Perspectives on Educational Interpreting from Educational Anthropology and an Internet Discussion Group

Elizabeth Caldwell Langer

Between being relatively new to the school setting and serving a low-incidence population, many interpreters in school settings are facing virtually uncharted territory. With expectations as ambiguous as they are varied and with roles poorly defined, interpreters—and the students and teachers with whom they work—are often left without a template for responding to the day-to-day circumstances they face.

The purposes of this chapter are twofold and intertwined. The first purpose of this study is to investigate issues raised by interpreters, in this case, by means of an Internet discussion group. Information was gathered from the group’s archives and from interviews with its participants to gain insight into three of the most passionately discussed issues raised on the subscriber list. Specifically, list archives were consulted and participants were queried to collect interpreters’ views and experiences related to (a) identity and role formation for educational interpreters in schools today; (b) communication breakdown between teachers and interpreters; and (c) control of bodies and spaces in classroom settings. After discussing these issues, the participant interpreters offered suggestions for implementing improvements. Of course, the information in this chapter can neither represent the views of all interpreters nor present solutions that will work in all situations. The hope is that it will offer a glimpse at the perspectives of educational interpreters, that it will provide a look at some of the situations they face, and that it might serve as a springboard for further discussion. This chapter addresses the perspectives of the participant interpreters, but not of the teachers with whom they work. Another study addressing teacher perspectives about these issues would also greatly benefit this discussion.

The second purpose of this study is to investigate this online venue as a means for providing educational interpreters with new lines of communication. An Internet discussion group is one place where issues can be discussed in a candid, potentially anonymous, straightforward way. This study investigates what members gain from participation in an online discussion list particular to their occupation. Participants were asked what purposes the list serves, why they believe there is a need for a list of this kind for educational interpreters, and what they see as the advantages and disadvantages to meeting online.

Clearly, the Internet has become a popular forum for social interaction and information exchange. Barnes (2001) reports that more than 70,000 discussion groups operate on the Internet. The first moderator and creator of the list that was studied for this chapter started his group to fill a perceived need in the interpreting community. When he started the list five years ago, other Internet discussion groups related to interpreting were already operating, but he thought they were best suited for interpreters working in community settings, typically working with adults. Given the unique issues that arise when working with students in school settings that range from kindergarten through high school, he felt educational interpreters might benefit from a list of their own. The group now includes more than 350 members. In four years, the site has accumulated more than 8,000 postings in its archives. (The list has existed for more than five years, but only the last four years are currently archived.) The members posted an average of ninety messages per month in 2002.

Averaging across two randomly selected months from two recent years, discussions can be classified into four basic types. Thirty-five percent of the discussions involved information exchange (e.g., discussion of signs, facts about the field, job openings); another 35 percent pertained to issues and opinions related to interpreting (e.g., views about sign languages versus sign systems, suggestions for dealing with child behaviors, ethical discussions, and questions about job definitions); 15 percent of the discussions were written for fun, social-emotional support, or both; and a final 15 percent involved logistical issues related to the site or clarification of earlier messages posted to the list.

METHODOLOGY

This author read five months of postings at the end of 2002 and postings from three randomly selected months from previous years. This reading brought to light insights about the group itself as well as insights about three major issues facing educational interpreters today. Next, nineteen interviews were conducted with educational interpreters on the discussion list to verify and extend the perceptions made by this author in reading the postings. Participants were recruited by means of responses to a posting on the discussion list.

Participants

Participants include those who were interviewed and those who entered into discussions on the list within the time periods included in the archive analyses. Twenty-five discussion list members responded to the posting requesting participant interviews for this study. Nineteen of them completed the interview. Two of these respondents are the list moderators; for this study, however, they are referred to as participants to maintain confidentiality.

The interviewees represented great diversity in interpreting experience and in length of time as members of the discussion list. On average, the participants had worked as educational interpreters for 8.8 years, with a standard deviation of 5.7 years. The minimum number of years of educational interpreting was 1.5 and the maximum was twenty. The average number of years on the list was 2.5, with a standard deviation of 1.6. Some had been on the list since its inception (approximately five years), and some had been a part of it for only six months. The majority were working mainly with students in kindergarten through high school, though some either had worked previously with or were working concurrently with preschool students, college students, or both. Most reported serving students in a variety of grades throughout their careers. Fifteen percent had at some point worked in preschool settings; 79 percent, in elementary schools; 90 percent, in middle schools; 90 percent, in high schools; and 42 percent, at the college or graduate school level.

Procedures

Each participant chose a preferred mode of communication for the interviews. One participant responded to questions by fax, two were interviewed over the phone, and the rest of the participants responded to questions by e-mail attachment. All sent signed consent forms to the author by postal mail or fax. Phone interviews lasted approximately sixty minutes. Written interviews ranged from three to five single-spaced pages. First, participants were asked general questions about their interpreting backgrounds and number of years on the list. Next, participants were asked twenty-two questions divided into two sections. The initial eleven questions related to the discussion list itself, focusing on what the members gain from participation on the list. The remaining eleven questions pertained to issues that surfaced frequently on the discussion list. The questions were written to further probe issues that arose in the list’s archives. These interview questions often recapped list dialogue and then requested related commentary. See the appendix to this chapter for the full list of interview questions.

THE ISSUES

This section addresses three main issues that were repeatedly and passionately discussed not only on the Internet list but also by its subscribers in the interviews for this chapter. These three issues are (a) identity and role formation, (b) communication breakdowns, and (c) control over bodies and space in the classroom.

