In a typical classroom, you will find a multitude of students of different cultures, personalities, and abilities. Sometimes, these include a student who is Deaf and uses American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom, using an educational interpreter. Deaf students and educational interpreters add an additional dynamic to any classroom environment as the interpreter reconstructs communication between the Deaf student, the teacher, and the classmates to and from spoken language to a visual language. The educational interpreter not only facilitates communication for the interlocutors but also communicates on behalf of the interlocutors as one of them. Interpreters do their best to adopt the participants’ tone, meaning, and intention, in an effort to achieve the communicative goals of that person. Even when the speakers are working toward different ends, the interpreter is there, representing both sides as the animator of each individual’s utterances (Grice, 1989).

In the classroom, many educational interpreters work in the same class with the same students and teacher for a semester or more. This lends to the probability of interaction between Deaf students and the educational interpreter, leading to possible closeness and familiarity between them. These interactions with Deaf students and educational interpreters can cause tension for interpreters who are not aware of how to navigate their unique place in the environment. This chapter outlines some communication considerations common to the educational interpreter’s perception of how they interact in the educational setting and the dialectical tensions that may arise from their position in the system.

Literature Review

While working between two languages, ASL-English interpreters are also mediating the communication and, by virtue of their presence, influencing the relationship of the primary parties. According to Wadensjö (1998), interpreters consider themselves not only to be translating between two languages, but also to be performing on others’ behalf various activities such as persuading, agreeing, lying, questioning, claiming, explaining, comforting, accusing, denying, coordinating interaction, and so forth. It is clear to interpreters that their work is based on much more than merely relaying words and phrases. As Brunson (2008) notes, “This work is not solely a matter of choosing a sign for a word or even a phrase to convey a concept, but rather one of negotiating relationships between people” (p. 26). Interpreters can perform many functions aside from being a pure conduit; they can become a communication “broker,” which affords an overview of and influence over the process and procedure of the interaction (Wadensjö, 1998). This is a vital understanding for educational interpreters, because it provides the lens through which to understand how the classroom dynamics can cause feelings of conflict between concrete guidelines of behavior (e.g., the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf’s [RID] Code of Professional Conduct [2005] or an interpreter program curriculum) and the more nebulous and abstract decision-making required in a live interpreting setting.

However, many interpreters were taught they are to be “invisible” or “a machine” while interpreting (Angelelli, 2004; Baker-Shenk, 1991; Roy, 2000). To be invisible is to actively accept the label of “nonperson.” A “nonperson” is an interpreter that does no more than the linguistic and culturally appropriate interpretation; they do not acknowledge their own presence in the interaction (Wadensjö, 1998). Interpreters play a technical role in hearing–Deaf communication and historically have not been considered fully present members of the interaction (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). They are not expected to contribute to the conversation or interaction; this idea, however, is counter to what the interpreter actually does. The interpreter does speak publicly, and by that speech (or sign), regulates interaction and turn-taking of the interlocutors (Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1998).

These interpreters believe that they are never to initiate any of their own utterances, going even as far as refusing to introduce themselves to the nonsigning party. However, there is actually a range of appropriate behavior choices, depending on the situation and the interlocutors involved (Dean & Pollard, 2013; Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014; Metzger, 1999). In fact, Llewellyn-Jones and Lee (2014) argue that interpreters should act in accordance with the social expectations of the environment, letting themselves adjust their behavior and presentation of self as the situation dictates.

Because earlier models of interpreting like the “machine” metaphor embraced the lack of presentation of self and, more recently, it is understood that varying presentations are appropriate, sign language interpreting is fertile ground for tensions. Although interpreters may be considered “nonpersons” in the interactions, they are present before, during, and after the interpreted situation (Metzger, 1999; Wadensjö, 1998), and are fallible humans with a range of opinions and emotions (Witter-Merithew, 2015). Because the interpretation can happen only within a communication event occurring between others, it is inherently a relational activity (Witter-Merithew, 2015). The relationships involved can often cause internal conflict for interpreters. This conflict both guides interpreters to their final decisions and can also cause them to second guess if those decisions were correct. Llewellyn-Jones and Lee (2014) continue that notion and assert that “[r]ather than be impartial to be fair, an interpreter must be bipartial; understanding, overtly valuing (through appropriate back-channeling, etc.) and being able to articulate (through faithful interpretation) both points of view” (p. 22).

