AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS and the DEAF/HARD of HEARING COMMUNITY: NEGOTIATING SOCIAL JUSTICE and POWER DYNAMICS a Th

Home , Nyle DiMarco

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND THE DEAF/HARD OF

HEARING COMMUNITY:

NEGOTIATING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND POWER DYNAMICS

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Sociology

Stephanie Lynn Diamond

FALL 2020

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND THE DEAF/HARD OF

HEARING COMMUNITY:

NEGOTIATING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND POWER DYNAMICS

A Thesis

Stephanie Lynn Diamond

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Jacqueline Carrigan, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Ellen Berg, Ph.D.

______Date

iii

Student: Stephanie Lynn Diamond

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and this thesis is suitable for electronic submission to the library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Jacqueline Carrigan Ph.D. Date

Department of Sociology

iii

Abstract

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND THE DEAF/HARD OF

HEARING COMMUNITY:

NEGOTIATING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND POWER DYNAMICS

Stephanie Lynn Diamond

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore observed tensions within the Deaf community, with a specific focus on the power dynamics and relationship with sign language interpreters. This study intends to provide a deeper understanding of that relationship, and expand on the research regarding personality characteristics preferred, or necessary, for competence and success as a sign language interpreter. A total of 11 comprehensive interviews were conducted, consisting of three participant groups: three

Deaf/hard of hearing community members (ages 20, 48, and 80), five hearing sign language interpreters: two CODA1 interpreters, three non-CODA interpreters, and three actively working Qualified/Certified Deaf Interpreters (Q/CDI). The study showed that collectivist values and community gain through social justice continues to be the lens through which the Deaf community operates.

1 CODA is an acronym for a Child of A Deaf Adult; it means they have at least one Deaf parent. iv

The data gathered in this study also supports the definition of sign language interpreting being a “practice profession” and all that it entails, but without some of the traditional individual benefits of a practice profession. A better description derived from the study is that being a sign language interpreter is a lifestyle, which is why one’s motivation to enter the field, inherent personality traits, community connection, involvement, accountability, and an adoption of collectivist social justice values is crucial.

______, Committee Chair Jacqueline Carrigan, Ph.D.

______Date

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my mother Skye O’loughlin, my mother-in-law Lois Diamond, my husband Brian Diamond, and the Sacramento Deaf and interpreting community. To my mother, your unending support, love, encouragement, and belief in me is priceless.

This work represents a culmination of so many late nights and last-minute accomplishments going back to the first day of kindergarten. We are finally done momma! To my mother-in-law, you were a pioneer and a fearless advocate within the

Deaf community, a beautiful supporter and mentor of the interpreting community, and, most cherished, a dedicated family woman. This work reflects your life’s work and your dedication to this community and to leaving this world a better place than you found it— which you did. I hope you are smiling down proud. To my husband, my partner, my love, my best friend, my editor—you make me better, and we are truly better together. This work is one more amazing success we have achieved together. Thank you, all of you.

Words will never capture the depth of my gratitude for your love and profound impact.

To the beautiful Sacramento Deaf and interpreting community, you have welcomed me, shaped me, raised me, become my family and place to call home. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and be a part of. This community is special, resilient, and powerful.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To all the participants in this study, thank you. Thank you for being vulnerable, open, honest—I am humbled by your trust. I learned so much from your stories and experiences, and I am excited by your ideas for the future. I hope you felt your voice was represented well and others can also learn from you through this work.

To Jackie Carrigan, you never gave up on this project or me. You have been an excellent guide and a pleasure to work with. Thank you and Ellen Berg, I could not have done it without you.

To my tribe, my tapestry, both my given and chosen family, you inspire me daily, you support me endlessly, you know who you are, and “thank you” will never be enough.

We did it!

vii

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Dedication ...... vi

Acknowledgements ...... vii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION……………… ……………………………………………………… 1

History ...... 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7

Progression of the Interpreting Profession ...... 7

Interpreting: Active Sociolinguistic Process ...... 9

Social and Culture Brokering...... 12

Personality and Other Characteristics Required ...... 13

Interdependence with the Deaf Community ...... 15

Deaf Community: Collectivism and Social Justice...... 16

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 18

Objective ...... 18

Sample and Recruiting Method ...... 18

Data Collection ...... 20

Interview Process ...... 20

Data Analysis ...... 21

Participants...... 22

Limitations ...... 25

Contribution ...... 26

4. FINDINGS ...... 27

viii

Deaf Community: Deaf Culture ...... 27

Community Division ...... 30

Culture Change: Technology and Social Media ...... 30

Incidental Information ...... 33

Deafhood and Deaf Celebrity ...... 33

Interpreters: Cultural Competency and Professionalization ...... 37

Trust and Power ...... 42

Neutrality and Invisibility ...... 46

Energy, Vibe, Attitude ...... 47

Reputation ...... 49

Reciprocity ...... 50

5. DISCUSSION ...... 51

Recommendations for Future Research ...... 56

Reflection ...... 57

Appendix A. Interview Questions ...... 59

References ...... 61

Chapter 1

Introduction

As a professional sign language interpreter, I have been privy to, or present for, some of life’s most extraordinary, tragic, and mundane moments. In my role as a professional sign language interpreter, I have witnessed births, delivered devastating diagnoses in doctor’s offices and hospitals, aided deaf individuals in saying “goodbye” to loved ones at funerals, and facilitated Tupperware parties. My interpreting assignment locations have ranged from the steps of the California State Capitol, senator and congressmen offices, hospital emergency rooms, addiction recovery meetings, hospice patients bedsides, family reunions, private homes, police stations, Gay and Lesbian Pride festivals, educational campuses, court rooms, weddings, mental institutions, and so much more. Each one of these settings has its own set of rules, expectations, social norms, and unique dynamics. The most obvious part of my job is to facilitate communication between Deaf2 and hearing individuals who do not share the same language. The far less visible, yet equally important part of my job, is being a social and cultural broker. It is these experiences, my role in the Deaf/hard of hearing community, and my personal observation of conflicting and contradictory power relations between the Deaf/hard of hearing community and interpreters that precipitated the inspiration for this project.

2 Deaf: Deaf (with a capital "D") refers to embracing the cultural norms, beliefs, and values of the Deaf Community. The term "Deaf" should be capitalized when it is used as a shortened reference to being a member of the Deaf Community. (www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/terminology.htm)

The purpose of this study is to explore observed tensions within the Deaf/hard of hearing community, with a focus on the relationship with sign language interpreters and the complex power dynamics involved. Utilizing qualitative data for this analysis, the data collection methodology included comprehensive interviews of Deaf/hard of hearing community members, sign language interpreters, and Qualified/Certified Deaf

Interpreters (Q/CDI’s).

The Deaf/hard of hearing community and sign language interpreters engage in a dialectical relationship, meaning each is dependent on the other, yet the power relations are contradictory. The Deaf/hard of hearing community is dependent on interpreters for access to greater society, and interpreters are dependent on the Deaf/hard of hearing for access to the community, and for their vocation. Within the subculture of the Deaf/hard of hearing community, the Deaf/hard of hearing participant holds more power; yet in greater society, Deaf/hard of hearing people are viewed as disabled, and by virtue of being able to hear, the interpreter holds more power. Therefore, the interdependent, or dialectical relationship—that is not defined by equality or asymmetrical power dynamics, but by some combination of the two— is complicated. As such, it is critical to understand key components about each group to accurately understand how they influence, respond to, and shape one another.

There are major differences between the dominant hearing culture and Deaf culture. The first major difference is grounded in power and oppression dynamics. From the perspective of mainstream hearing society, Deaf/hard of hearing people are viewed as disabled or “hearing impaired.” This is a “legitimating identity” (Gimenez 2001) that is a

3 product of labeling, handed down from dominant institutions—in this case, from the medical community. In fact, the very legislation that is a driving force behind the

“progress” that has been made, and why my job as a sign language interpreter exists, is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Conversely, the “Deaf” identity is a

“resistance identity,” one that emerged from the grassroots community, and is linked with past and current social movements (Gimenez 2001). It is an identity held with pride. The

Deaf community views itself as a cultural and linguistic minority, complete with a dynamic legitimate language—American Sign Language (ASL)—a language with a rich oral/visual history, traditions, jokes, schools, social and political organizations, and cultural norms.

Linguistically, ASL and American English are quite different. English is an aural/oral, written, linear, indirect language, rife with idioms, insinuations, and imbedded with information one would only gain through the ability to hear. ASL is a visual/spatial,

3-D, direct language, rife with nuances and the visual richness equal to that of a painting—at times not having a true spoken equivalent. Culture and language also form an intimate inseparable partnership; therefore, the differences between two languages are not simply how the words of that language are formed, but the history and culture imbedded in each utterance.

As a sign language interpreter, it is both a privilege and an ethical responsibility to accurately convey culturally and conceptually accurate information. As a bridge

4 between the Deaf and hearing worlds, it is imperative that interpreters are keenly aware of hearing privilege and audism3, in themselves, others, and in society.

History

Beginning in the 1960s, increased awareness of social justice concepts such as

“audism” and “hearing privilege” has led to greater empowerment and solidarity within the Deaf/hard of hearing community. That empowerment has sparked social movements, legislation, and a strong social identity paralleling and coinciding with the civil rights movement and ensuing legislation, namely The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in

1990. As the Deaf/hard of hearing community became more empowered through the passage of the ADA, and along with growing technology starting in the mid-1990s, they gained more access to education, jobs, housing, and independence, which spawned a greater need for sign language interpreters. In turn, sign language interpreting, as a profession, has responded through the adjustment of interpreting models, increasing education requirements, developing a certification process, and the recruitment of more sign language interpreters. “This landmark legislation (ADA) transformed the face of professional interpreting and caused the demand for interpreting services to soar to unprecedented heights” (Hall 2001, as quoted in Valero-Garcés and Martin 2008:57).

However, progress and change are never without consequence.

3 Tom Humphries invented the term ‘audism’ in 1975 to describe an oppressive attitude that some people, agencies, businesses, or organizations have towards people who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Humphries, used the word audism in his doctoral dissertation, “Communicating Across Cultures Deaf-Hearing and Language Learning.” He defined it as “the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.” (www.deafchoice.com)

Historically, interpreters have always been directly connected to the Deaf community. Interpreters were taught on the job by, and with, Deaf people and other interpreters. This created both trust and conflict. As the demand for interpreters increased, so did the need for professionalism and standardization.

This too created both trust and conflict. In the past, educational preparation programs were limited, and often taught by members of the community with little to no professional background in teaching. Yet, with the growing demand for qualified sign language interpreters, the educational programs have continuously become more standardized and extensive, and have fostered the professionalism of the field (Hooper Diamond and Diamond 2018; RID 2014). Moreover, the

Deaf/hard of hearing community continues to serve a dynamic role for sign language interpreters. They are our teachers, linguistic experts, consumers of our services, judge and jury of our service levels, and our social peers. It is a paradoxical negotiation of power. That power negotiation is ever present during the act of interpreting occurring between at least three parties (Deaf participant, non-deaf participant, and interpreter), and situated in a much larger discourse of the dominant society and the relationship with the Deaf community—of which interpreters serve as the social and cultural brokers.