Interpreter Identities within Schools

On the discussion list, interpreters talk frequently about their roles as professionals. In Interpreter Preparation Programs (IPPs), list interpreters said that they are often told to act as professionals. In community settings, interpreters reported that they are seen as professionals. In school settings, however, interpreters reported that they do not always sense that they are seen as professionals. Instead, some said they sense that their roles are misunderstood, at times leading to a reduction in status.

Educational anthropologist Mehan (2000) suggests that “there is often a competition over the correct, appropriate, or preferred way of representing objects, events, or people” (259). He exemplifies this competition with a discussion of the various ways nonresident workers can be represented—some of which reduce the power and status of the individual so labeled. In a similar way, many interpreters reported that, at times, they are represented in the schools in ways that negatively affect status, respect, prestige, and power. A survey conducted by Taylor and Elliott (1994) highlighted some of the discrepancies between mainstream teachers’ and interpreters’ views of the roles of interpreters. Teachers tended to see interpreters’ responsibilities as including duties often relegated to aides. For example, a majority of teachers believed interpreters should serve as not only as interpreters but also as tutors and note-takers. Only a small minority of interpreters agreed. According to 84 percent of the interpreters interviewed for the current study, treatment of interpreters can be negatively affected when teachers misunderstand interpreters’ roles and mislabel them.

Mehan (2000) discusses various ways in which people engage in the “politics of representation”—trying to order what they find on horizontal planes into vertical hierarchies. Whether or not it is deliberate, interpreters reported that some teachers and administrators refer to them as “aides,” “assistants,” “helpers,” and “signers,” suggesting that they may misunderstand interpreters’ roles and responsibilities. According to the participants in this study, these representations that are found in the language of teachers and administrators become “social facts” produced from what Mehan refers to as the “ambiguity of everyday life” (260).

Mehan (2000) explains that he is concerned with “the ways in which the stable and enduring features of our everyday world are assembled through historical processes and in concrete social settings” (261). In his chapter, he describes the way students earn the label “Learning Disabled.” He demonstrates how this process is not objective and does not seek information equally from all concerned adults. Routine bureaucratic practices conducted by means of written and oral social interactions (initial referral, standardized testing, and team meetings) lead to a child’s school identity. This identity then opens or closes educational options for the student.

In the case of interpreters, we see that, historically, either educational interpreters were nonexistent or those performing the task of interpreting in educational settings were parents or friends of the deaf child. Later, aides were often asked to try to help deaf children in hearing classrooms, and sometimes, this help involved signing with them. More recently, interpreter training and standards for interpreters have improved. In many cases, however, school terminology has not caught up with these changes in the field of interpreting.

Mehan (2000) discusses the ways these social facts can constrain immediate social situations. Many interpreters who are frequently referred to as paraprofessionals reported that they are not invited to conferences about the child; they are asked to perform the duties of aides, disciplinarians, tutors, lunch monitors, and janitors; they are not informed about lesson plans (so cannot prepare adequately); they are asked to complete students’ work; they are reprimanded if “their” students are late or have not completed their work; and their contracts are often the same ones used for custodians and aides. Mehan writes about “mutually constitutive relationships” between thought, discourse, and action. Some list interpreters reported that sometimes when interpreters are both thought of as aides and called aides, they are then asked to perform the duties of aides. Although the participant interpreters clarified that aides play an important role in school settings and hold an important set of skills, many interpreters highlighted the need for a clear distinction between the roles of interpreters and the roles of aides.

According to Barnes (2001), an important part of a person’s acquiring and sustaining an identity is finding others to confer the identity that the person would like to hold. She states that our interactions with others are important partly because they help us more clearly define ourselves. Communication with others evokes a response to our own statement of who we are. For people to be identified as teachers, others around them must act as their students. In the case of educational interpreters, many on the list reported that, for them to identify themselves as professionals, they need, among other things, to have those around them treat them as professionals. On the list, educational interpreters discuss various ways to encourage teachers to treat interpreters as professionals. At the same time, their obvious acknowledgment of one another as professionals seems to allow them to feel more assured (at least while on the list) that they are, in fact, professionals.

According to Eisenhart (1997), another educational anthropologist, an important part of being a professional is an ongoing drive to improve. She makes the suggestion that “building or claiming an identity for self in a given context is what motivates an individual to become more expert; that developing a sense of oneself as an actor in a context is what compels a person to desire and pursue increasing mastery of the skills, knowledge and emotions associated with a particular social practice” (370). One can imagine that, for interpreters, the need to build a professional identity is not merely engendered by a desire to adhere to their job descriptions. Given their specific set of skills and responsibilities, they also may need to feel a sense of themselves as experts.

Before delving into speculations about teachers’ motives for using labels such as “aide” in referring to interpreters, some participants wanted to clarify four points. First, they do not lump all teachers together. As one interpreter put it, “Teachers are human. Some are stubborn; some are pretty ignorant; many are terrific.” Second, the participants clarified that this discussion is not to denigrate aides but, rather, to make clear the differences between the roles and responsibilities of aides and interpreters. One interpreter felt strongly about making this difference clear. “I have incredible respect for what [aides] do,” she said. “I don’t want to get into the comparison that we are professionals and aides are not. However, having said that, I think it is important to the profession that people clearly understand what we do and what we do not do and why. … [O]thers need to understand our roles and our autonomy.” Third, many interpreters understand that teachers may confuse the two occupations because many in this group either used to serve both roles or still do serve both functions. Finally, interpreters said that sometimes the blame falls back on them for not clearly clarifying their roles and needs from the outset. Nearly all interpreters made mention of the need to start the year by clearly communicating about their roles and needs and then to continue to remind teachers of these roles and needs periodically thereafter. After all, one interpreter explained, “They’re probably thinking anyone brought into a classroom other than the teacher is the teacher’s helper. Mainstreaming is a fairly new concept and has been dumped on teachers without any training.” It could also be that teachers just honestly forget. “Our job is not at the forefront of the teachers’ minds,” explained one interpreter. “So they easily forget how we need to do things.” Another interpreter sympathized by saying, simply, “Old habits die hard.”