Presentation of self is an integral part of understanding the tensions inherent in interpreted communications. Interpreters who subscribe to the belief that they are invisible and only there to relay utterances back and forth would have a low presentation of self (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). Alternatively, an interpreter who speaks for themselves (instead of directing all communication through the interlocutors) or adds information to the situation from their own knowledge would be displaying a high presentation of self. Lee (2015) goes on to say that interpreters’ primary work tool is their own body; therefore, they are unable to take their human self out of the equation. Who they are is always there, and they are always filtering information through their own lenses. In education, there is often more opportunity for higher levels of presentation of self because interpreters are part of a team of adult professionals in the room.

In an educational environment, there is often time that allows for the interpreter to interact with other members of the classroom, such as while students are working independently or between class periods. When working with the same class for a semester of 16 weeks or longer, the interpreter becomes a member of the classroom. There is opportunity, and often desire, to develop rapport with others in the environment. Rapport building and interpersonal skills can be very beneficial to an educational interpreter. The interpreter’s understanding of and prowess in a variety of educational settings can help the interaction progress more smoothly. For example, both the Deaf student and the teacher must be able to participate, the educational interpreter must be able to be seen and heard, and must quickly ascertain relationships; in many situations, politics and power dynamics are an unspoken but vital part of an interaction (Janzen, 2005; Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). Interpreters must be constantly aware of these factors and able to meet the needs that are presented in these dynamic environments, and must be able to understand these relationships, as well as their own relationship with the people and environment.

It is also important to note that not all people use language in the same way, meaning that educational interpreters must adjust their language accordingly, using features understandable and acceptable to the Deaf person with whom they are working (Janzen, 2005). To be able to interpret effectively, interpreters need to be able to gauge each participant’s language abilities and usage. One way this can be achieved is by developing positive rapport.

Educational interpreters must be able to traverse a variety of speakers, styles, and language abilities (Schick et al., 2006) in such settings as lectures, labs, group meetings, and club activities. This means that there is a familiarity between the interpreter, teachers, and students (Janzen, 2005). When the interpreter is a consistent and familiar face in the classroom, as a nonparticipant with less presentation of self (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) the communication can be cold and awkward. When working in an ongoing situation with students, educational interpreters can become default helper figures in the classroom environment. However, Janzen (2005) advises caution when helping and advising Deaf students. Giving the Deaf student too much direct assistance can diminish their own independence and autonomy and do more harm than good.

The educational interpreter’s dual role is an important topic for consideration as it adds to the relational dynamics as well. The interpreter’s primary function is to coconstruct a faithful interpretation. Llewellyn-Jones and Lee (2014) add that as representatives of the school systems for which they work, educational interpreters have more investment in the Deaf students they interpret for. The educational interpreters’ goals in these situations can go beyond just providing an interpretation: they may align with the teacher’s goals, such as being intentionally vague to encourage critical thinking or, in some cases, making sure students are aware of what material will be on the test. Educational interpreters also align with the Deaf students by being aware of their goals for the class, whether they be to simply pass the course or really delve into the topic. Being aware of, and aligned with, the goals of both (or all) parties allows the educational interpreter to make decisions on the basis of those shared goals, and for everyone to come away from the interaction feeling satisfied.

Classroom Dynamics

Tsui (1995) explains that interaction, including, but not limited to the classroom setting, must be managed by all participants. Therefore, the teacher is not the only person who manages the interaction, because interaction is, by nature, something people do collectively. With such interactions inherently come tensions. Docan-Morgan (2001) asserts that good teacher–student relationships are beneficial in a learning environment because established rapport can influence interest, participation, and performance levels in students.

Although positive interactions and good relationships are beneficial to both student and teacher, the institutional structure presents challenges in the form of a teacher’s embedded power (Rawlins, 2000). Teachers are the ones who typically set the agenda for the course, keep the students on-task, and relate discussions to learning objectives. However, students also bring to the classroom environment their own experiences, moods, needs, and goals (Tsui, 1995). Therefore, everyone in the environment is adding to the dynamics, everyone is feeling tensions, and everyone is managing those tensions in different ways.

Part of that tension includes pressure. By the inherent structure of the educational institution and by students’ previous experiences, they are aware of the pressure to give the correct answer, to comply with appropriate social norms, to memorize and recite the correct information (Tsui, 1995). For some students, this can be an intimidating situation.