Contrasting the dominant society, the Deaf/hard of hearing community has historically identified as collectivist, which typically aligns well with social justice values as “..social justice presupposes social solidarities and a willingness to submerge individual wants, needs, and desires in the cause of some more

6 general struggle…” (Harvey 2005:41). Collectivism is also what has defined the

Deaf/hard of hearing community’s socio-cultural rules, expectations, interactions, and even the design of interpreter preparation programs. However, social justice also acknowledges the experience of multiple oppressions within society, and through personal observation, there seems to be an increase in dialogue in the

Deaf/hard of hearing community surrounding this experience. While this aligns with social justice values, it may be causing some conflict with the traditional collectivist values of the Deaf/hard of hearing community.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the observed tensions within the Deaf/hard of hearing community, with a specific focus on the power dynamics and relationship with sign language interpreters, and to expand on the research regarding personality characteristics preferred, or necessary, for competence and success as a sign language interpreter. An overarching goal of this study is to add to the construction of knowledge about this community, from the community.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The following synthesis of research provides an in-depth look at the sign language interpreting profession, the process, and the social and power dynamics involved; and a brief overview of the generally accepted collectivist cultural structure of Deaf/hard of hearing community and how social justice concepts may be influencing that structure.

Researchers have studied the sign language interpreting profession from various angles to gain a greater understanding of the complex and dynamic relationship between interpreters and the Deaf and hard of hearing community, with focused attention on the intricacies, demands, and negotiations taking place within the wide array of settings that interpreters must navigate. The research also outlines the extensive necessary and desirable qualifications of an interpreter.

Progression of the Interpreting Profession

Interpreting is a “practice profession,” similar to medical professionals, counselors, and attorneys. Unlike other practice professions, interpreters do not carry the social status that these other professions do, yet they require similar numbers of years of training and education. Valero-Garcés and Martin (2008:51) succinctly describe the complexity of the interpreting profession as a whole (spoken or signed):

Interpreting is a complex linguistic, social, cognitive, and cultural process. Often the interpreter is the only bilingual/bicultural individual present in a situation. Interpreters have the potential to impact peoples’ lives on a number of different levels. In legal and medical work, and education settings, the choices and actions that interpreters take, or do not take, have the potential to influence the lives of the people involved.

The goal of an interpreter has traditionally been neutrality, and even invisibility.

However, as Metzger (2011) extensively explains in her book Sign Language

Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality, interpreter neutrality is a paradox. It is a paradox that exists both historically and eternally. Within the Sign Language

Interpreting community, the response to this paradox has been, in part, the different interpreting models that the ASL interpreting profession has gone through. Anna Witter-

Merithew (1986) first wrote about these models in her two-part article published in the national Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf professional journal, RID VIEWS, titled,

Claiming our Destiny. McIntire and Sanderson (1995) situate these models in relation to the distribution of power between both the Deaf and hearing consumers and the interpreters. The models chronologically are:

1. The helper model. This model is strongly correlated to interpreters prior to professionalization. This model is largely associated with friends or family of the Deaf person that acted as an interpreter. This model reflects the larger societal view that the Deaf person is incapable, they must depend on the interpreter, and are powerless in this model.

2. The machine/conduit model. As interpreting began the process of professionalization, there was a stark shift to this model. The Code of Professional Conduct (originally known as the Code of Ethics) was new, and interpreters utilized it as a shield and an explanation to never step out of their role, to act as a machine, and to ultimately not assume any ownership over the message or effectiveness of communication.

3. The communication facilitator. This model empowered the interpreters slightly, to take more ownership of the message and the effectiveness. It also empowered interpreters to request their needs be met in order to be effective. This model felt like a slippery slope for interpreters who were trained in the conduit model. This was the inception of acceptance, (“inception,” because it came with guilt and awkward navigation regarding the appropriateness of interpreters serving as cultural brokers).

4. The bilingual and bicultural (bi-bi model). We have the opportunity to view our consumers as co-equals and as human

beings who have both the rights and responsibilities for their own destinies. The bi-bi model recognizes that interpreters work between members of (at least) two cultures and that interpreters bear the responsibility for successfully managing and negotiating the communication event (McIntire and Sanderson 1995:1-2).

Metzger (2011) takes this knowledge even further and suggests that the interpreter is a participant in the communication event, yet they are rendering the words of the other participants and are responsible for meeting the structure and discourse determined by the other participants. Metzger ponders the conflict created by this suggestion because the interpreter is supposed to provide access to an event they are an active participant in, yet their participation is not equal to the other participants. However, what is clear, is that much in the same way a researcher impacts the setting they are researching by their mere presence, so does an interpreter. It is crucial that as an interpreter, we recognize and assume responsibility for our choices, and are cognizant of our impact. Metzger rounds out this topic by suggesting that further investigation to the influence an interpreter has on the interactive discourse is necessary.

Interpreting: Active Sociolinguistic Process

Roy and Metzger (2014), did further the investigation and current research by analyzing sign language interpreting through a sociolinguistic lens. Sociolinguistics captures the complexity involved in the act of interpreting and is a significant dimension of analysis.

Sociolinguistics does not focus on language as an abstract system, but rather on language in use – how humans conceptualize particular meanings or select among the possibilities of meaning in their everyday lives just as interpreters select among the possibilities of meaning intended by others (Roy and Metzger 2014:159).

Interpreters engage in sociolinguistic analysis with each interpreted interaction because

10 they are conveying social behavior, and cultural and linguistic meaning through the interpreting process. The complexity of this process is exacerbated by the fact that:

Each interpreted interaction undertaken by a professional interpreter is situated within communities that harbor their own unique multilingual, bilingual, and language contact phenomenon; within a setting that represents a snapshot of what may be a long history of language policies and planning; and in a social environment beset with language attitudes about one or both of the languages involved (Roy and Metzger 2014:159).

Roy and Metzger’s conclusion is that sign language interpreting is inherently a sociolinguistic activity, and much of the research (although it may be indirect) does incorporate properties of sociolinguistic analysis. They also assert that intentional sociolinguistic analysis will serve to inform the Deaf/hard of hearing and sign language interpreting communities, as well as expanding the field of sociolinguistics.

Roy and Metzger also ascertain by being interdisciplinary, combining sociology and linguistics, sociolinguistics is the essential lens in which to examine sign language interpreting. This lens allows researchers to observe holistically, or in a more nuanced manner. Both approaches provide insight to the complex and layered human interaction that sign language interpreting is. Individually, Roy (1989, 2000) and Metzger (1995,

2011) studied nuances of the sign language interpreting profession by examining two things: 1) turn taking (both socially and linguistically) and how the interpreter is the one actively turn taking; and 2) the interpreter as an active participant and not a neutral conduit, and therefore examining their influence on the situation (respectively). Metzger,

Collins, and Shaw’s (2003) From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on

Interpretation, features Laura M. Sanheim’s research regarding turn taking in an interpreting setting, and a study by Marks (2012) also focused on this topic. They both

11 replicated and extended Roy and Metzger’s findings regarding the interpreter actively doing the turn taking and the interpreter-generated contributions in a given interaction.

These are noteworthy observations because it speaks to the relationship the interpreter has with the interaction and the participants. Traditionally, interpreters have been taught to be neutral conduits; over the years that model has shifted to interpreters as bi-cultural and bi-lingual conduits, yet it is still culturally controversial to be considered an active participant. However, to deny that an interpreter’s presence impacts the interaction is a fallacy.

The process of interpreting is an active sociolinguistic process, and therefore, interpreters are active participants in the interaction. Part of that process is the constant cultural, social, and linguistic choices made intuitively and quickly. Studies have analyzed sociolinguistic features of discourse that demonstrate a range of active processes, including, politeness done by Dr. Daniel Roush (Metzger and Fleetwood

2007), prosody (Nicodemus 2016; Winston 2000), and marking topic boundaries done by

Elizabeth Winston and Christine Monikowski in 2003 (Metzger and Fleetwood 2007).

These studies add credence to the role of the interpreter as a social and cultural broker, the far less visible, but equally important part of the job. Prosody, marking topic boundaries, and politeness are all socially, linguistically, and culturally distinct within the

Deaf/hard of hearing community. For example, it is considered polite within Deaf culture to announce why you are leaving a room, even it if it is to use the bathroom; whereas in greater society to announce that is impolite. The interpreter is responsible to navigate the social and contextual norms by conveying the intent of speaker/signer to be polite or not.

Prosody is even more complex, Winston and Roy (2015:104) describe it as “the combination of features that produce rhythm, accent or feel of the language, and which allows speakers and signers to reflect their internal focus.” Interpreters are responsible to convey message equivalence, which encompasses the speaker/signer’s prosody, sociocultural meanings, tone, intent, and even what is not said/signed. Marking topic boundaries is often associated with turn taking, which is an invisible linguistic, social, cultural dance— done differently in ASL and English. In English one might repeat utterances such as “umm” to hold their turn, whereas in ASL one might hold the last handshape used to hold their turn. As an interpreter it is imperative we understand these utterances for what they are and navigate the interaction as desired by those involved.

Social and Culture Brokering

Napier (2002) observes the social-cultural brokering by studying the omissions made by interpreters. In this study, she categorizes the omissions based on how aware and intentional the omissions are. Her study revealed that there are times that interpreters make intentional omissions in order to maintain conceptual accuracy. Through the sociolinguistic lens, Napier demonstrates that the rate and frequency of omissions is directly impacted by the interpreter’s familiarity with the Deaf and non-deaf participants, the situational context, knowledge of the topic, and the environmental factors. Another aspect directly impacted by these factors is an interpreter’s variation3. An interpreter’s

3 Variation as a sociolinguistic area of study examines the systematic choices made by members of a language community in keeping with linguistic and social factors, and reflecting the social organization of the community as well as grammatical constraints (Metzger and Roy 2014: 166 via Bayley, this volume: Lucas, Bayley, Valli, Rose, & Wulf, 2001).

13 decision on their variation, or what is commonly referred to as “finding their place on the

ASL – English spectrum,” is determined through the negotiation of the situational factors listed above, and the relational and power dynamics of the Deaf and non-deaf participants with the interpreter. In 1989 Elizabeth Winston published a seminal case study in Ceil

Lucas’ The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community on “transliteration,” which falls under the area of variation, because it was believed that a “literal interpretation” or

“transliteration” meant coding English words into a string of signs. Her study revealed that in fact, transliteration does incorporate prosody and grammatical features of ASL, yet, it presents the information in a more English style word order. This demonstrates the interpreter’s fluency and ability to manipulate both languages for conceptual accuracy that meets the needs of the situational context. Furthermore, there have been additional studies by Shaun Tray in Attitudes, Innuendo, and Regulators: Challenges of

Interpretation in Interpreting (Metzger and Fleetwood 2005) and by Roberto R.

Santiago and Lisa Frey Barrick published in Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer

Issues (Metzger and Fleetwood 2007) that studied innuendos and idioms (respectively).

Innuendos and idioms are often very challenging to interpret because they are so ingrained in the source culture and source language that extensive explanation is required, or there is lost meaning in the interpretation. The variation an interpreter uses will also impact how an idiom or innuendo is conveyed. Sociolinguistics is analysis of language in action, and the process of interpreting is a sociolinguistic activity.