Having clarified these points, many interpreters expressed concern about some teachers’ continued use of labels such as “helper,” even after multiple reminders that they are “interpreters.” Some interpreters pointed out that teachers are overburdened, and regardless of formal roles and responsibilities, teachers just need a helping hand. Some suggested that, because of that overload, wishful thinking might lead to the use of the term “aide” in referring to interpreters. Some interpreters said that they believe it is interpreters’ lack of higher levels of formal education that leads teachers to see them as aides. One interpreter lamented, “Sometimes when teachers discover that an interpreter does not have a teaching degree, communication stops totally!” On the reverse side, an interpreter with an education degree said that once teachers know of her background in education, they tend to be far more willing to share their lesson plans and make her part of the team.

More than half of the respondents believed that the use of these labels may come from teachers’ negative feelings about having interpreters in the room. A quarter of the respondents used the word threatened to describe how they think some teachers feel about having another adult, or another professional, in the room. “Maybe if teachers acknowledge another professional in the room, it feels threatening,” explained one interpreter. “Sometimes when you first introduce yourself and explain that you will be there all day, every day, all year long, teachers freak out. Some walk out and come back with the principal.” One interpreter views it as a combination of intimidation and need for control. “Some teachers have control issues,” she said. “They either feel threatened by the interpreter or they feel intimidated by the inability to communicate with the deaf students. This can cause some teachers to be stubborn.”

Finally, some respondents mentioned issues related to the field of interpreting that might lead to the continued use of labels other than “interpreter.” Some mentioned the lack of consistency from one interpreter to the next—some serving as aides, others not. A highly experienced interpreter said that, until interpreters see themselves as professionals, they may not be able to convince anyone else that they are professionals. “We are looked on by [our national organization] as being lesser interpreters, so we may look upon ourselves that way,” she said. “But you are working with the future of the deaf community; you have a large impact on children’s lives. I feel I worked my way up to kindergarten. The younger the child, the larger the impact you can have.” Others echoed this comment, agreeing that interpreters first need to fully convince themselves that they are important team members and professionals, and then others will be more likely to see them as such. “As a profession we are still trying to figure out who we are,” said one interpreter. “So we can’t yet explain it well enough for it to stick.”

Regardless of why some teachers continue to refer to interpreters with labels other than “interpreter,” when it happens, interpreters reported feeling “misrepresented” and “misunderstood.” Many also said that they feel “degraded,” “demeaned,” “devalued,” “unimportant,” “unskilled,” and “disempowered.” They also described feeling less like team members. “Even if it is not meant to demean the interpreter,” explained one respondent, “many interpreters will be negatively affected by it.” Many interpreters mentioned that, beyond demeaning interpreters in the school setting, these terms also misrepresent the profession as a whole.

Eighty-four percent of respondents agreed (many of them with exclamations) that the use of these terms probably leads to undesirable treatment of interpreters. “If the interpreter is seen as an aide, he or she will be treated as an aide,” stated one respondent. With teachers, this perception can lead to lack of access to lesson plans and team meetings. “If they see me as a professional,” said one respondent, “they won’t hesitate to offer lesson plans. If they perceive me as someone who just waves his arms around, they won’t see why I would need to understand classroom goals.” Respondents stated that, coming from administrators, these inaccurate terms and perceptions can lead to lower pay as well as to fewer opportunities and less funding for professional development. To an extreme, one interpreter suggested that, in some cases, a job description that includes “other duties as assigned” can lead to skill loss if one consequently interprets only infrequently.

Some respondents stated that students and interpreter-student relationships can also be negatively affected by these labels. Some respondents mentioned a concern that, when interpreters are referred to as “aides” and “assistants,” students are disempowered. “It assumes that the deaf student needs a personal helper when what they really need is just access to communication.” Moreover, teachers who see interpreters as aides may not respect their code of ethics. “If we are not seen as professionals,” one respondent said, “then people seem to think it is OK to ask us to snitch on our students, leading to lack of trust from students.” One interpreter pointed out that interpreters can perpetuate and exacerbate the situation by talking about the child they work for as their child. “If you do that,” explained one respondent, “it starts to sound like the student is your responsibility and not the teacher’s.” Some interpreters further discussed concerns that mislabeling interpreters as “aides” and “assistants” might have negative effects on students as future consumers of interpreter services. “It is important that students learn how to use an interpreter professionally and treat their interpreters really well when they go on to college and into the professional world. We are educating consumers.”

It should be noted that 15 percent of the respondents did not think that the labels teachers use for interpreters are a problem. They reported that these labels are products of poor communication, poor education, and in some cases unprofessional behavior on the part of interpreters. “Initially [these labels] may be a problem,” stated one interpreter. “But if we behave in a professional way, what we are called should not matter. It is our actions that matter. Actions speak louder than words.” One respondent said that even if the labels have some negative effects, interpreters need to learn to pick their battles. “There are people who will never learn the word interpreter,” she said. “So let go of that.” Another interpreter seconded that and added some related thoughts of her own:

I do not think these terms should affect the educational interpreter at all. Our conduct will begin to show what our roles are, and I believe educators will begin to see us appropriately. After all, we have only just begun to understand our own roles, so the trickle down effect will take some time.