Rawlins (2000) suggests that teaching in a way that encourages a friendly relationship with students is beneficial to all involved. This method can be adopted for educational interpreters. There is a subtle yet distinct difference in the use of the term friendly, instead of friend. To be friendly implies the liking of another, caring about them, and interacting politely. However, to be a friend requires a time commitment that many teachers cannot fulfill, nor should they be expected to. Educational interpreters, like everyone else, have lives outside of their professions; they have families, friends, and obligations. To expect them to treat Deaf students as friends would be not only logistically difficult, but also inappropriate given the power dynamics. Educational interpreters must be the ones to take on and communicate friendly qualities and, in doing so, begin to counteract the deeply rooted hierarchy of the educational system (Rawlins, 2000). Instead of using a completely detached model of interpreting, educational interpreters can use friendliness, or a personable but not personal style, to achieve trust and rapport and gain more mutual satisfaction in the interpreted classroom (Witter-Merithew, 2015).

Relational Dialectics

Relational dialectics theory is directly applicable to educational interpreters as the study of the interplay between tensions that work in opposition and in collaboration with each other to dictate our communications (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Dialectics refers to competing forces working perpetually in opposition to one another (Bakhtin, 1981). These forces can be intrapersonal or interpersonal or come into play in group and societal situations. Relational dialectics focuses on interpersonal relationship communication (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998).

Bakhtin (1981) critiqued communication theories that labeled society as a monologic, or “either/or” system of decision-making. Instead, all social life and society is an open “dialogue” that is constantly changing and evolving based on what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present. Bakhtin (1981) argued, from a dialogic perspective, that each person’s identity is self-realized but is also a reflection of ourselves as seen through others. These two “selves” can be contradictory in their roles and perceptions. Bakhtin (1981) also asserted that all dialogues are such because they must be woven together on the basis of content and interest, but, at the same time, approached with at least two different viewpoints and opinions. The dialogical perspective is the simultaneous emphasis on similarity and difference.

Dialectics holds that there are always contradictions in our life, forces that are pushing and pulling us to respond and communicate one way or another. These dialectics are often thought to be like two poles, or two ends of a spectrum. They are inherent opposites, and individuals often feel impelled toward both at the same time. However, the poles are not monologic, or mutually exclusive. What actually occurs is a spectrum between and extending beyond the poles. Dialectics is not necessarily looking for a balance or “happy medium” when it comes to the dialectical forces.

The relationship between a Deaf student and an educational interpreter in the classroom has not been thoroughly studied using the relational dialectic approach. Montgomery and Baxter (1998) detail that communication is the basis for our personal relationships and is an evolving, ever changing, and involved process that lets speakers understand themselves, others, and their surroundings with more clarity. Communication is not just the words we say but in the sense of relational dialectics refers to all parts of communication, including facial expression, body language, unintended communication, or anything that gives the receiver clues to the meaning we are trying to convey. Montgomery and Baxter (1998) write, “[T]he self exists only in relation with others, and communication constitutes that relationship” (p. 162).

One dialectic that is apparent in the work between educational interpreters and students is called distance versus closeness (Hennings, 2009). Hennings’s study (2009) explored the dialectical as it related to graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). As professionals and authority figures in the classroom, the GTAs need to establish distance from their students. They also want to have a positive and lasting influence in their students’ lives on a more personal level and value closeness (Hennings, 2009). The relationship of GTAs and students is comparable to that between educational interpreters and students.

Another dialectic at play in the classroom is freedom to be independent versus freedom to be dependent (Rawlins, 2000). Seal (1998) indicates it is important for Deaf students to exhibit two main characteristics: diversity and individualism. This can affect the student-educational interpreter relationship because the student wants and needs to be an individual. However, the student must often rely on the educational interpreter in the classroom. And educational interpreters have inherent power in their positions: the power to control access to communication, the power to dictate scheduling, and the inherent power in their professional status. It is important for educational interpreters to take the time and recognize opportunities to treat Deaf students as equals and empathize with their needs for independence and individualism (Rawlins, 2000).

Using what has been learned about relational dialectics and their impact on the classroom, this chapter addresses the communication considerations common to the educational interpreter’s perception of their interaction in the school environment and the dialectical tensions with educational interpreters.

Methods

Participants were recruited by email from the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Department of Access Services and asked to volunteer for an interview about their relationships with the students for whom they interpret. Participants self-selected and volunteered for a one-hour interview with the researcher. The first eight participants were interviewed.

All participants in the study work as staff educational interpreters with a median postsecondary interpreting experience of 21.5 years, and the female-to-male ratio was 5:3. Additional demographic information is outlined in Table 1.