Personality and Other Characteristics Required

The sociolinguistic research presented, while not wholly inclusive, is intended to

14 demonstrate the layers and complexities involved in sign language interpreting. And, while most careers are associated with specific personality characteristics, comparatively, sign language interpreting requires a much longer list of personality characteristics associated with competence and success. The reasons for that were revealed through the broad and various sociolinguistic studies that explained the extensive social, cultural, and linguistic navigations an interpreter makes in each interaction. This is an area of great interest for researchers, interpreter educators, and the Deaf/hard of hearing and interpreting communities to identify what personality characteristics are necessary for an interpreter to successfully navigate the aforementioned.

McDermid (2008) did a qualitative study in which professors of five American

Sign Language-English Interpreter Programs and four Deaf Studies Programs in Canada were interviewed and asked to discuss their experience as educators. This study revealed that the valued characteristics in a student were: independence, an appropriate attitude, an understanding of Deaf culture, ethical behavior, and a willingness to pursue lifelong learning. Additionally, the existing literature indicates that the valuable characteristics of an interpreter also include: flexibility and self-discipline (Nuemann Solow 2000), good attention span, stamina, tactfulness, good sense of humor and good judgment (Frishberg

1990); mentally and emotionally able to do the task (Humphrey and Alcorn, 1996); people (interpersonal) skills; and emotional skills such as self-awareness, self-control, self-motivation, empathy, confidence, flexibility, reliability, self-discipline, resilience, humility (Napier et al., 2006). Bontempo et al. (2014) desired to expand on this research through an extensive, international comparative study to identify if an interpreter’s

15 disposition may be indicative of occupational performance. Stewart, Schein, and

Cartwright (1998) held that interpreter training programs can only teach so much, that inherent personality traits would impact the work, and therefore, educators needed to consider personality traits as an equally important factor along with a student’s education and cognitive abilities. Bontempo et al. found that “self-esteem and emotional stability, openness to experience, and conscientiousness are important predictors of sign language interpreter competence” (2014:39). Both McDermid and Bontempo et al. addressed the valuable and necessary characteristics, or personality traits, required for successful and competent interpreters. Of note, both studies found that the age one enters the profession does factor into competency levels; and noted demographic observations such as the disproportionate number of female to male interpreters.

Interdependence with the Deaf Community

An overarching theme of the research demonstrates that an interpreter is thrust into widely varying situations, each with their own context, social expectations, language attitudes, and other various dynamics. The interpreter must possess cultural and linguistic competency, as well as other desirable personal or social characteristics, which enable them to simultaneously bridge two or more cultures and languages, and navigate the various power relationships through their interpretation, and between themselves and their clients.

As a professional sign language interpreter, I find this research to be fascinating, validating, and rife with my lived experiences. However, the research does seem to be deficient in considering the infancy of the profession and

16 exploring the complex power dynamics between interpreters and the Deaf/hard of hearing community. Sign Language Interpreting is a mere 48 years old, marked by the incorporation of the national Registry of Interpreters for Deaf (RID) in

1972. The process of professionalization has come with many iterative processes, especially regarding the various certifications offered. While it has brought legitimacy to the field, it has been a quick and dramatic change impacting both the sign language interpreting profession and the Deaf/hard of hearing community. Lou Fant, RID biographer, concisely captured this dramatic change when he stated:

The interpreter scene prior to 1964 was so vastly different from that which exists today that it is a strain on the imagination to contemplate it … We did not work as interpreters, but rather volunteered our services as our schedules permitted. If we received any compensation it was freely given and happily accepted, but not expected (RID 2014).

Sign language interpreting has always been, and still is, complex, nuanced, intertwined and dependent on the Deaf/hard of hearing community. This creates a complicated and dialectical relationship, especially when situated between greater society and the Deaf/hard of hearing community.

Deaf Community: Collectivism and Social Justice

Dissimilar to greater society, it is generally accepted that the Deaf/hard of hearing community has cultural structure of collectivism and much of the research has been carried out with this assumption. While the Deaf community has traditionally and still does find solidarity in their shared experiences, oppression, language, and culture, there is an increasing awareness amongst the Deaf/hard of

17 hearing community of the “ensemble of social relations”—as Marx says

(Gimenez 2001), that goes beyond the intersection of being Deaf in a hearing dominant society. An explicit focus on individual intersections and identity has been scarce for the Deaf/hard of hearing community as solidarity has proven to be a pillar for success. Solidarity continues to be relied upon when seeking policy changes and supporting Deaf triumphs such as Nyle DiMarco, the Deaf man who won the final season (2015) of the reality show America’s Next Top Model, and in

2016, along with this professional dance partner Peta Murgatroyd, also won the dance competition show Dancing with the Stars. However, these past successes achieved through collectivist solidarity seem to be creating space for more focus on the experience of multiple oppressions within society, which is a different social justice concept that may be a factor in the observed tensions or changes within the Deaf/hard of hearing community.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Objective

This study aimed to explore the observed tensions within the Deaf community, with a specific focus on the power dynamics and relationship with sign language interpreters and expand on the research regarding personality characteristics preferred, or necessary, for competence and success as a sign language interpreter. The underlying emphasis was to gather data from the community to construct knowledge about the community. While experience is inevitably biased, it is a valuable source for the completeness of knowledge. The design of this study is qualitative and was implemented by conducting in-depth interviews with Deaf/hard of hearing community members, hearing sign language interpreters, and Qualified/Certified Deaf Interpreters (Q/CDI).

The interviews were guided by open-ended interview questions with a general interview guide, yet allowing for informal conversation to occur (Butina 2015). Various validity and reliability strategies were utilized. The strategies included: transparency, diverse perspectives and participants, and peer debriefing.

Sample and Recruiting Method

The study included three groups with a total of 11 participants: three Deaf/hard of hearing community members (ages 20, 48, and 80), five hearing sign language interpreters: two CODA4 interpreters, three non-CODA interpreters, and three actively

4 CODA is an acronym for a Child of a Deaf Adult; it means they have at least one Deaf parent.

19 working Certified/Qualified Deaf Interpreters. For the group of Deaf/hard of hearing community members, I chose three participants ranging in age from 20 to 80 with the intention to capture generational variances. For the group of hearing sign language interpreters, I chose to classify by years of experience and familial ties to the Deaf community, with the intention to capture any variance based on their familial/communal ties, professional, generational, and educational (i.e. experience with multiple interpreting models) experiences in the profession. For the Qualified/Certified Deaf Interpreters, I did not see a need for further classification, as their intersection of being both a Deaf community member and a working sign language interpreter lends itself to a unique and valuable perspective vital to this research.

A snowball sampling approach was appropriate due to the researcher and the participants being a part of a small community. As the researcher, my intimate involvement in the community allowed me access for both recruitment and dialogue, which someone not of the community could not gain. There was a potential for a conflict of interest as the participants are colleagues, personal friends, co-workers, mentors, mentees, and we are even consumers of each other’s services. Therefore, the complex power relations being analyzed were present when conducting the interviews. When interviewing the participants, I intentionally established my role as an impartial researcher and resisted any temptation to “go native” to ensure the accurate representation of the diversity of perspectives.

Data Collection

The interviews were conducted in the participant’s preferred location within the greater Sacramento region of California, primarily during the months of May through

June of 2016. Although, follow up conversations and organic observations have occurred post interviews, adding to the richness of the analysis. Three interviews took place in my home, three interviews took place in a multipurpose space at the local Deaf agency office building, three interviews took place in the home of the participant, one interview took place in a conference room of a video relay company, and one took place at a local restaurant. Prior to beginning the interview, the Informed Consent and the Addendum for

Recruitment forms were provided to and thoroughly reviewed with the participant, and a signature of consent was obtained, including consent to video record the interviews. The interviews were conducted in the preferred language of the participant, which was either

English or ASL, and lasted one hour to two and a half hours.

Interview Process

Appendix A provides a copy of the general interview guide utilized in the interviews for reference. While all questions were asked of each participant, it was done in an open conversation format and not necessarily in chronological order—this was to support the organic and emergent flow of information. Demographic and background information was collected of each participant, including: age, gender, race/ethnicity, any degrees or certifications held, interpreter status, Deaf community identity (Deaf, Hard of

Hearing, Late Deafened, Hearing, CODA/SODA, other) and if applicable, how long they had been professionally interpreting and if they used interpreters in their personal lives.

The participants were asked generally about their experiences with/as an interpreter and with/as a part of the Deaf /hard of hearing community, as well as about Deaf Culture and any changes they have witnessed over time, the impact of social media, and their experience/observations of any tensions or conflicts within the community. Emerging from the interview process, most or all participants were also asked if the Deaf community was collectivist or individualistic, about the importance of reputation and trust, about invisibility and neutrality in interpreting, and power dynamics with interpreters. The participants were all given an open-ended opportunity to comment any other thoughts or comments they had related to the Deaf community and interpreters. The shortest interview was just over one hour, while the longest was almost three hours.

Data Analysis

The design of this study is qualitative, and therefore, emergent and exploratory.

Gathering data directly from the experience of an oppressed group allows for insight not otherwise included. The data was collected through video recording, utilizing video recording software available on my laptop computer. Video recording was selected as it was conducive to the analysis of both ASL and English, and allowed me to engage fully in the conversations without the burden of taking notes—which was also a logistic and cultural necessity when conducting interviews in ASL to allow for the natural flow of the conversations. The interviews that were conducted in English were transcribed by a professional confidential service and the copies were provided only to me. An intentional decision was made to only transcribe the interviews conducted in English, as it has a written form. Whereas, ASL is visual-spatial language without a true written form, and to

22 interpret the interviews into spoken English and then transcribe them into written English would dilute the analysis and authenticity of the study. All interviews were saved electronically, and password protected. All interviews were reviewed and analyzed in the source language in which the interview was conducted to identify patterns, themes, confirmation or dissention of previous studies, and to reveal any other relevant findings.

Participants

In accordance with Deaf culture values, to accurately frame this analysis, the participants must be introduced citing key information to understand their place in the community.

Qualified or Certified Deaf Interpreter (Q/CDI) Participant Group

Participant one: age 38 at the time of the interview, was born without hearing and identifies as Deaf, and is a certified Deaf interpreter. They have been interpreting professionally for approximately eight years, with one year of that being post formal training and certification. They attended both mainstream and residential school, their family did sign growing up (mostly SEE5) and their spouse and children sign (ASL).

Participant two: age 35 at the time of the interview, was born without hearing and identifies as Deaf, is a pre-certified Deaf interpreter (passed the written portion of the exam, the performance portion on moratorium) and they have been interpreting professionally for approximately a year and a half. They attended both mainstream and

5 Signing Exact English (SEE) is a sign system that matches signs with the English language. It is one of the first manual English systems to be published (1972) and has become extremely popular in the schools. (www.signingexactenglish.com)

23 residential school—mostly residential, their family did sign growing up (mostly SEE), and their partner now uses ASL.

Participant three: age 35 at the time of the interview, was born hearing but lost almost all their hearing due to illness before the age of one, identifies as Deaf, is a

Qualified Deaf Interpreter and has been interpreting professionally for approximately five years. They attended mainstream school. Their family did sign growing up (mostly SEE).

Deaf Community Members Participant Group

Participant four: age 20 at the time of the interview, was born hearing and became

Deaf due to illness at two years of age, attended both residential and mainstream school—mostly mainstream. Their family did sign growing up.

