an assignment other than the agreed fees and expenses […] • Seek to increase their professional skills and knowledge […] • Safeguard professional standards and offer assistance to other interpreters and translators whenever reasonable, practical and appropriate […] (p152)
The guidelines to good practice which they set out are designed to support the implementation of the code. They recommend that these guidelines are made available in each EU country to the police, criminal and civil courts and tribunals, the probation service, prisons, immigration services and customs and excise (and to others as relevant in each country). The guidelines cover assessing an assignment before accepting it, accepting an assignment, what should happen when an interpreter arrives for an assignment, what should happen before the assignment begins, during the assignment, at the end of the assignment and after the assignment.
Quality assurance strategies designed to maintain professional standards are also described. These include
• following the code and the guidelines, • ensuring that interpreted interviews and hearings are tape- or video-recorded, • proof-reading and cross-checking translations, • ensuring that those who employ the services of an interpreter or a translator understand their responsibilities, and that the authorities concerned act if the interpreter or translator draw to their attention failures in this regard • ensuring that appropriate procedures and processes are followed
Lastly, the disciplinary procedures to be followed if legal interpreters or translators fail to fulfil their professional duties are discussed. It is important to establish who is responsible for disciplining legal interpreters and translators, how disciplinary proceedings are brought, the approach and structure to be used in handling complaints, how disciplinary panels are constituted, and the procedures themselves, including sanctions and appeals.
Rasmussen and Martinsen (2001) set out good practice guidelines for those who work with legal interpreters and translators. These include:
• recognising when an interpreter is needed • identifying the language/ dialect required • selecting a suitable interpreter • contacting, briefing and commissioning interpreters appropriately • preparing for an interpreted interview or hearing • preparing the venue • setting the context out clearly • ensuring everyone understands the interpreting process • respecting the role of the interpreter • being aware of cross-cultural non-verbal communication • accommodating appropriate interpreting techniques • responding appropriately to interventions made by the interpreter to preserve the integrity of communication
103 • clarifying the next steps at the end of an interpreted interview or hearing • completing the necessary administrative tasks in connection with the interpreter’s employment • reflecting upon how performance might be improved.
A similar checklist is set out for those employing legal translators.
Following on from these checklists, they provide good practice guidelines for working across cultures. These include:
• retrieving general information about the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of potential clients prior to meeting them • remembering that clients may have different starting points when giving information to clients prior to meeting them • finding out during meetings the relevant information about the clients’ individual, social and educational background and attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and needs • giving appropriate and relevant information about the service, its procedures and the staff to be involved, and adapting the service, wherever possible, to meet the clients’ individual needs • making assessments, negotiating and implementing decisions which accommodate, in as positive a way as possible, the bicultural nature of the situation • recording and reporting an additional cultural dimensions objectively on an informed basis, and making any explanations which may be necessary for colleagues and members of other disciplines to carry out their tasks • reflecting on how performance may be improved.
E.9: Monitoring and evaluation
None of the international material reviewed addressed issues of monitoring or evaluation.
104