Using a semistructured interview, participants were asked a specific set of questions (see Appendix). The questions were developed by the researcher and advisors. Each participant was provided with an informed consent document and interviewed in a private room. Each interview lasted approximately one hour, was video recorded, and transcribed. In addition to the recording of the interviews, the researcher took notes during and immediately after the interviews.

An inductive approach was employed, but no prerelated themes were used. Rather, data was analyzed using a thematic approach by finding common important themes to explain the phenomenon (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) in which researchers identify, organize, and report patterns or themes (Braun & Clarke, 2008). This methodology was selected because of the parallels in the role of GTAs and interpreters noted by Hennings (2009). Each interview was reviewed multiple times, with extensive notes to detail salient ideas that were repeated and emphasized by multiple participants. Thematic analysis uncovered two dominant themes, and responses were coded as either communication considerations or dialectical tensions.

Table 1. Study Participant Demographics

Results

This study sought to shed light on the dialectical tensions that are present with educational interpreters and students with whom they work. This study highlighted two main dialectics that play out in the classroom environment: the distance versus closeness dialectic and the freedom to be independent versus freedom to be dependent dialectic. The following five communication considerations were identified: being personable versus being personal; taking cues from students; being a resource person for students; separating “friendliness time” and “work time”; and understanding interpreter–teacher dynamics.

Distance Versus Closeness Dialectic

The most prevalent dialectic from this study is the distance versus closeness dialectic. Research addressing GTAs is somewhat analogous to that addressing an educational interpreter. Exploring dialectical tensions of GTAs and students in the classroom (Hennings, 2009) shows that GTAs struggle with the dialectical tensions of distance versus closeness with students.

This tension is applicable to educational interpreters because although interpreters are neither teachers nor students, they have commonalities with both. Educational interpreters share professional status with the teacher, while simultaneously they are the only person in the room that shares a language with the Deaf student. Educational interpreters expressed a desire to be friendly with both students and teachers, develop rapport, and use that rapport to better serve the Deaf students. As one interpreter commented,

I think it’s actually vital to our career [to engage with students] … My personal opinion is that there needs to be a rapport, and the stronger the rapport, the better the interpretation … I think also it allows me to understand their preferences, their needs as someone who has requested interpreting services and what they are looking for. I guess to sum it up, it allows me to understand the goal better.

Knowing the goals of the interaction is one of the primary ways educational interpreters can ensure a more effective interpretation. They are also able to mediate the cultural divide between Deaf and hearing people and promote a more successful interaction.

By and large, educational interpreters also did not want to ask for more interaction that the students wanted to engage in. The relationships are based on how much the student wants to engage, and most of the communication and self-disclosing comes from the students. Although either the educational interpreter or the Deaf student may want to develop a closer relationship, the interpreter takes the responsibility to maintain a professional distance. An educational interpreter shared an approach that he uses to make students feel that he is interested in them, without prying too much. He uses close-ended questions when interacting with students. For example, he may ask, “Did you have a good break?” instead of “How was your break?” This gives the student the ability to engage at their comfort. They can answer the question and end the conversation or elaborate and continue. The educational interpreter can work actively to navigate the dialectic of closeness versus distance by giving the student the opportunity to establish more closeness at their discretion.

The educational interpreters were careful when explaining their desire to interact with students against the students’ wishes. All of the participants mentioned not wanting to push the students into a conversation with which they were not comfortable, allowing them to move to a more distant position. A participant said that she allows the student to direct the depth of the conversation and shared an example of one relationship with a student:

If they’re talking about something that’s personal, I appreciate that that person doesn’t have a lot of people to talk to, it depends on who it is. There’s a woman engineer, and she’s in all these classes with men, right? So here I come … And she is real quiet but she likes this. And she’ll talk about her girlfriend, and slowly she starts to talk about these things. I’m comfortable with that because she’s not saying anything, like, deep. She’s just using the time when it’s available. She’s with these guys, in this program. I keep it light, I don’t add mine … The key for me is to not let that be an opening for a conversation. It’s more like, that’s what she wants right now, and I can dig that because we connect.

This educational interpreter’s approach to the closeness versus distance dialectic is to understand the student’s desire to become closer to her in the situation yet simultaneously keep her own distance.

The desire for interaction and its benefits are not without their counterpart. Educational interpreters are careful about what and how much they share about themselves with students. Whereas educational interpreters will sometimes let students talk about more personal topics, the interpreters themselves are typically more conservative in their own self-disclosure. One educational interpreter shared that when it comes to his personal life, most details are off-limits. He is comfortable speaking in generalities, such as coursework or campus events, but does not share personal topics.