Participant five: age 48 at the time of the interview, was born deaf, and attended mainstream school. Their family did sign growing up (mostly SEE).

Participant six: age 80 at the time of the interview, was born hearing and became

Deaf due to illness at age 7, attended residential school. Their family did not sign, but did make extraordinary effort to include them in family communication using a combination of gestures, homemade signs, and lip-reading.

Sign Language Interpreters (Hearing) Participant Group

Participant seven: age 68 at the time of the interview, mother is Deaf, father is hard-of-hearing, identifies as a CODA, has over 50 years of professional interpreting experience, and was one of the first certified interpreters. Their RID certification is

Comprehensive Skills Certificate (CSC) only offered from 1972-1988. ASL is their native language and family interpreting was ever present, although less than some other

CODA’s due to the fact that their father was hard-of-hearing and would do a significant portion of the family interpreting needs; pulled into professional interpreting by the Deaf community at age 18, and most of their interpreter training was on-the-job. Formal education came later in their life and career. They did not attend an Interpreting

Preparation Program (IPP) as none were available at that time.

Participant eight: age 32 at the time of the interview, mother is Deaf, and father is hard-of-hearing, identifies as a CODA, has approximately three years of professional interpreting experience, holds a California recognized Educational Signed Skills

Evaluation (ESSE) certificate. Does not yet hold a nationally recognized certification.

ASL is their native language and family interpreting was and is a constant. Pulled into professional interpreting by a Deaf colleague and mentor, interpreter training has been mostly on-the-job or through mentoring from the Deaf and interpreting communities. Has not attended an IPP.

Participant nine: age 57 at the time of the interview, no Deaf family, identifies as hearing, has approximately 36 years of professional interpreting experience, and holds four RID certifications: an Interpretation Certificate (IC) and a Transliteration Certificate

(TC) only offered from 1972-1988; a Certificate of Interpretation (CI) and a Certificate of

Transliteration (CT) only offered between 1988–2008. ASL is their second language, originally intended to be a Deaf/hard-of-hearing teacher but was pulled into interpreting by the Deaf community. Almost all their training was on-the-job, has not attended an IPP as they were not widely available; in fact, one of the very first IPP programs was beginning its pilot year during their college years.

Participant ten: age 41 at the time of the interview, no Deaf family, identifies as hearing, has approximately 21 years of professional interpreting experience, holds three nationally recognized certifications: Certificate of Interpretation (CI) and a Certificate of

Transliteration (CT) only offered by RID 1988–2008, and National Association Deaf

Master (NAD V)— also recognized by RID. ASL is their second language, grew up with

Deaf friends in elementary school, and therefore was exposed to interpreters at a young age; continued to have meaningful relationships in the Deaf community and throughout high school and college. Their connection and involvement in the Deaf community, along with majoring in Deaf studies in college, led to them to interpreting as a profession. A lot of training was on-the-job or community based.

Participant eleven: age 23 at the time of the interview, no Deaf family, identifies as hearing, has approximately one year of professional interpreting experience and is pre- certified (has passed the written exam and does not have the result of their performance exam). ASL is their second language, they met a Deaf family in elementary school, subsequently took ASL as their foreign language requirement in high school, and this was the catalyst for their involvement in the community. Continued to pursue Deaf Studies as their college major and has completed an IPP.

Limitations

Due to a small sample size that is solely from the greater Sacramento region, within the state of California, the experiences, ideologies, access to IPP’s, educational systems, and available resources discussed will be reflective of the geographic location and local community. Additionally, the demographics of the participants was limited,

26 with the composition as follows: the hearing sign language group consisted of three white females, one white male, and one Latina female; the Q/CDI group consisted of two white females, and one Latina female; and the Deaf community member group consisted of three white females varying in age. Therefore, this study cannot be wholly representative of the American Deaf and interpreting communities. Lastly, as this study is presented in

English, it limits the access of Deaf community members who prefer, or primarily use

ASL.

Contribution

This study aims to contribute directly to the Deaf and interpreting communities of

Sacramento by capturing participant experiences in their words and adding knowledge about the community, from the community. It is anticipated that this study will memorialize some of the common experiences, values, and changes within the greater

Deaf and interpreting communities. Ultimately, this study aims to add to the conversation by bringing perspective and understanding where there may be distress or misunderstanding between the Deaf and interpreting communities. The next chapter reviews the relevant findings from the interviews.

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

This study explored the complex power dynamics between the Deaf/hard of hearing community and interpreters, as well as the possible social justice influence on the collectivist identity of the Deaf community and how that has changed over time. This chapter captures the findings of this examination which are divided into two major sections: The Deaf Community and Interpreters. Within the Deaf Community section, the following themes emerged: Deaf Culture, Community Division, Technology and Social

Media Impact on Culture Change, Incidental Information, Deafhood, and Deaf Celebrity.

Within the Interpreter section the following themes emerged: Culture Competency and

Professionalization, Trust and Power, Neutrality and Invisibility, Energy, Vibe, Attitude,

Reputation, and Reciprocity.

Deaf Community: Deaf Culture

As the only accredited organization of its kind in North America, the Canadian

Hearing Services is an industry-leading provider of services, products, and education that empower the Deaf and hard of hearing, and they define culture on their website to be “a way of life and learned ways of acting, feeling, and thinking based on a group who share common language, beliefs, values, traditions, social norms, and identity in a society. The culture includes language, values, traditions, social norms and identity. Deaf culture is the culture of Deaf people based on a signed language and values, traditions and behavior norms specific to the Deaf community. Deaf culture offers a strong sense of belonging and takes a socio-cultural point of view of deafness. Deaf culture meets all five

28 sociological criteria (language, values, traditions, norms, and identity) for defining a culture (CHS 2020).” One of those norms is to ask a series of questions to help establish one’s place in the community, hence, why each participant was introduced in the previous chapter to provide appropriate cultural context throughout the analysis of the data.

All participants were asked a series of questions about Deaf culture and the Deaf community, (Appendix A has the full interview guide available for reference):

1. What is Deaf culture?

2. Has Deaf culture changed over time?

3. How has technology impacted the Deaf community and Deaf culture?

4. How has social media impacted the Deaf community and Deaf culture?

Unanimously, participants defined Deaf culture as collectivist, rooted in sharing the same language, having common experiences, valuing the opportunity for socialization, and sharing knowledge. The Deaf and CODA participants unanimously described Deaf culture as having the ability to immediately connect and have meaningful conversations, to openly welcome someone into the group or your home, and always ending the conversation or interaction with an embrace—this applied to lifelong friends, acquaintances, or someone you just met. Under the umbrella of the Deaf culture, they

(the Deaf and CODA participants) described the Deaf community with the terms such as:

“kin, family, a closeness thicker-than-blood” and often who they go to first, even before blood-relatives. Additionally, across all groups, including the hearing sign language interpreters, yet not mentioned unanimously, Deaf culture was described as a “world

29 view, how you navigate life as a Deaf person. It is heritage, identity, language. It’s local and global. It’s how you see yourself in the world, how you relate to the world and navigate systems.” One Q/CDI participant talked about the benefit of the local and global community, stating:

I believe Deaf people are superior communicators because we use visual language. We are able to break down language barriers far better than those who use spoken language. Even when we don’t sign the same language, using visual or gestural communication we are able to connect and communicate across languages and cultures. Also, our Deaf culture connects us globally and we always have place to stay when we travel.

One Deaf participant talked about the time before technology or the passage of the ADA,

Deaf people relied on each other for everything. She stated:

It was common to have a Deaf person, known or unknown to me, show up at my house for various reasons. For example, when I lived in LA in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the city is so big, if a Deaf person had a job interview and my home was closer they would just show up on my doorstep and ask to stay over—of course I would invite them right in.

Across the interview groups and the generations, the value that the Deaf community places on gathering and socialization was emphasized. The staple of the Deaf gathering was at one time the Deaf Club— it is iconic. It represents the center of the Deaf community, a safe space, a signing space, a place to gather and share information albeit mundane gossip or job opportunities, socialization, unrestricted recreation and enjoyment, the inception point of significant parts of Deaf history, the childhood of

CODA’s, and so much more. The Deaf and CODA participants talked about the Deaf

Club with a strong sense of nostalgia; the hearing sign language interpreting group also spoke of it fondly honoring its meaning and place in Deaf history and culture. A strong

30 sense of community and solidarity was expressed throughout the interviews, especially when talking about gathering and the Deaf Club.

Community Division

However, another theme that emerged was the existence of a hierarchy and warring factions within the community. One CODA expressed from their experience as child attending the Deaf Club:

There was a closeness, a caring for one another and each other’s children. It was interesting though because there was a separation. My parents were teachers, so all their friends were teachers, and we played with their kids. There was a separation of the Deaf teachers and the other Deaf, like the educated Deaf and the not educated Deaf. I did not see what it was like for the kids of the uneducated Deaf. There was one guy who was friends with my parents, but also very involved with the grassroots Deaf community, but everyone went to Deaf Club.”

Another CODA participant expressed that their parents were laborers and described the

Deaf community they grew up in as the “hood Deaf.” They stated it was an entirely different experience than the “educated Deaf” and their children. They described their term “hood Deaf” as:

The Deaf who rely on SSI, do not work, are less educated, involved in drugs, prostitution, etc. The socialization is different than the educated Deaf, it centers on drinking and other illicit behaviors. I had to be pulled out of it by an educated Deaf person.

The separation described above was confirmed with the other Deaf interview participants.

They went on to further describe separation between those who were mainstreamed and those who went to residential school, the hard-of-hearing, and those who were born into

“Deaf of Deaf” or multi-generationally Deaf families as the “elite.” One hearing sign language interpreter participant expanded this notion further stating:

I don’t think there was truly ever one big Deaf community, there has always been smaller sects: Asian-Deaf, Black-Deaf, etc. We just have more labels for it now, so it is more apparent, but it has always been there. While Deaf Club was the community hub, it also eliminated many Deaf people of color. Deaf history is more about white Deaf history.

Culture Change: Technology and Social Media

When the participants were asked if Deaf culture has changed over time, there was a unanimous and enthusiastic “YES” from all participants. Yet when I inquired further about what had changed, it was not that the values, norms, traditions, or history had changed, but the culture in action had changed over time. I specifically asked all participants if technology and social media were part of this change they were experiencing. The consensus, was “yes.” When I asked if the changes were positive or negative, the consensus, was “both.” Across all participant groups, technology was acknowledged as the thing that “evened the play field,” and was a phrase used multiple times. One Deaf participant stated, “Technology has changed the Deaf culture a lot. It has helped us, but separated us.” Social media was acknowledged in the same vein, that it gives Deaf people unprecedented access to information not previously available to them.

Yet, social media has been the “death of the Deaf Club,” the participants shared. The values of gathering, sharing information, and socializing has not changed— but it looks much different now they stated. The ability to see and talk with one another is no longer as limited or scarce as it once was. All of the Deaf participants, even the youngest participant who never actually experienced the Deaf Club but understands the history, talked about prior to the advent and availability of email, videophones, and cell phones with text and video capability, if a Deaf person wanted to see another Deaf friend they

32 had to physically show up at their house and hope they were home. The eldest Deaf participant shared:

When I lived in LA, I had a good Deaf friend who lived about 45 minutes away. When I wanted to see her, I would pack up the kids and drive all the way to her house. If she was not home, I would leave a note on her door and then she would send me a response through the US mail about which day we could get together.