Communication Breakdown

Educational anthropologists McDermott and Gospodinoff (1979) investigated possible reasons why various groups in schools have difficulty interacting with one another. They suggest that the difficulty lies not only in a question of differences among the groups but also in vested interests to maintain boundaries between groups. In their case, McDermott and Gospodinoff studied a classroom scenario where a teacher from a majority group and a student from a minority group were shown to gain in immediate ways by miscommunicating with each other. These researchers uncovered ethnic and political issues at stake—and ways in which both groups benefited from maintaining the boundaries between them. For the minority population under study, these immediate benefits were mal-adaptive in the long run, serving to maintain an unfavorable status quo.

From the perspectives of the majority of respondents and those in the discussion list archives, the long-term academic goals of teachers and interpreters match up well while their social goals often conflict. Similarity in long-term academic goals of both groups are clear: Teachers strive to teach students the classroom material, and interpreters strive to offer students access to that material. Short-term academic goals for these two groups are also similar: Each day, they both strive to see the student succeed with the lessons of the day.

Divergent social goals are what may lead some teachers and interpreters to miscommunicate. As many of the list’s interpreters stated as they described their situations, teachers’ social goals are often to maintain control over their classrooms. Of the interpreters interviewed, 95 percent agreed that, for their part, they intermittently answer to conflicting short-term and long-term social goals. Their long-term goals—to be seen and treated as professionals—sometimes lock horns with their short-term goals—to establish and maintain good rapport with teachers and students, to help teachers in a bind, and to not disrupt classroom flow. As many stated it, the more they act as aides or, as one respondent put it, “do things to keep the peace,” the more they are seen and treated as aides. Thus, some interpreters reported allowing misunderstanding about their roles to persist out of a desire to meet those short-term goals. Perhaps, then, here as in McDermott and Gospodinoff’s study, vested interests of these groups can, in some cases, lead to perpetuation of communication breakdown.

Bodies and Spaces

The discussions of this group also bring to mind the work of another anthropologist who studies school settings. For the purposes of his study, Nespor (1997) discusses bodies and spaces in terms of the teachers’ control of the classroom space and students’ bodies. He then described the students’ consequent lack of control over classroom spaces and their own bodies (e.g., they are required to walk rather than run in the halls, they are not allowed to go to the restroom at will, their natural bodily functions are frowned on, they are told where to sit or stand). If teachers control bodies and spaces in the classroom, where do educational interpreters fit in?

On the discussion list, various postings have addressed where interpreters should stand or sit in classes, assemblies, concerts, plays, and sporting events. They have discussed possibilities of using different spaces to signify different aspects of their jobs. For instance, some said they wished they could sit in one place when they are interpreting and sit in another if they are tutoring. Interpreters on the list have aired frustrations with being seated next to children who do not control their bodily functions, use profane language, and exude displeasing bodily odors. Questions have been posed to the group about whether or not interpreters should insist that the children they interpret for sit in the front row, to ensure visual access. A controversy broke out on the list about whether or not interpreters should remain in a classroom when a teacher leaves the room. If they stay, they are suddenly the disciplinarians and could be held responsible for whatever happens in class. If they leave, the children they are interpreting for will miss out on critical information—especially if the class has been left with instructions to work in small groups. Many interpreters also mentioned frustration with not having a secure space for their belongings. Others discussed frustrations with students and teachers walking in front of them while they sign.

Of those interviewed, 90 percent stated that lack of control over bodies and spaces made them feel frustrated, devalued, or less respected. The fact that interpreters’ positions in space are often either ambiguously defined or mainly controlled by others seems to some interpreters like a reduction in status and loss of respect from teachers, students, and administrators. If they were important, these interpreters asked, wouldn’t they have defined spaces for their materials, their bodies, and the bodies of their students? These body and space issues are clearly important to the group, are highly controversial, and further reflect the new and ambiguous status of educational interpreters. Excerpts from the interpreters’ general comments about these issues follow:

Space for Materials

Some of the interpreters were frustrated by not having a reliable, secure place to store their possessions and materials. Some of their thoughts follow:

A Place for Preparation and Downtime

In addition to a place for their materials, many interpreters also talked of the desire for a designated place to work during preparation time or to be during downtime. Some of their comments follow:

A Place to Work

Perhaps the most basic question with respect to space issues for interpreters is where to be while interpreting. Interpreters said the following about this issue:

One interpreter shared a poignant experience she had because of this type of space issue.

I once was in a math classroom where the teacher wrote all over the board. I would stand next to him because he often said “this goes there, that goes here” and I could not sign that to the student and have him understand what “this” and “that” were. He [the teacher] picked me up by my elbows and moved me to the other side of the room!

Even once placement decisions are made within the classroom, those involved must then consider all the exceptional situations. For instance, many said that finding and keeping an appropriate space during field trips, assemblies, and concerts can be challenging.

Ownership of the Classroom

The language that some of the interpreters used in talking about space issues painted a picture in which teachers own the classrooms and interpreters are their uninvited guests. Some respondents implored other interpreters to tread lightly with teachers because “after all, it really is their classroom,” “you are the one being forced onto them,” and teachers “need to feel that the room is still under their control.” Others talked of inconveniencing teachers. Issues of control over the room came up repeatedly, as when interpreters said that some teachers seem to feel “territorial.”

These perceptions of ownership and infringement were not confined only to space concerns. Some interpreters saw classroom time as also belonging to teachers. For example, one interpreter said, “We feel we are bothering people … like when we have to take the time to set the captioning on the TV before the teacher shows a video.” Other respondents talked about dealing with problems before or after class in an effort “not to take up class time.” Some interpreters, looking at the situation historically, see that each teacher had his or her own room before the interpreter came onto the scene. However, other respondents argued that rather than think of the classroom as being owned by one person, it is best to think solely in terms of what is best for students and for the facilitation of classroom interactions. To these latter interpreters, this approach involves thinking of the classroom as a teaching tool that is molded by its occupants to optimize its effectiveness.