Another interpreter said she kept her personal issues and information to herself, not wanting to burden the students with her own personal dilemmas, especially when that could detract from her interpreting work. Although she may disclose more personal details to a professional colleague, she is careful to make her interpreting paramount and not let interactions with Deaf students become a repository for personal issues.

In regard to the distance versus closeness dialectic, educational interpreters see personal and professional value in a friendly and personable interaction with students. These interactions are carefully entered into, remembering that professional boundaries are foremost and that the interaction with students cannot take priority over the academic content. Educational interpreters are also cautious about what they share, preferring to let the students self-disclose what they are comfortable with, instead of soliciting the information from the students.

This dialectic encompasses two communication considerations for educational interpreters: they are being personable versus personal and taking their cues from students. These considerations guide the interpreters in their interactions with students.

Being Personable Versus Personal

All participants mentioned the importance of building rapport and a friendly relationship with the Deaf students. This is to enhance the enjoyability of the workplace but also to build trust and rapport between the educational interpreter and students. A friendly relationship can reportedly help the interpretation, and participants were very specific in their comments about how they interact with Deaf students in the classroom. All of the interpreters favored a warm and personable relationship with the Deaf students and used words such as acquaintanceship, warm relationship, friendly, and pleasant to describe their interactions in the classroom. One participant noted, “I think that [the relationship] was satisfactory enough of a warm. See I wouldn’t characterize it as friendship, but a warm relationship as an interpreter and as a student.”

Personable relationships serve multiple functions: They make the classroom experience more enjoyable for both parties, increase the vital trust needed in any interpreted situation, and also allow the educational interpreter a window into the Deaf student’s language use. These benefits can become cyclical; that is, if the educational interpreter sees the student’s language use and interprets in a style that is readily understandable to that student, the trust between the two can increase, creating even more enjoyability of the interaction for both parties. One educational interpreter described it this way,

Sometimes I start off by self-disclosing something. As an opener to the fact that I’m open to just kind of like … and that way I do it, not to be their buddy, but also if they ever want to tell me “I like your style or I need something changed” … then they know I’m approachable. It kind of opens up the lines of communication that way.

Although the educational interpreters are happy to have a friendly interaction with the Deaf students, they were also very clear that there is a professional boundary that does not often cross into the social realm.

Clearly, the personable versus personal theme was important to educational interpreters. They were looking to connect and exhibit a higher presentation of self (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014), in order to build rapport and trust with the Deaf students. This presentation of self is dependent on the situation and social cues that are gauged by the educational interpreter. Often, these cues are gleaned from observing and reacting to the behavior of the Deaf students.

Taking Cues From Students

Another prevalent theme was that many educational interpreters took their cue on friendly behavior and rapport from the Deaf students. If the Deaf students were willing to be friendly and chat, the interpreters were happy to reciprocate. If the students were less interested in interacting with the interpreter, the interpreter would typically not initiate further conversation and engage only when the student was the initiator. As one educational interpreter said,

I tend to take my lead from them. Because some Deaf students don’t want to chat with you and don’t want to socialize with you but I can tell there’s some Deaf students that it’s very important to them that once in a while they hug me, and that’s ok, it’s ok … That’s a bit of a struggle for me but, it’s ok, hug me, that’s a good sign.

The educational interpreters were interested in the benefits of a good rapport, yet recognized the importance of not being pushy with Deaf students. Educational interpreters can be polite and friendly but careful not to be too insistent in their desire to build a relationship with the Deaf student. The educational interpreters are striving to make the Deaf students an equal part of the classroom environment, and for some that means that the students have the option of not engaging with the educational interpreter at all. Interaction with the Deaf student is approached the same way an interaction with a hearing person is: If the student and the interpreter get along and enjoy each other’s conversation, then the conversation continues; if they do not, then they do not continue to participate.

Participants in this study were in agreement that they take their relational cues from the students. This, again, is like any other interaction outside of the interpreted realm. One participant made the following point:

A lot of times, it’s how they respond. If I try to engage in conversation and they’re responsive and they join the conversation, then that continues or seems to continue throughout the time that I’m working with them. If I try to engage them in conversation and there’s no response or very little response … Whether it’s a hearing person or a Deaf person, if I get cold response then I try to continue to ask very nonintrusive questions like “How are you doing?” You know, very safe.