Another Deaf participant shared:

Growing up, our Deaf group was always together, and we made it a priority to see each other as we got older. Once we all went off to college, we would make it a point to see each other on school breaks. At that time, we did not have cell phones or video phones, so one of us would show up at another’s house and then we would go from house to house gathering a group as we went until several of us would show up together at the last house, and we were always invited right in. We would also flock to anyone’s house that had a TTY (teletype machines that were the very first telephone devices for the deaf/hard of hearing) so we could use it. It seems now that we can talk on a videophone, it is not as much of a priority to make sure we get together in person. Other things take priority more often now than before.

The Deaf participants did make it point to say, that even with technology, Deaf people still crave that in-person interaction and communication, and that gathering, and community events are still the cornerstone of the Deaf community and culture. Another participant indicated that even though they and their friends who are all in their 70’s or older have videophones and texting capabilities, they still make it a priority to get together at least once a month for dinner. There was agreement that regarding regular local gatherings, there is more of a focus on smaller more cliquish gatherings, as opposed to the central hub gathering of the Deaf Club era. However, large scale conventions and community events are still highly valued and continue to be present.

Incidental Information

On the importance of gathering, a theme that emerged was the concept of incidental information. Historically, Deaf people have not had access to incidental information that is typically gained through the ability to hear. The examples given were: television, radio, bar conversations, hallway talk, etc. Therefore, the importance of gathering was to information share. It was noted that today there is significantly more access to incidental information and current events due to technology, closed captioning, access to interpreters, cell phones, and videophones. It has not, however, eliminated the cultural value placed on gathering, connecting, and information sharing in their language

(ASL).

Deafhood and Deaf Celebrity

There were two other notable themes that emerged related to Deafhood (an organization/movement aimed at empowering Deaf individuals and the Deaf community) and Deaf celebrity, namely Nyle DiMarco and Marlee Matlin. To understand the themes that emerged related to Deafhood, one must first understand the purpose of Deafhood, which directly from their website is as follows:

Deafhood Foundation promotes the empowering concept of DEAFHOOD which is described as a journey that each Deaf person undertakes to discover his/her identity and purpose in this life as a Deaf person among other people and is a positive approach to re-affirming Deaf people’s role and place in society, history and the world. Deafhood also focuses on the historical, cultural and linguistic reality of Deaf people, and maintains a larger worldview as opposed to minimizing the community into miserable (or glorified) individuals who seek access solely through hearing. Before Deafhood Foundation, practically all foundations associated with Deaf people focused on their hearing loss, which are DEAFNESS-centered which viewed the identity as negative, a deficit, and in need of a cure.

Starting during the 1960’s, the world experienced a resurgence of positive views on Deaf people when linguists scientifically proved what Deaf people have long known, that our Sign Languages are bona fide languages with their distinctive grammar and vocabulary. Since then, Deaf people’s creativity and activism have been increasing in confidence and being visible in public. Positive changes in Deaf education, jobs, and wellness have emerged.

However, between the 1970’s and the 2000’s the Deaf community has been hit with three main backlashes: mainstreaming, cochlear implants, and genetic engineering. While the community continues its vibrancy and connections, these powerful backlashes have been eating away the foundation of Deaf collectivism, joy, and existence. According to Paddy Ladd, we need to keep on building a mountain of positive Deaf philosophies, creativity, arts, politics, so tall that the tsunami from those three backlashes will not totally erode the livelihood and existence of Deaf people from the earth.

The Foundation adds to the building of that mountain by providing Deaf people and our allies tools through education, dialogues, arts, and grants (Deafhood 2020).

In alignment with Deafhood values, the general consensus from the interviews was that Nyle DiMarco has brought a positive light to the Deaf community through his success on two reality television shows: America’s Next Top Model and Dancing with the Stars. Nyle solely uses ASL, he attended Gallaudet (the eminent Deaf university in

Washington, DC), and he comes from Deaf family, and therefore, he epitomizes what

Deafhood wants the world to see. The interviews revealed that while the Deaf community is generally supportive, even crashing the phone lines during the voting phase of Dancing with the Stars with the overwhelming community response, there are those who are starting to become “tired” of Nyle. One comment from the community expressed to Nyle was, “Don’t worry Nyle, we will continue to support you since you are not like Marlee.”

This comment is referring to Marlee Matlin, a Deaf American actress who caused controversy in the community when she used her voice to speak instead of signing when

35 accepting her Oscar award. Two Deaf participants shared that this type of behavior is common, one stating:

This is all too common in the Deaf community, we see the ‘crab barrel theory’ happen all the time. Whenever there is a Deaf person doing well, they might support them at first, but often members of the community will try to ‘pull them down’ instead of elevating them.

It was evident in the interviews that the participants were both proud of Nyle and grateful for the positive exposure, but also growing weary of him being the only one being recognized as the token Deaf person in greater society.

Similarly, of the participants who commented on Deafhood and the impact on them personally and, or, what they observed within the community, was also met with conflicted responses. The eldest Deaf community member, an advocate and pioneer, commented:

Many Deaf people are not fighters; they are not taught to fight back. Growing up, they are taught to comply with what their parents and other hearing people tell them. They are oppressed and taught to accept what is given to them, and it becomes habitual in adulthood.

Ironically, this comment is exactly in line with the motivation behind the Deafhood purpose and the empowerment it wants Deaf people to have. However, this participant’s perspective on Deafhood was:

They think that all hearing people oppress deaf people all the time. But that’s not true, we work together. It is not hearing people’s fault. Those associated with Deafhood demonstrate a lot anger, and it seems to be mostly Deaf people whose families didn’t sign, and they carry that anger throughout their life. They act as if someone doesn’t sign, they have no value. I witnessed extreme disrespect from someone associated with Deafhood to a prominent Deaf community member because she is more “English.” But they didn’t realize that she didn’t become Deaf until age 17. I think it is having a negative impact on the community.

One hearing interpreter was very disheartened by her experience with Deafhood directly, and the community members she encountered who were strongly associated with

Deafhood. She stated:

My experience with the Deaf community has been wonderful and sweet, until the last three years. Deaf people are angry right now. I think with any minority group there is a time where things kind of explode and the pendulum swings. It’s swinging. I think it’s not just our community but everywhere with RID, NAD. There is this unrest about what Deaf people want to do and what they want to be, and how they want to be identified. I think Deafhood has created this idea of an ‘ideal deaf person’ which is someone who is proud to be Deaf, supports ASL, and does not need hearing people. The problem is, maybe not every Deaf person wants to be that. Not all Deaf people align with Deafhood, and we, interpreters, we get stuck.

I work with a person who does not fit the idea of the ‘ideal deaf person’ and this has caused them a lot pain and discrimination, so they have purposely removed themselves from the community and culture. I had one Deaf person ask me how I can sleep at night and work for them, because their ideals don’t fit.

On the other hand, I recognize that Deaf people are feeling really empowered and I have to honor that. I know that most want what is best; we both want to trust and be trusted—that feels shaken right now.

However, the Q/CDI group was grateful for Deafhood and held a positive outlook on it. They felt Deafhood helped them understand themselves better, their identity, their culture, the systems and oppression they have experienced, and provided a greater perspective and ability to talk about their experiences as a Deaf person. They felt it empowered them in their dual role as a Deaf person and an interpreter. It allowed them to identify the deficits in the IPP, as they shared that the curriculum and training is for hearing non-native language users. One participant shared, “I struggled or even failed some assignments because my answers came from my lived experience as a Deaf person, and that didn’t align with their curriculum.” It was also noted by the Deaf and CODA

37 interpreters that other students and interpreters are often intimidated by a Deaf or CODA interpreter, and therefore, behave in competitive or dismissive manners—both in the program and during actual interpreting assignments. One of the other hearing sign language interpreters also held a positive perspective of Deafhood, and how it has positively impacted their work, stating:

From how it has been explained to me, Deafhood is a cultural journey. For Deaf people, it is about their identity and their relationship with who they are and their history with the wider community around them, and where they fit in that big puzzle. I think for CODA’s it is the same, but for their own identity. I think for hearing interpreters that do not have familial ties to the community, I think it is our journey as well to see how we fit with the Deaf community and what place we have. It is also recognizing a lot of the historical events that have happened throughout Deaf history.

I believe it is an obligation to have this knowledge. Having a deeper socio-cultural understanding will guide our work, because then we can take into consideration the experience of marginalization, lack of access, systemic discrimination, and oppression. This allows us to more effectively culturally mediate, which is absolutely a central role. It has to be a part of our job.

There is a divided perspective on Deafhood. This could be due in part to who and how the participants were introduced to or are involved with Deafhood. But what it is clear is that Deafhood is having an impact on Deaf people, on interpreters, and on the relationship between the two.

Interpreters: Cultural Competency and Professionalization

Interpreters are welcomed and expected to be a part of the community and culture.

Without that involvement and connection, competence and success as an interpreter will be limited. One hearing sign language interpreter participant said: “Without that connection and involvement, what are you even doing?” The Deaf participants echoed that sentiment and suggested that a person’s motivation for wanting to become an

38 interpreter should be screened when applying for the interpreter training program.

Another Deaf participant said:

There are three kinds of interpreters: soul, heart, and hand. A soul interpreter means you were born into it—you have Deaf family, usually CODAs. A heart interpreter is someone who is passionate about the language, loves and embraces the culture and community, cares about Deaf people, and truly loves the work of interpreting. Hand interpreters are motivated by money and ego.

I have always described interpreting not as a career but a lifestyle. This perspective was shared by the hearing sign language interpreting group. The veteran hearing sign language interpreters were brought into the profession by the Deaf community, they were organically involved, connected, and had meaningful relationships within the community before becoming a professional interpreter; and most of their training was on-the-job or through mentoring and workshops, not an IPP. One interpreter talked about how different, and more challenging it is to enter the profession now:

Coming up in the Deaf community with friends who were Deaf, roommates or otherwise, you were organically part of the community, which gave you a different layer of understanding about the culture and the language. Whereas now, the IPP is taught more in a trade school fashion—you are just looking to obtain something. The students must look for avenues to be connected, and it is difficult to obtain that level of fluency and connectedness in two to three short years at a community college. Students must be self-motivated and intentional to be in a signing or Deaf-run space post-graduation. They unfortunately have less exposure to the Deaf worldview, nuances of the culture, jokes, interplay, and developing relationships. IPP graduates are conversational and book-read, not immersed in the Deaf community—there is no natural way of providing that total immersion.

A hearing sign language interpreter who teaches in an IPP, and recognizes the value of the program, did capture the shift and concerns associated with it when they stated:

Before, you (an interpreter) were brought in via community or familial tie; you had life experience and natural acquisition of language supplemented by formal training (albeit minimal) at the time. Now, you are getting (albeit more intensive) formal language and interpreting training and trying to supplement life experience

and create community ties. Interpreting is not a trade, and the training program is almost being set up as one. I don’t want students feeling like they have been sold a bag of goods, because those who do start interpreting immediately upon graduation don’t know what they don’t know, and that is dangerous if they are put into situations with high stakes such as hospitals, job interviews, or police stations, and literally impacting the life of that Deaf person with their inexperience—it further marginalizes and oppresses.