INTERPRETERS’ SUGGESTIONS

At first, the most logical approach in writing this chapter seemed to be one that listed at the end of each preceding section the suggested solutions for each of the individual, though related, problems being described. This approach led to redundancy, however, because the solutions interpreters offered for one problem were quite similar to those they suggested for another, which highlights how interrelated these issues truly are. Consequently, the following sections list the suggested solutions in terms of those for interpreters, for teachers, for administrators, for teacher training programs, and for interpreters’ professional organizations.

Suggestions for Interpreters

The suggestions the participant interpreters offered to those in their own profession involved acting in a professional manner, communicating clearly, serving as an advocate, and working to fit into “school culture.”

Act professionally. Respondents suggested that, to be seen as a professional, interpreters need to view themselves as professionals and then act professionally. What this suggestion involved, of course, varied greatly. It included considering teachers’ perspectives and needs, coming to meetings and classes well prepared, separating personal issues from work-related issues, treating teachers and administrators with respect, dressing appropriately, and putting students first. For a great majority of the respondents, it also meant practicing diplomacy. They suggested being “gentle,” “nonconfrontational,” “patient,” “nonjudgmental,” “friendly,” “full of humor,” and “approachable.”

Some also pointed out that proof of skills and education are also critical to being a professional. Many recommended continuing with education or striving for certification, regardless of state requirements. Some said that they hope to push the profession in the direction of requiring an associate’s or a bachelor’s degree. Some expressed the view that part of being a profession is working together to improve pay issues as well as to standardize state requirements and job descriptions.

Communicate clearly about your role from the outset. The first step in clearly communicating one’s role, said many interpreters, is clearly understanding it yourself. Some suggested that interpreters rehearse a way to clearly articulate their roles and needs. Next, respondents suggested meeting with students, administrators, and teachers before school starts to discuss the needs of all parties. Providing an example of the benefits of this approach in terms of space needs, one respondent said, “Allowing the teachers to explain why they think their placement is best allows the interpreter to get a better feel for how the classroom operates.”

Advocate for yourself, students, and the interpreting process. Many interpreters reported that advocating for the student, themselves, and the interpretation process is a critical part of their jobs. As one interpreter said, “You need to take control of the situations you are in to ensure that your students get the best access possible. You are not just the interpreter; you are the interpreter. If you don’t advocate for the child, it is possible no one else will.” Other respondents’ comments followed suit:

Although advocacy is crucial, one respondent warned that interpreters need to pick their battles: “We need to know when to advocate for ourselves and when to let it be. Life is not perfect.”

Try to fit into school culture. One participant stated that many interpreters do not put out enough time and effort to try to fit into school culture. “Some interpreters walk into a classroom and start listing what they will and will not do. We need to learn to match the cultural environment in which we work. We need to do a perspective shift to try to see this from the viewpoint of the teacher in specific, and school culture in general.” Another interpreter echoed that participant’s views and further suggested that interpreters watch to see what teachers do for one another and then use that example as their model for what they will or will not do, realizing that flexibility and adaptability are critical in any work setting.

Suggestions for Teachers

When the participant interpreters listed their suggestions for teachers, they included learning more about the interpretation process, recognizing their responsibilities to deaf and hard of hearing students, acknowledging interpreters as part of the educational team, and playing their part in fostering clear communication with interpreters.

Take an active role in learning about the interpretation process. Some interpreters expressed a dream that teachers would take an active part in facilitating the interpretation process. Those whose teachers did so spoke glowingly of the results.

Recognize that the students are your responsibility. Respondents clarified the position that, ultimately, deaf and hard of hearing students are students. They need to benefit from the teacher’s skills and experience as much as the hearing students do.

Recognize interpreters as part of the educational team. Interpreters discussed the fact that they know students well and can, when breeches of confidentiality are not involved, offer important insights and feedback to teachers. They also mentioned that it is helpful for interpreters to be aware of IEP goals and objectives of the students for whom they interpret.

Communicate clearly and diplomatically with interpreters. Respondents were quite clear in stating that power struggles and miscommunication between teachers and interpreters can lead to negative results not only for the interpreter-teacher relationship but also for the students.

Suggestions for Administrators

Participant interpreters’ suggestions for administrators included requiring teachers and students to learn more about interpreting, recognizing interpreters as part of the educational team, ensuring that interpreters have what they need to effectively perform their jobs, and treating interpreters like professionals.

Require teachers and students to attend in-service training about the interpretation process. Overwhelmingly, interpreters suggested more in-service training for students, teachers, and administrators with respect to educational interpreting. Some interpreters suggested that the in-service training should be conducted by outside interpreters so discussions do not become too personal. Others suggested that deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students should all be required to attend in-service training along with administrators, teachers, and interpreters. Respondents suggested that deaf and hard of hearing students would benefit not only from in-service training to learn how to work with interpreters but also from meetings with deaf adult mentors to guide them in day-to-day interactions with interpreters. One interpreter suggested that older students be asked to do “mini in-services.” She suggested that, if students explained the role of the interpreter to the staff, their effort would demonstrate to the staff that the students have high-level expectations, and it would also foster student empowerment.

Consider interpreters as part of the educational team. Interpreters reported that they can do their jobs best if they are included as part of the educational team. To clarify what this inclusion means in terms of everyday behaviors, respondents suggested that administrators include interpreters when disseminating information about students, events, and meetings.

Make sure interpreters have what they need to do their jobs well. Respondents emphasized the importance of teachers and administrators talking to interpreters about space issues. In particular, many mentioned that having a designated place for their belongings and an assigned place for preparation and downtime would be helpful.

