Sign Language Interpreters' Ethical Decision- Making Processes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Right versus Right: Sign Language Interpreters’ Ethical Decision- Making Processes - A Diary Study Anna Melina van Dijken MA Thesis European Master in Sign Language Interpreting (EUMASLI) Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal Right versus Right: Sign Language Interpreters’ Ethical Decision-Making Processes - A Diary Study Anna Melina van Dijken, the Netherlands 201320709 October 2015 European Master in Sign Language Interpreting (EUMASLI) Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Rachel Rosenstock Dr. Robyn Dean Declaration In accordance with the EUMASLI regulations I hereby submit my thesis and I declare that this thesis embodies the result of my own work and has been composed by myself. Where appropriate, I have made full acknowledgement of the work and ideas of others. I understand that as an examination candidate I am required to abide by the examination regulations. Signature: Date: Word count: (Excluding Table of Contents, References and Appendices) Submitted by: Anna Melina van Dijken (NL) Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal EUMASLI 2.0 II Acknowledgements Without the practical wisdom of the ten interpreters who participated in this study, this MAsterpiece could not have been written. Dear participants and wonderful colleagues, thank you for giving me your time and your trust to let my researcher’s eye read your diaries. Besides the data, you overwhelmed me with your positive words, encouraging e-mails and humorous text messages and pictures during the whole research process. I hope I will be able to repay you all by giving you new ethical insights to underpin your practical wisdom of our exciting profession. Being supervised by great experts was a real pleasure! Rachel, thank you for being….YOU: practical, encouraging, helpful, sweet, crystal clear and to-the-point. Robyn, without your modules during EUMASLI, I wouldn’t even have started thinking about ethics. As a linguist, to enter a new field of research was quite a challenge. I am thankful for being able to build on your numerous articles and the seminal work you conducted in our field. “Teamwork can be very fruitful (..) with the dual benefits of enhanced creative thinking and intellectual rigor as well as higher morale and job satisfaction for the individual members. In turn, this leads to improved productivity and effectiveness and higher quality—more robust research” (Barry, Britten, Barber, Bradley, & Stevenson, 1999, p. 1) Emmy, disciplined, loyal study-buddy, now what?! What are our next robust research projects? With Julie Judd from Australia I had a very helpful encouraging Skype conversation about her research project on ethical-decision making. Thank you Julie, for sharing your experience and your thesis with me. Maya - synonym for ‘organised, well-structured encouragement, with a good overview - thank you for your valuable contribution. Andrea, your Dutch, medical perspective on ethics leaves me wanting more; this was just a foretase, wasn’t it?! Corrie, thank you for your inspiring, curious, helpful mindset. I feel lucky that I accidently touched the boundaries of your specialty ☺. There is still a whole landscape to explore. Irma, thank you for your practical encouragement and insight! Oom Derryck, thank you for your effort in the finishing touch of this work. III Fellow EUMASLI students and EUMASLI staff, thank you for an exceptional study experience. I am very grateful for having had the opportunity to meet so many inspiring, colourful, adventurous and unique characters! Jens Heßmann, thank you is not enough for the incredible amount of time you invested in us, the “second EUMASLI family”. The best way to thank you is to cite your own words (e-mail, June 4th, 2015): “But, yeah, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until MA certificates do us part.” Other friends and family: I will thank you in person. Life is much richer than academics ☺. IV List of Figures Figure 1 The relation between the different ethical categories Figure 2 Practice-Based Ethical Decision-making models, an overview of the first steps per model, taken from (Cottone & Claus, 2000, p. 279) Figure 3 Ethical and Effective Decisions and Actions (Dean & Pollard, 2013, p. 75) Figure 4 Excerpt from interpreter I’s pre-intervention diary, second assignment Figure 5 Overview Background Information Participant A, Diary 2, Assignment 1-5 Figure 6 Excerpt from interpreter I’s pre-intervention diary, second assignment, with labels Figure 7 Labels given to decisions, via MAXQDA version 12 Figure 8 Words denoting hearing individuals in the diaries; in random order Figure 9 Pre-intervention diaries: subdivisions in the decision category ‘Interpreter’s Response’ Figure 10 Post-intervention diaries: subdivisions in the decision category ‘Interpreter’s Response’ Figure 11 Pre- and post-intervention diaries: subdivisions in the decision category ‘not’ Figure 12 Pre-intervention diaries: subdivisions in the decision category ‘Distance-Proximity’ Figure 13 Post-intervention diaries: subdivisions in the decision category ‘Distance- Proximity’ Figure 14 Objects brought to the intervention meeting followed by an explanation of the symbol V List of Tables Table 1 Hoza’s (2003) comparison of three decision-making models for sign language interpreters Table 2 Demographic information about participants Table 3 Summary of research steps in which participants were involved Table 4 Participants’ information on perceived decisions in movie clip Table 5 Movie Clip: overview of time codes and decisions Table 6 Number of decisions and words per participant, per diary document Table 7 Comparison Diary 1 and Diary 2: number of decisions and words Table 8 Generic labels attached to participants’ decisions and examples per label Table 9 Number of decisions for three selected categories: ‘Interpreter’s Response’, “not”, ‘Distance-Proximity’ VI Table of Contents Declaration ........................................................................................... II Acknowledgements .................................................................................III List of Figures........................................................................................V List of Tables ........................................................................................VI 1. Introduction .......................................................................................1 1.1 Community Interpreting.............................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Sign Language Interpreting in the Netherlands .........................................................................................3 1.2 Ethics ........................................................................................................................................4 1.3 Research Questions..................................................................................................................5 1.4 Overview of chapters ................................................................................................................6 2. Literature Review................................................................................7 2.1 Ethics defined ...........................................................................................................................7 2.2 Descriptive ethics......................................................................................................................8 2.3 Normative ethics.................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Code of Ethics...........................................................................................................................................................13 2.3.2 Values..........................................................................................................................................................................15 2.4 Meta-ethics ............................................................................................................................ 17 2.5 Decision-making Models........................................................................................................ 19 2.6 Dialogic Work Analysis ........................................................................................................... 23 2.6.1 Judd’s (2015) Study...............................................................................................................................................26 2.7 Reflective Practice.................................................................................................................. 27 2.7.1 Diary Studies............................................................................................................................................................28 2.8 Summary................................................................................................................................ 30 3. Methodology.....................................................................................30 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 30 3.2 Participants............................................................................................................................ 31 3.3 Steps in Research Process with Participants......................................................................... 34 3.3.1