There has been a significant shift in how interpreters enter the profession and it is one of the most unique challenges faced by the community. It is a problem that has no identified solution. Interpreting is truly a practice profession requiring an extraordinary amount of knowledge about a wide array of topics, excellent interpersonal skills, language fluency, and cultural competency. Yet, it has the educational funding and availability of a trade school, and the foremost job opportunities are as an independent contractor, and the social status is that of a “helper.” Therefore, there must be an intrinsic desire, a connection to the community, and a self-motivation to be a part of the community. There are many Deaf community members who recognize what is required to be a successful and competent interpreter. All the Deaf participants expressed appreciation of interpreters in general, or of specific interpreters who positively impacted their lives.

One Deaf participant, who taught ASL at the college level, and mentored many interpreters shared:

Some Deaf people think interpreters are too expensive, or they complain, even about the good interpreters, but they don’t realize how hard it is to learn sign language and become an interpreter. I explain to them that it takes many years of intensive study, immersion, and practice to become an interpreter—much like a doctor, but they don’t make as much as doctors.

Another hearing sign language interpreter shared: “If I am not valued as an interpreter, I can’t do my job.” Again, a layered problem without an identified solution. The Deaf

40 community and the interpreting community want, and need, that small community camaraderie and connection. The Deaf community wants to retain their control over who is brought in as an interpreter, and yet have also simultaneously fought for elevation, access, equity, and equality. While there is always a long way to go, the Deaf community has been successful and is more elevated. They are no longer limited to menial jobs such as “key punch operators and printers” (as shared by the eldest Deaf community member participant) and instead are present in all occupations from doctors, lawyers, and top clearance government jobs (as shared by one hearing sign language interpreter who also had to get top clearance in order to interpret for the Deaf person) to name a few.

Therefore, the need for professionalization and certification of interpreters is critical in order to truly meet the needs of those situations and the language use of the Deaf person.

Therein lies the dilemma, because that creates separation between interpreters entering the field and the Deaf community. As expected, this was not as much of a concern for the younger Deaf participant. As they have grown up with technology and plentiful interpreters, they actually have an expectation of certification, demonstrated by this story:

In high school, I had a very important test and my regular interpreter called in sick that day. They sent a substitute interpreter and they were lousy; I couldn’t understand them. I didn’t want to hurt their feelings, so I excused myself saying I was going to the restroom and went straight to the office. I called my mom and told her what was going on. She came down to school and found out the interpreter was not certified. She told the office to never allow a non-certified interpreter to interpret for me again. An interpreter HAS to be certified.

Comparatively, one of the seasoned hearing interpreters demonstrated the contrast of past eras when they shared:

At the time, in the early 80’s, certification was so new the Deaf community’s approval was way more powerful and important. They (the Deaf community) brought you in and molded you.

It is the eternal dilemma, when the advocacy is successful, and access and protections for the Deaf community are increased, so is the need for interpreters. Yet, as there is no simple direct career pathway in the same way other professions have, this creates a supply and demand issue. Which is exacerbated by greater society not being aware of the difference between someone who knows some sign language versus a professional competent sign language interpreter, and therefore, patronizes agencies or interpreters with the cheapest price. This action highlights how the intersection of socialism and capitalism is a breeding ground for corruption and exploitation—and in this case, it further marginalizes the Deaf community and undermines the professional sign language interpreter. Consequently, the ethical duty is often shifted back to the interpreting community to mitigate and advocate, which is why (Deaf) community accountability and connectedness is critical. Thus, the layers of the complex relationship and power dynamics between interpreters and Deaf community continue to unfold. As noted earlier, the pathway and measure of success and competence as a sign language interpreter has started to shift to be, in part, your education level (one must have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent to sit for the certification exam) and your certification. However, that measurement is still largely intangible, community-based, and dependent on your inherent personality traits and motivation to be an interpreter.

As described in the literature review, there are multiple studies related to the inherent personality characteristics, attributes, and indicators of a successful interpreter.

As a part of this study all participants were asked, “Other than ASL and English fluency, what characteristics make a ‘good’ interpreter?” They were also asked, “What

42 characteristics make a ‘bad’ or ‘lousy’ interpreter?” Unequivocally, every participant in this study indicated that a “big ego” is the most undesirable characteristic and is wholly unacceptable within the profession. Whereas humility, flexibility, self-awareness, humanity, knowledge (cultural, situational, and linguistic), being punctual, and respectful were overwhelmingly cited as the most desirable and necessary characteristics of a “good interpreter.” Other themes that emerged from this dialogue centered on trust, power, empathy, boundaries, and reputation.

Trust and Power

“Trust, it’s central” said one hearing interpreter participant. This sentiment was shared by all participants, hearing and Deaf. Also shared by all participants, Deaf, hearing, and across generations, was how to establish trust, especially in a short amount of time such as when an interpreter arrives at an appointment to interpret for a Deaf person they have never met before. One hearing interpreter stated:

There are instant indicators of trust that demonstrate cultural sensitivity and humanness, such as how you introduce yourself and engage or not engage. When you do not engage, that sends a signal that you do not value the fact that you are sharing space with this person and you share the same language. As hearing people who speak English, we are part of the cultural majority and having someone share your language is expected. A Deaf person is a part of a cultural minority and having someone share their language is not automatic; in fact, you are there to bridge that gap. Therefore, the small, seemingly insignificant responses, reactions, or actions will instantly either build trust or create a barrier.

Another Deaf participant confirmed this statement with the following story:

I was at the doctor’s office; I arrived early and was waiting for the interpreter to arrive and they eventually called my name and notified me it was my turn. I stood up and started trying to explain that the interpreter had not yet arrived. At the same time, a woman stood up, who had been sitting in the lobby, and stated she was the interpreter. I was so angry that I bawled her out right there in the lobby. I told her ‘How dare you just show up and not even acknowledge me?! You could

have at least let me know you arrived! You are just here for the money!’ Now, I had to utilize that interpreter for this appointment to be my voice and represent what my doctor was saying—there was no trust or comfort.

Another Deaf participant talked about an experience when their trust with the interpreters was not only destroyed, the interpreters also engaged in audism and oppression:

I had two interpreters for a college class, and at first it was small things that I could have overlooked had it just been one or two things. But each thing chipped away at the trust. It started with the two of them chatting without signing. Then it was them waiting to see if the captioning was ‘good enough’ before interpreting a video—but not consulting me. Then I noticed they were not taking any materials provided to them to prepare for the next class. Then they would write notes incessantly back and forth. At this point, while I was starting to feel a little bit paranoid that they were talking about me, I did not want to make waves, so I just put up with it. The last straw was when another student walked up to the interpreter and started talking to her, she engaged in the conversation without signing. The other interpreter noticed me looking at them and started signing, but it was mid-conversation, so I was unable to grasp the full context of the situation. Then she asked me if I want to add something. I asked what the student’s original question was, and she said he asked how Deaf babies learn language. I said, ‘Well it seems you have already answered his question,’ he nodded and went to sit down. I was so PISSED OFF, I was shaking. I thought to myself, you both are HEARING! This is my culture, my language, how I grew up, and they asked a hearing person that question?! I don’t understand, how you as a hearing person who just learned sign language a few years ago thinks you have the right to answer that question and not defer to me?! As a Deaf person, their question goes to literally my entire life experience, my culture, literally everything that makes up who I am and that makes Deaf people who they are, and in five minutes this hearing person just ‘sums it up’ for them about how Deaf babies learn language! Fuck you! I wanted to go outside to calm down, but class started and I couldn’t afford to miss class. I also could not ask the interpreters to leave, as there would be no replacement on such short notice. To add insult to injury, the interpreter was completely oblivious to why I was upset and asked if I was ‘okay.’ Of course I was not okay! I looked at both and said, ‘don’t talk to me, don’t look at me, just interpret what is being said.’ I immediately reported it to the college and they had us go through mediation; it did not help, as the damage was done. I eventually was able to get them both replaced, but I had to deal with a different pair of interpreters every class for the last four weeks of the semester.

This recitation underscored the layered and eternal balancing act of trust, vulnerability, power, and respect that occurs between sign language interpreters and the Deaf

44 consumer. The Deaf participants did express a sense of frustration that their access, choices, and most intimate experiences require the presence of a third person. In fact, multiple Deaf participants indicated that their choice in colleges were dependent on the quality of the interpreters available. One Deaf participant was unable to start cosmetology school because the school did not want to pay for the interpreters. One Deaf participant shared an experience in which they were having a mental health breakdown at a doctor’s appointment and the interpreter was not able to understand them, the Deaf person lost their temper, kicked the interpreter out, and navigated the appointment on their own with their partner. The Deaf person knew that getting access to the medication they were asking for was literally life or death, and trying to explain to their doctor the symptoms they were having through an interpreter who could not understand them exacerbated the already difficult situation. After the appointment, the Deaf person was hesitant to follow up with the agency, but felt they had to. They found themselves going out of their way to soften their words and be “nice.” When I asked why they felt the need to do that, they shared:

I was fearful of what the complaint of not being nice might mean for my future and when they would send me interpreters. I felt like it was something that could be taken away from me.

These accounts precipitated discussion on the power dynamics between sign language interpreters and the Deaf consumers. Each participant was asked how much power the sign language interpreter has. Except for one participant—the youngest Deaf participant—all participants, Deaf and hearing, indicated the sign language interpreter had significant power. One Deaf person stated, “They can make or break me, make me

45 look stupid or smart.” Another hearing sign language interpreter noted, “I think we hold a lot of power. It’s very important to be mindful of the power and privilege that we have.”

The youngest Deaf participant held a different perspective. She stated: “I have more power. It’s my appointment, and the interpreter is obligated to interpret exactly what is being said and that’s it. If they are not effective, I will ask them to leave.”

The hearing and Deaf participants equally discussed the importance of interpreters to not make decisions for the Deaf person, but rather with them. One example used multiple times was seating placement; it is not the interpreter’s role to decide where the

Deaf person sits. If the Deaf person chooses to sit in the back, and that limits the interpreter’s ability to hear the speaker, if that information is communicated to the Deaf consumer, then that should be their choice. This advanced the broader discussion of ethics, boundaries, and empathy.

As a theme, the term “empathy” seemed to create pause. The participants seemed to be more comfortable with the term “humanness,” and not losing sight of that when in an interpreting situation. The underlying principle was the concept of boundaries and ethics. As previously outlined, there have been multiple interpreting models that have redefined an interpreter’s boundaries, and the Code of Professional Conduct (CPC)

(formerly the Code of Ethics) published by RID is sacred. For that reason, when asked if empathy was important, the discussion shifted to remaining “human” in a “human experience,” but within appropriate boundaries. While the CPC does give parameters, it cannot and does not have caveats for every possible ethical dilemma or scenario. The

Deaf participants expressed wanting the interpreter to be involved and “human” but not

46 influence the situation. The interpreters expressed struggling with this because they do experience a “human” reaction or impulse (that may be considered blurring boundaries) but want to ensure that they are maintaining professionalism without losing their humanness. Some examples from the interviews were: during a birth, the baby was born not crying and was purple—the interpreter instantly felt as if they were going to cry but knew they needed to keep a calm demeanor to not upset the Deaf mom or unintentionally make it about themselves; crying at a funeral they were interpreting; having to decide when they should eat or not eat when interpreting at an event; deciding whether to hold a

Deaf person’s hand during a moment of an injection or procedure; beginning to, or actually passing out at the sight of blood; and electing to get in the pool with their clothes on. These are wide-ranging scenarios and some of the choices may seem obvious, while others may not. The consensus was, when making these ethical and boundary choices, be mindful to: ensure that communication is clear and effective; do not lose your humanness in your professionalism; be self-aware of your limits and triggers—and accept or decline interpreting assignments accordingly; do not influence the situation or interject your personal opinion; do not make an interpreting situation or issue about you.