Treat interpreters like professionals. Interpreters emphasized that administrators should hire interpreters who are qualified and pay them a professional wage, offer them appropriate resources, and provide them with funding for professional development opportunities.

Suggestions for Teacher Training Programs

Interpreters highlighted the importance of discussions in teacher training programs about interpreter roles and responsibilities. Initially, one might assume this suggestion refers to mainstream teachers. It definitely does refer to that group, but some interpreters also felt misunderstood by the teachers of the deaf who taught in their buildings. They said that, if the teachers of the deaf are supportive and respectful, then mainstream teachers tend to follow suit.

Suggestions for State and National Organizations for Interpreters

Some of the interpreters said that state and national organizations for interpreters need to increase attention to educational interpreters’ needs. Some expressed hopes that state and national organizations could work on consistency of standards for educational interpreters. “Educational interpreting is a young profession,” said one respondent, “and the sooner we adopt uniform standards of behavior and educational requirements nationwide, the sooner we will be considered professional.”

THE DISCUSSION LIST

This section addresses the second purpose of the chapter—to describe the Internet list itself. It examines the ways subscribers use the list, their reasons for needing a forum specific to their subfield, and their views of the advantages and disadvantages to participating on an Internet discussion list related to their profession.

The Purposes of the List

The results of this study suggest that, for many interpreters, this Internet discussion list is a valuable asset for discussion and resolution of the issues that have been discussed in the previous section.

A Resource for Information Exchange

The expressed purpose of the group, as written on the list’s Web site, is to serve as a resource for information exchange. Ninety-five percent of the respondents reported that the list serves this purpose for them. Many interpreters mentioned that this exchange was their main reason for participating on the list. Some said they felt a need to participate because their interpreter preparation programs (IPPs) had lacked training with respect to work in educational settings. Some reported seeking assistance with signs—especially for specific events, activities, areas of study, and issues of the day. Others reported seeking information about professional development opportunities, contracts, educational CDs, related Web sites, workshops, employment opportunities, research, and information about deaf communities and interpreter gatherings (e.g., conferences, events).

A Forum for Discussion

Ninety-five percent of the respondents also see the list as a forum for discussion of issues relevant to their profession. “It’s like a 400-person staff meeting,” said one member. This opportunity for discussion seems especially useful for those in rural areas, those who have not had formal training, those whose IPPs did not address issues of educational interpreting, and those who do not work with other educational interpreters.

However, even those who work with other interpreters reported that they rarely get together to discuss controversial issues in their subfield. One said she benefits from being on the list because “I can see other peoples’ perspectives on the gray areas of interpreting.” Many interpreters mentioned curiosity about how things were done in other places, about differences in urban versus rural settings, and about how other interpreters handle similar, problematic situations. Most prevalent are discussions of role clarification, application of the interpreters’ code of ethics to the school setting, and situational advice related to interactions with teachers and students. As one interpreter put it, she gains from the list by getting advice for “navigating the politics of a school system.”

Some mentioned that the homogeneity of the group makes communication simpler. “Not many people understand what we do,” she said. “It is nice to chat about things that we do without having to explain everything.” Others mentioned benefiting from the group’s heterogeneity, noting that, besides interpreters, the interpreters’ list also consists of teachers of the deaf, deaf and hard of hearing individuals, and IPP instructors.

A Support Group

Eighty-four percent of the respondents reported viewing the list as, in part, a support group. Those interviewed stated that the list is a “nonthreatening,” “non-judgmental,” “safe place” that offers them “camaraderie.” Being on the list allows them to make friends and connect with colleagues they might never meet otherwise. One respondent said, “I feel connected to interpreters all over the country.” For another interpreter, joining the list meant feeling “less alone.”

Rheingold (1993) points out that one social purpose of some discussion lists is to help people cope with and normalize difficult experiences. The list seems to serve both of these purposes for its members. One interpreter who works in both community and school interpreting said the following:

Educational interpreting is tough—sometimes tougher than community interpreting, because we (educational interpreters) usually establish long-term relationships with the students we work with, which can make it hard to leave work at the front door at the end of the day. We have to deal with administrators and teachers who have no concept of what we do. The people on the list understand what I experience.

Use of the list as a resource for coping strategies seems evident in archived questions that begin with, “How do you all deal with …?” Efforts to normalize difficult experiences seem apparent in archived postings that start out by saying, “I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who ….” As one interpreter put it, “It’s nice just to know others are dealing with the same challenges and situations as you are. That’s support in itself.” Another stated it even more strongly: “This is where I go for my sanity. I see other interpreters are facing some of the same situations as I am.” Research pertaining to support groups suggests that they “evoke good feelings by helping members construct new self-understandings” (Denzin 1985). As became clear in the discussion of the issues, interpreters on this list appear to be constructing this type of self-understanding with respect to their roles, responsibilities, and identities at work.

Variation in Use of the List

Clearly, although a great deal of overlap exists, for different people, the list offers different things. As clarified above, most see the list as a forum for discussion and as a resource center for information exchange while some also see it as a support group. Other differences in use of the list are related to levels of experience. A newer interpreter talked about the list this way: “It helps me prepare so that if similar issues come up in the future, I am better able to handle them or to understand other peoples’ points of view.” For more senior interpreters, the list offers a way to disseminate knowledge accrued from experience. “I am in a stage in my career when I am giving back,” said an interpreter who has been working for twenty years. “The list is a good way to touch many people at once.” Another experienced interpreter said that she is motivated to answer questions from new interpreters on the list because she feels that every time she helps another educational interpreter, she is also helping another deaf or hard of hearing student. A third seasoned interpreter admitted that, sometimes, she finds comments made on the list frustrating. “But,” she added, “I do get ideas about what to teach my students.”