Neutrality and Invisibility

“Not making it about you” was a prevalent theme throughout the interviews with all participants, from multiple perspectives and for multiple reasons. One perspective was that, as an interpreter, you need to be at ease with the situation not being about you. An interpreter’s accolades or job satisfaction is often intrinsic, and a result of a minimal awareness or notice by the participants that the interpreter is present and facilitating the

47 communication. In essence, “the less they know you are in the room, the more effective you have been.” This ushered in a controversial topic of neutrality and invisibility: is that the goal? Which subsequently emerged themes about the importance of one’s personal energy or vibe.

Neutrality and invisibility are separate concepts that often get paired when discussing interpreting, and both can be detrimental to accountability. It was evident throughout the interviews that the notion of neutrality is outdated. The Deaf community member participants embraced the fact that they, or their interpreters, would have biases, triggers, and a background. This was especially true, and more complex with the Deaf interpreting group as they all said, “I am Deaf first.” One CODA interpreter talked about how certain environments triggers a response that is undeniably linked to witnessing the struggles their parents faced. The hearing interpreter participants also acknowledged that being neutral is a fallacy. However, acknowledging your biases, triggers, and background, allows you to be more accountable for your actions and more intentional with what interpreting assignments you accept or decline. Conversely, the interpreters

(Deaf and hearing) noted that believing you can be neutral removes accountability and you are more likely to negatively impact situations. Biases, triggers, and backgrounds were discussed comprehensively, and to a lesser extent, how these components can impact the energy or vibe an interpreter brings to an assignment.

Energy, Vibe, Attitude

A collective theme was when an interpreter enters an interpreting assignment, the attitude, energy, or vibe they bring has an impact on all participants—Deaf and hearing—

48 and on the connection and trust established. All participants indicated that it is vital to the success or failure of the assignment. Deaf and hearing participants also noted the importance of being dressed appropriately, being friendly, open, and recognizing how you engage represents you (the interpreter Deaf or hearing), the Deaf person, and the interpreter who comes after you, and possibly the perception of Deaf people from the hearing participant’s perspective. This was exemplified with a story shared by one of the hearing interpreters about their fellow interpreting team member:

I arrived at the assignment early. It was a professional workshop setting, with one Deaf participant and a room full of their hearing colleagues. The team interpreter arrived late, rushed in, and immediately their energy was heavy—uncharacteristic of them. This interpreter is very skilled and respected, they were probably just having a bad day. But when it came time to do activities, or if they could not hear what was being said, they were very abrupt, and their tone was rude in trying to get their professional needs met. The Deaf participant was embarrassed and talked to me separately, asking if I could talk to her or try to take over for the group activities. The facilitator also reported the experience to the agency. It changed the whole experience for everyone involved and left a bad taste for the ones running the workshop.

In the above anecdote, the interpreter did not achieve effectiveness, and it was due to their lack of self-awareness in the moment, and their actions drew negative and unnecessary attention. Unfortunately, invisibility is often confused with effectiveness. In previous interpreting models, particularly the conduit model, invisibility was a goal and the interpreter was considered a passive participant solely facilitating communication.

The interpreter participants (Deaf and hearing) made the distinction that interpreters are active participants in the process, but not the event. Effective communication is the goal.

Sometimes that is marked by not being seen, while other times it requires more visible actions. If invisibility was the objective, it would remove accountability by removing

49 permission to be seen, speak up, correct an error, or get your professional needs met. One hearing interpreter captured the goal and the intrinsic value when they said:

When a Deaf person can have an amazing interaction because I was able to manage the system and facilitate the language between them, then I think it is great. I love it. I love what I do.

Energy, vibe, friendliness and connection were also noted as qualities that Deaf consumers seek and attribute to “good interpreters.”

Reputation

The Deaf participants openly shared that the Deaf community does discuss interpreters, and that reputation matters. The hearing interpreters were very aware that reputation matters. One hearing interpreter said, “Reputation is everything.” For the Deaf and CODA interpreters, reputation extended beyond how they are known as an interpreter, but who their family is or their reputation as a Deaf person in the community.

The sense from the interpreter participants was that managing your reputation is burdensome and intense. It is present in everything you do and say, you are often affiliated with the values or reputation of those who you work with or for, and your social media can be deadly to your reputation. There was a palpable sense of frustration and loss of respect from Deaf and hearing interpreter participants about interpreters posting anything about their work on social media. It was identified that fair or unfair, when you become an interpreter you forfeit your right to talk about work on social media. It was emphasized that due to the small size of the Deaf community, it does not take much to identify who or where you are interpreting. That is a violation of the most sacred tenet of the CPC—confidentiality. Deaf participants felt untrusting of interpreters who posted on

50 social media accounts about their work, and stated that an interpreter’s social media posts influenced their perspective of the interpreter.

Reciprocity

While examples of frustrations or conflicts related to hearing interpreters surfaced in this analysis, it is important to note that during the interviews there was a profound sense of gratitude, appreciation, and camaraderie from the Deaf community for hearing sign language interpreters. These sentiments were matched by the hearing sign language interpreters with a profound sense of respect, humility, and honor to be welcomed into spaces that are not ours. One Deaf participant said, “You know that saying ‘Behind every great man is a woman’? I believe that behind every great Deaf person is a great interpreter.”

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

This study primarily explored the complex power dynamics between the

Deaf/hard of hearing community and interpreters, provided a comprehensive examination of that relationship, and expanded on the research regarding personality characteristics preferred, or necessary, for competence and success as a sign language interpreter. This study also explored the potential social justice influence on the collectivist identity of the

Deaf community and if that has changed over time. A primary goal of this study was to add knowledge about the community, from the community, regarding Deaf culture and its changes, the unique challenges of the sign language interpreting profession, and insight on where we go from here.

The data revealed that the Deaf/hard of hearing community continues to identify as collectivist and strongly values solidarity and the power of community. The tensions observed in the community are more so related to the growing pains of the successes of the past social justice movements, the fulfilled, and simultaneously still unfulfilled, demands of freedom from various systemic and institutional constraints. The Deaf community is eternally fighting for access and inclusion. As revealed in the interviews,

Deafhood is a manifestation of the successes of solidarity; an embodiment of empowerment, and foundation for the eternal fight for equity, equality, access, inclusion and systemic and societal reform. This is social justice in action. The data revealed that social justice has been, and continues to be the lens through which the Deaf/hard of hearing community operates. It looks different on the heels of the pioneers that came

52 before this generation, but the torch has been passed. The empowerment, sometimes described as anger, witnessed by the participants in this study echoes the empowerment and movements of the past, but is reflective of the needs of today. As with any marginalized group, when progress is made, as it has been in the Deaf/hard of hearing community, there is always more to do. The conflict or tensions observed are largely between generations; those who fought to have closed captions, access to emergency services, and interpreters, are put off by today’s empowerment not feeling that this is good enough. It is more a conflict of transition and of moving beyond the successes, it is still motivated by social justice and community gain.

The Deaf/hard of hearing community and the sign language interpreting profession are still actively navigating how to go from what was, which was the time when interpreters were brought in and up by the community and supplemented with formal training, to what is, which is more and more interpreters entering the field through a formal training program and supplementing with community. The shift of how one enters the profession is bringing unintended consequences and new challenges to overcome. Ironically, it is in response to the success of the Deaf social justice movements of the past, namely the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As outlined in the literature review, “This landmark legislation (ADA) transformed the face of professional interpreting and caused the demand for interpreting services to soar to unprecedented heights” (Hall 2001, as quoted in Valero-Garces and Martin 2008:57).

Prior to passage of the ADA, the Deaf community used to organically and intuitively filter who became interpreters. With the increase in demand for interpreters and the

53 ongoing professionalization process, the community (Deaf and interpreting) have tried to identify what is necessary for success as an interpreter, and to establish effective screening processes for acceptance into the Interpreter Preparation Programs. A Deaf

Q/CDI participant suggested that one’s motivation to enter the profession should be screened because it will impact their success and whether the community embraces or trusts them. Having community-based motivation, language fluency, and cultural competence are foundational to success. However, the literature also suggests that, uniquely, sign language interpreters also need to have an extensive list of inherent personality characteristics, attributes, and abilities to be truly successful including, but not limited to flexibility and self-discipline (Nuemann Solow 2000); good attention span, stamina, tactfulness, good sense of humor and good judgment (Frishberg1990); mentally and emotionally able to do the task (Humphrey and Alcorn 1996); people (interpersonal) skills; and emotional skills such as self-awareness, self-control, self-motivation, empathy, confidence, flexibility, reliability, self-discipline, resilience, humility (Napier et al. 2006).

The participants in this study ardently confirmed this research from both the Deaf consumer and interpreting colleague perspectives. To have such a far-reaching list may seem excessive from an external perspective, as there are very few professions that would parallel this expectation. However, an interpreter is the eyes, ears, and voice for both hearing and Deaf constituents in every realm of life, every line of work, every system; and when one realizes that, the list does not seem so excessive—but it does pose a challenge in recruitment and screening.

This study provided keen insight on the current challenges of entering the sign language profession that are vastly different than before, including that the funding for

IPP’s are largely only approved at the community college level—yet certification requires a bachelor’s degree or equivalent and the options majoring in interpreting at the bachelors level are extremely limited (RID 2014). This poses many issues, namely that it is not a sufficient amount of formal training and education, and the gap between graduating an IPP and being able to work as a professional sign language interpreter is unaddressed. That gap is an enormous community liability. Not only can it serve as a deterrent to future students, it creates opportunity for exploitation of naïve graduates and unethical agencies or unknowing entities to hire unqualified interpreters. Which leads to the greatest liability, the potential impact on the lives of the Deaf consumers and perpetuated oppression and marginalization. This study documented the experiences and viewpoints of Deaf consumers who have experienced this, and were frustrated, angry, hurt, and in some cases fearful of speaking up. This goes to the core of any tension between the Deaf community and interpreters; for interpreters it may be just an assignment, but for a Deaf person it is their life. Also revealed through this study is that entering this profession requires an adoption of the Deaf culture, social justice values of serving the greater good, and an ethical commitment to the Deaf community. If an interpreter places self-gratification or financial welfare above Deaf constituent welfare, they will not be successful or embraced by the community. This is a unique attribute of this profession and requires an interpreter to find professional and occupational satisfaction intrinsically.

This research, both through the literature review and the study, has emphasized the complexity of sign language interpreting both as an active sociolinguistic process and as a profession, as well as the challenges of the educational and community pathways to achieving the level of language fluency and cultural competency necessary for success.