Why the Need for a List Specific to K–12 Interpreters?

Respondents were asked why they thought the need existed for a discussion list specifically designated for educational interpreters in kindergarten through high school settings. Their answers pointed to a need for confidentiality, a sense of isolation from one another, the challenges of situational ethics, the lack of a model to follow, a lack of preparation, and the demands of their multifaceted roles.

Confidentiality. Many respondents mentioned concern with breeching confidentiality as a reason for wanting to communicate anonymously on the discussion list. Although teachers frequently talk informally among themselves about students, some interpreters reported finding themselves concerned about breaking confidentiality in conversations about students or teachers. The discussion list offers these interpreters a place to vent or request feedback without specific people being identified.

Isolation. Unlike community interpreters who sometimes work in pairs or who work out of interpreting agencies, educational interpreters often work in isolation from one another. Many reported being the only interpreter in their schools, districts, or counties. The list offers these interpreters support, feedback, and resources they would have difficulty accessing otherwise.

Situational ethics. Many of the respondents mentioned that the discussion list also helps them deal with situational ethical issues they face on a daily basis. “Although the interpreting process is generally the same in community and educational interpreting, the situations you run into are incredibly different,” explained one interpreter. Another said that, because of the nature of the school setting and the fact that consumers are children, “We run into big ethical problems every single day.”

Lack of a model. Lack of understanding and vagueness about the role of the educational interpreter seem to make it difficult for many interpreters to find others in their work environments to talk to about work-related issues. One interpreter who has worked in middle school, high school, and college settings said, “All interpreters have challenges, but educational interpreters are confronted with a highly dynamic environment with boundary confusions. You are not the teacher and you are not the principal, but you are an adult. For kids, teachers, and for the interpreter, this is a confusing situation.” Respondents added that confusion is exacerbated by the fact that job descriptions vary greatly from school to school and from community interpreting to school interpreting.

Lack of preparation. Educational interpreters reported that their training programs often do not prepare them for the school setting. “Very few IPPs teach you how to be an educational interpreter. So it is trial by fire.” Then there’s the fact that some interpreters have not attended an IPP. One interpreter reported, “There are far more inexperienced, untrained, or undertrained, uncertified interpreters working in public schools [than in community settings].” Many agreed that the discussion list helps by filling in gaps created by insufficient training.

Multifaceted demands. Afinal reason for the discussion list being of such importance to this group of interpreters is that they have multifaceted roles and do not always feel prepared to handle all of the responsibilities they are asked to juggle. Besides interpreting and explaining their roles as interpreters, they are also often asked to educate families, students, and staff members about deafness, language issues, and the interpreting process. Moreover, they need to learn to navigate school politics and tackle issues that arise when one serves as an educational team member.

Advantages and Disadvantages to an Online Group

Most respondents found the list highly beneficial. Some members, however, noted some disadvantages inherent to this mode of communication.

Advantages to Meeting Online

Nearly all respondents pinpointed the large sampling from distant geographical regions as an advantage to meeting online—the more members, the more solutions and opinions. Other advantages to the online group—including efficiency, convenience, precision, greater candor, communication across boundaries, and learning from lurking—are discussed below.

Efficiency. Many interviewees mentioned efficiency as part of what drew them to the list. Participants can decide what to read, what to skim, and what to skip. Although responses are not as timely as they would be in person, members said that they are generally quick. One member put it this way, “I have never had a situation where I asked a question and did not receive some sort of answer within a two-day time frame.”

Convenience. When asked for advantages to an online group, convenience was an obvious, quick response for many of the respondents. Members mentioned that the list can be accessed from anywhere a computer is available and at any time (“It’s open twenty-four hours a day!”). Highlighting the convenience of locale, one member said, “I can deal with the list in the comfort (and the jammies) of my own home.”

Precision. Some reported feeling that the online forum encourages well-thought-out interactions. “People can take time to carefully write, read, and edit their questions and answers before sending them,” explained one interpreter.

Greater candor. According to Kollock and Smith (1996), prior research suggests that Internet interactions allow for greater candor; participants are less concerned about repercussions given the option of anonymity. In the case of the educational interpreters’ discussion list, this possibility seems to be reasonable. At times in the archived discussion list messages, interpreters state that they would not tell those in their schools what they are telling those on the list—partly because they often use the list to gain advice about how to discuss issues with coworkers and consumers.

Those interviewed gave the same impression. In a variety of ways, a great majority of the participants said that the online group allows for greater candor. Members discussed the issue of candor in terms of asking questions (e.g., “You can ask questions without repercussions”) and in terms of making statements (e.g., “People can say what they think and feel without worrying” and “It is definitely easier to be blunt with a person you don’t know and don’t have to look at”). Others agreed, one adding that on line there is “less pressure to conform.” Some respondents mentioned that many people are more willing to participate when not in front of a group of people.

Communication across boundaries. Korenman and Wyatt (1996) found that the online group they studied allowed for communication across social, geographical, and hierarchical boundaries. On the list, discussions cross hierarchical boundaries marking highly experienced interpreters (those in the field for decades, those who are now teaching in interpreter training programs), those new to the field, and those who are still students. This boundary crossing has offered some people new to the field some advice they might have had trouble gaining otherwise: “I rarely have any idea of the skill levels or years of experience of those on the list. Hence, intimidation is not a factor.” Looking at this issue from another perspective, one participant believes that people are “more likely to take advice at face value” when they do not know who wrote it.

Learning from lurking. Barnes (2001) suggests that “lurking”—reading list material but not participating in the discussions—is a product of the fact that people in our society are now used to being media consumers rather than participants. She also suggests that, although lurking is often considered negative, the possibility may be that those who do not actively participate are learning from the discussions. Those participants who reported reading but not participating said that that the list works in exactly this way for them.

Disadvantages to Meeting Online

Although most respondents’ comments highlighted advantages to meeting online, two disadvantages also came to light: logistical limitations and negative aspects to anonymity.

Logistical limitations. Most obvious, perhaps, is the fact that discussing a visual language by means of written description is difficult to do. Additionally, some said they do not respond as often as they might or in as much detail as they would like because they lack computer or typing skills. Others said that, regardless of skill levels on the keyboard, they find typing to be more tedious than speaking, so they tend to keep comments brief. These constraints can limit the information passed among members and can lead to miscommunication of the information that is shared. Respondents also mentioned that lack of intonational cues, body language, and facial expression can lead to miscommunication.

The negative side of anonymity. Some of those interviewed reported that anonymity can lead to reduced participation (because one feels no pressure to join in), rude behavior, and an inability to judge credibility. “Sometimes, you want to see who you are taking advice from,” said one interpreter. “It helps you determine their skill level or level of professionalism.”

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored the perspectives of educational interpreters on an Internet discussion list with respect to three issues important to interpreters. These issues—namely, identity and role formation for interpreters in schools, communication breakdown between interpreters and teachers, and control of bodies and spaces in the school setting—were discussed in terms of their application to similar issues in educational anthropology. Most of the interpreters interviewed, rather than direct frustrations about these issues at teachers, asserted that these problematic issues reflect systems in need of change and boundaries in need of clearer definitions.

Given this perspective, the interpreters offered suggestions not only to teachers but also to administrators, teacher training programs, the state and national interpreting organizations, and fellow interpreters. These suggestions were offered with the hope that, one day, all educational interpreters will become well-respected, well-integrated team members in deaf and hard of hearing children’s school careers—a situation with great benefits to offer students and teachers as well as interpreters. One solution that has clearly worked well, at least in part, for many of these interpreters is their discussion list on the Internet. Interpreters noted its many advantages and a couple of its disadvantages as a forum for discussion, a site for information exchange, and a place to gain social support for situations faced by interpreters in school settings.

APPENDIX

Questionnaire for Educational Interpreters

Please take as much space as needed to answer each question as thoroughly as you can. If you think of examples that would help to clarify your answers, please include them.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

•How many years have you worked as an educational interpreter?

•What grades have you interpreted for?

•How long have you been a member of the K–12 terps discussion list?

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DISCUSSION LIST

•What made you join the list?

•What do you gain from being on the discussion list?

•Do you feel like the discussion list members have become a cohesive group? How so? Or why not?

•Do you feel the list allows you to communicate with others across hierarchical boundaries within your profession? How so?

•Is there anything characteristic about educational interpreting that makes a discussion list more critical for those in your field?

•In what ways do you participate on the list? In other words, do you tend to initiate discussions, answer questions, reply to comments, or just read others’ discussions? Why?

•Do you feel this group works as a support group? In what ways?

•Do you feel this group functions well as an avenue for information exchange? In what ways?

•Do you feel this group functions well as a forum for discussion of issues relevant to your occupation? In what ways?

•What do you see as the role of the moderators?

•What do you see as the differences between an online group and a face-to-face group? Do you think these differences render the online group more or less effective and satisfying? How so? Are participants more candid?

QUESTIONS REGARDING ISSUES DISCUSSED ON THE LIST

Concerns about Communication

Concerns about communication between students, teachers, and interpreters have frequently surfaced on the discussion list.

Concerns about Role

It is clear from various entries on the list that some educational interpreters do not like some of the ways they are viewed by teachers and other professionals in the school setting (e.g., being called a “signer” or an “aide,” being asked to help with students’ homework, or being asked to serve as disciplinarians).

Concerns about Space

Some studies discuss the importance of the use and control of space in school settings. On the discussion list, some have voiced frustrations about not having their own space in the classroom or about having to sit in a specific place chosen by the teacher or student. Others have mentioned wishing they had different places to be for different roles they play (interpreter/aide/tutor) to make it clear to the teacher and student which role they are performing. Some have asked about the interpreter’s space on field trips, at sporting events, and in assemblies. Some have stated frustrations with teachers and students walking in front of them. One interpreter asked whether she should be in the room if the teacher was not.

REFERENCES

Barnes, S. 2001. Online connections: Internet interpersonal relationships. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.

Denzin, N. K. 1985. Emotion as lived experience. Symbolic Interaction 8:223–40.

Eisenhart, M. 1997. The fax, the jazz player, and the self-storyteller: How do people organize culture? In Schooling the symbolic animal, ed. B. Levinson. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kollock, P., and M. Smith. 1996. Managing the virtual commons. In Computer-Mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. S. Herring. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Korenman, J., and N. Wyatt. 1996. Group dynamics in an e-mail forum. In Computer-Mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. S. Herring. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

McDermott, R. P., and K. Gospodinoff. 1979. Social contexts for ethnic borders and school failure. In Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications, ed. A. Wolfgang, 175–95. New York: Academic Press.

Mehan, H. 2000. Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In Schooling the symbolic animal, ed. B. Levinson. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Nespor, J. 1997. Tangled up in school. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Rheingold, H. 1993. The virtual community. Reading, Mass.: Addison, Wesley.

Taylor, C., and R. Elliott. 1994. Identifying areas of competence needed by educational interpreters. Sign Language Studies 83:179–90.

The author would like to express gratitude to the moderators and participants of the Internet discussion list for K–12 educational interpreters. Without their volunteered time and critical insights, this chapter would not have been possible.