The literature further defined sign language interpreting is a “practice profession” similar to medical professionals, counselors, and attorneys. Unlike other practice professions, interpreters do not carry the social status that these other professions do, yet they require similar numbers of years of training, education, and immersion. Valero-Garcés and

Martin (2008) succinctly describe the complexity of the interpreting profession as a complex linguistic, social, cognitive, and cultural process with the power to deeply impact peoples’ lives. The data gathered in this study supports the definition of sign language interpreting being a “practice profession” and all that it entails, but without some of the traditional individual benefits of a practice profession. A better description derived from the study is that being a sign language interpreter is a lifestyle, which is why one’s motivation to enter the field, inherent personality traits, community connection, involvement, and accountability, and an adoption of collectivist social justice values is crucial. We are being welcomed into spaces that by rights are not ours. We are relied upon in the most intimate moments, and if the two parties shared language, we would not be necessary. We are both of the oppressor and of the community. To navigate this exclusive position, we must acknowledge our own unconscious biases and oppressive behaviors. We are being challenged, in step with the Deaf community, to move beyond the successes of the past, to become more enlightened, and to become more emotionally

56 intelligent and socially competent. Simultaneously, we are weathering the growing pains of a young, uniquely situated, profession.

Recommendations for Future Research

Due to the geographic and sampling size limitations of this study, there is an opportunity to expand the research of this study in a more diverse and geographically magnified manner. The interviews revealed that additional research is needed in several other areas not addressed in this study. In no particular order, the first area identified was the gap for students graduating an IPP and working as a professional interpreter, this research would be solution oriented. Currently, when a student graduates an IPP they have elementary level interpreting skills that require real-world experience and development. However, there is very limited opportunities for a student to work in a monitored setting where their skill set is appropriate or at least supported by a seasoned interpreter. There is no structured way to transition from a student to a working interpreter and they often will prematurely work beyond their abilities or are not able to take the volunteer opportunities for development due to having to work an unrelated job to financially support themselves. This creates an ethical, occupational, and financial dilemma for the graduate.

The second area identified is related to Deaf interpreters. There are a lot of layers to explore on this topic, including but not limited to: bias (unconscious and conscious) toward Deaf interpreters from the Deaf/hard of hearing community, interpreters, interpreting agencies, and greater society; isolation experienced as a Deaf interpreter; and the differences between Deaf, CODA, and hearing interpreters. The goal of this kind of

57 research would be to increase general community knowledge and resources, as well as professional pathways and opportunities for Deaf interpreters, and it could guide better ways to incorporate and meet the needs Deaf and CODA interpreters in the curriculum of the IPP’s.

Lastly, there is a need to further explore the disproportionate number of females in the sign language interpreting profession, particularly white females. As with any field or profession, it would greatly benefit from diverse representation that is more reflective of the Deaf/hard of hearing community and greater society. These research topics have the potential to help the community to develop strategies to address the known gaps, and identify how these gaps and lack of diversity affect the interpreting field, IPP curriculum, and the Deaf/hard of hearing community.

Reflection

Using qualitative interviews, the experiences of the Deaf and interpreting community were captured. As the researcher, I was extremely grateful for the participation of the interviewees. Yet, powerfully, they were appreciative of the opportunity to share, to be heard, and excited for what this research might reveal. Every participant was passionate and cared deeply about the community (Deaf and interpreting).

The interviews revealed the power and beauty of a collectivist community always wanting better for all. It was evident that even with the progress that has been made, there is still so much to do. The Deaf community very much values interpreters and wants their allyship, but the Deaf community wants that invitation to allyship and direction on how to be the best ally to come from them. They want the Deaf and interpreter partnership to

58 be Deaf-centric, that we are never doing for, but rather doing with the Deaf community, and that we defer to them as the experts on Deafness, Deaf culture, and ASL. It is imperative that the community continues to come together to address the gaps in the

Deaf/interpreter connection. While the relationship is layered and complex, it is essential.

As interpreters, it is imperative that we recognize we are situated between the greater society and the Deaf community. It is our ethical and professional duty to navigate that space with utmost integrity and ensure we are not perpetuating, engaging in, or supporting further marginalization and oppression of the Deaf community.

APPENDIX A

Interview Questions

Demographic Information: Age, gender, race/ethnicity, degrees/certifications.

Background Information Do you consider yourself: Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Late Deafened, Hearing, CODA— Child of a Deaf Adult, SODA—Sibling of a Deaf Adult, or other? If “other” please specify.

Are you an interpreter? Yes or No.

If yes: How long have you been interpreting professionally (financially compensated for it)? Were you interpreting before it became your profession? Please explain.

Do you utilize ASL interpreters for yourself or in your personal life (i.e. for family members)?

Interview Questions 1. What is your experience with or as (an) interpreter(s)? 2. What has been your personal experience as a part of the Deaf community? 3. Other than ASL and English fluence, what characteristics make a “good” interpreter? *Note for interviewer use prompts to get more detail to get at the “negative” characteristics. 4. What is Deaf culture? a. What does it mean to you? b. Have you seen Deaf culture evolve over time? i. If yes, how? ii. How do you view these changes? *Prompt: Positives? Negatives? iii. What factors do you think have led to these changes? 5. How has social media impacted the Deaf community from your experience? a. Prompt: Positives? Negatives? 6. Have you witnessed or experienced any tensions/conflicts within the Deaf community? a. What have you seen? Experienced? b. What led to the conflicts that you observed?

7. Are there any other comments or thoughts you would like to share related to the Deaf community and interpreters?

Also asked all or most participants: • How important is reputation? • About neutrality and invisibility/active participant in interpreting. • About trust, especially with interpreters. • About power dynamics with interpreters

References

Anon. 1995. "Standard Practice Papers: Use of A Certified Deaf Interpreter." Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf. Retrieved April 3, 2016 (http://rid.org/about-

interpreting/standard-practice-papers/).

Anon. 2009. "Deafhood Foundation, Inc.." Deafhood.org. Retrieved November 5, 2020

(http://deafhood.org).

Anon. 2014. "Deaf Choice, Inc.." Deaf Choice, Inc. Retrieved May 2, 2016

(http://deafchoice.com).

Anon. 2014. "Registry of Interpreters for The Deaf." Registry of Interpreters for the

Deaf. Retrieved November 5, 2020 (https://rid.org).

Anon. 2015. "ASL University ASLU: ASL Terminology." Lifeprint.com. Retrieved May

2, 2016 (http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/terminology.htm).

Anon. 2020. "Deaf Culture." Canadian Hearing Services. Retrieved November 5, 2020

(http://www.chs.ca/).

Anon. 2020. "Signing Exact English." Signingexactenglish.com. Retrieved November 5,

2020 (https://www.signingexactenglish.com/).

"Specialization: VRS/VRI." NCIEC: National Consortium of Interpreter Education

Centers. Retrieved May 2, 2016

(http://www.interpretereducation.org/specialization/vrs-vri/).

Bontempo, Karen, Jemina Napier, Laurence Hayes, and Vicki Brashear. 2014. "Does

Personality Matter? An International Study of Sign Language Interpreter

Disposition." The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting

Research 6(1):23-46.

Butina, Michelle. 2015. "A Narrative Approach to Qualitative Inquiry." American Society

for Clinical Laboratory Science 28(3):190-196.

Frishberg, Nancy, and Marian Eaton. 1990. Interpreting: An Introduction. 1st ed. Silver

Spring, MD: RID Publications.

Gimenez, Martha E. 2001. "Marxism, And Class, Gender, And Race: Rethinking the

Trilogy." Jean Ait Belkhir, Race, Gender & Class Journal 8(2):23-33.

Harvey, David. 2005. Brief History of Neoliberalism, A. Cary: Oxford University Press.

Hester, Stephanie. 2014. "The Deaf Community and Sign Language Interpreters: A

Community in Nepantla." Graduate, California State University Sacramento.

Hooper Diamond, Lois, and Brian Diamond. 2018. Breaking the Sound Barrier: A

Communication on Being Deaf. Lulu Publishing Services.

Humphrey, Janice H, and Janice H Humphrey. 1996. So You Want to Be an Interpreter?

Amarillo, TX: H & H Publishers.

Lucas, Ceil. 1989. The Sociolinguistics of The Deaf Community. San Diego, Calif.:

Academic Press.

Marks, Annie. 2012. "Participation Framework and Footing Shifts in An Interpreted

Academic Meeting." Journal of Interpretation 22(1): Article 4. Retrieved May 5,

2016 (https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol22/iss1/4).

McDermid, Campbell. 2008. "Social Construction of American Sign Language--English

Interpreters." Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14(1):105-130.

McIntire, Marina L., and Gary R. Sanderson. 1995. "Who's in Charge Here? Perceptions

of Empowerment and Role in The Interpreting Setting." Journal of Interpretation.

Retrieved (https://rid.org/journal-of-interpretation-joi-archives/).

Metzger, Melanie. 2003. From Topic Boundaries to Omission. Washington, DC:

Gallaudet University Press.

Metzger, Melanie. 2011. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of

Neutrality. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Metzger, Melanie, and Earl Fleetwood. 2005. Attitudes, Innuendo, And Regulators.

Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Metzger, Melanie, and Earl Fleetwood. 2007. Translation, Sociolinguistic, And

Consumer Issues in Interpreting. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University

Press.

Metzger, Melanie. 1995. "The Paradox of Neutrality: A Comparison of Interpreters’

Goals with The Reality of Interactive Discourse." Ph.D., Georgetown University.

Napier, Jemina. 2002. Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Interpreting. United

Kingdom: Douglas McLean.

Napier, Jemina, Rachel Locker McKee, and Della Goswell. 2006. Sign Language

Interpreting: Theory and Practice in Australia And New Zealand. Sydney:

Federation Press.

Neumann-Solow, Sharon. 2000. Sign Language Interpreting. Silver Spring, Md: Linstok

Press.

Nicodemus, Brenda. 2016. Prosodic Markers and Utterance Boundaries in American

Sign Language Interpretation. Washington, DC: GALLAUDET UNIV Press.

Roy, Cynthia B. 2000. Interpreting as A Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Roy, Cynthia, and Melanie Metzger. 2014. "Researching Signed Language Interpreting

Through A Sociolinguistic Approach." The International Journal of Translation and

Interpreting Research 6(1).

Roy, Cynthia. 1989. "A Sociolinguistic Analysis of The Interpreter’s Role in The Turn

Exchanges of An Interpreted Vent." Ph.D., Georgetown University.

Stewart, David Alan, Jerome Daniel Schein, and Brenda E Cartwright. 2004. Sign

Language Interpreting. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Valero Garcés, Carmen, and Anne Martin. 2008. Crossing Borders in Community

Interpreting. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Winston, Elizabeth A. 2000. Proceedings of the 13Th National Convention Conference of

Interpreter Trainers “CIT at 21: Celebrating Excellence, Celebrating Partnership. It

Just Doesn’t Look Like ASL! Defining, Recognizing, And Teaching Prosody In ASL.

13th ed. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.

Winston, Elizabeth A, and Cynthia Roy. 2020. "Discourse Analysis and Sign

Languages." Sociolinguistics and deaf communities 95-119.

Writter-Merithew, Anna. 1986. "Claiming Our Destiny. (In Two Parts)." RID Views.