In other words, when students are happy to engage in conversation, educational interpreters are happy to reciprocate. Typically, the conversations are superficial and pleasant, much as you would expect with any other acquaintance. The educational interpreters were also sure to mention that this kind of pleasantry did not happen at the expense of the course instruction; as one participant noted,

I’m aware when they’re starting and aware that it’s physics and I want to be on it, and I know she wants to be on it and so I’m really good at holding space that still feels professional but keeps the humanistic quality.

All relationships experience a variety of dialectics at any time, and another common dialectic for educational interpreters was the freedom to be independent versus the freedom to be dependent dialectic. This dialectic also leads to communication considerations, including being a resource person for Deaf students and separating “work time” and “friendship time.”

Freedom to Be Independent Versus Freedom to Be Dependent Dialectic

The second prominent dialectic that was uncovered was the freedom to be independent versus the freedom to be dependent dialectic. Rawlins (2000) found that this classroom dialectic occurs when an individual wants to assert their own identity and do things on their own, but simultaneously wants to have a safety net, of sorts, when needed. This dialectic can impact educational interpreters when weighing how much we allow Deaf students to be independent and find their own way, and how much we are willing to let them depend on the interpreter. When it comes to the freedom to be independent versus the freedom to be dependent dialectic, educational interpreters have to balance many other concerns, including their inherent necessity in the classroom, their co-role as an employee of the education system, as well as an adult in an environment with students. The participants most often reported the willingness to direct students to resources instead of directly offering help or advice; educational interpreters understand their role in being a support (freedom to be dependent) while also allowing Deaf students to find their own way (freedom to be independent).

One interpreter mentioned the desire to give students information that may be beneficial, but was wary about sharing too much; the tensions she felt were illustrated clearly:

I naturally just want to help, but there are so many great people we can refer people to. But when you know something might help, why not just throw it out there? So, I struggle with that a little bit.

The struggle to determine how much help and advice is appropriate is not unique to educational interpreters. Many participants mentioned feeling conflicted by what they want to do and what they feel is professionally appropriate. One participant mentioned that although she may want to help the students with their personal or academic problems, she realized that is not always appropriate. She recognizes that it is not her place as an educational interpreter to do more but also cares about the students’ well-being.

Educational interpreters have a variety of strategies to navigate the dialectics, and to help determine that the students are working to manage the dialectics themselves. The freedom to be dependent versus the freedom to be independent dialectic is particularly complicated for educational interpreters, considering their multiple roles. One way educational interpreters navigate this dialectic is by pointing students to resources, when available, as opposed to intervening and advising the student directly.

Being a Resource Person for Deaf Students

There are often instances when students will ask educational interpreters for help or advice. These requests can come in a variety of topics, including class and teacher concerns, access and language issues, homework help, personal issues, as well as other life-related topics. Sometimes, the educational interpreter notices something seems “off” with the Deaf student and becomes concerned about their well-being. The prevailing response in this situation is to be a resource person but to rarely provide the help or advice directly. Educational interpreters are cognizant of their loyalty to both the student and the school system. All interpreters are bound to RID’s Code of Professional Conduct (2005), which states that interpreters are to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the specific interpreted situation (e.g., being unobtrusive in the environment). However, the school system has goals about student health and happiness, and, at times, those goals can supersede the educational interpreters’ desire to be unobtrusive or impartial in the environment, making it appropriate to have a higher presentation of self.

Educational interpreters also often have a unique position as being the only person in the room able to understand the entirety of the situation. The Deaf student may be cut off linguistically from the teacher and the hearing students in the class. Likewise, the hearing people in the class are equally as cut off from the Deaf student and their culture. Some educational interpreters shared that it is acceptable and necessary to assist Deaf students in navigating not only the classroom environment, but also a majority culture with which they may not be familiar. One interpreter said, “I will do things such as, if I realize a student is struggling with a particular topic, I will advise them to go to the tutor.” In cases like these, the interpreters are compelled to offer a higher presentation of self (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014), recognizing that they are members of a larger system and committed to its values, as well as their own personal investment in the well-being of students. Additionally, this aligns with the CPC’s illustrative behavior of compliance with an individual workplace’s codes of conduct. When working for an educational entity, its goals are also embedded in the goals of its staff. One interpreter put it this way:

If I see a student who seems like they’re in emotional trouble or it seems like something’s really seems wrong, I might just say “are you ok?” Because I also see myself as part of the academic community and also an adult. And they’re students and they’re young and if I see something that seems amiss and there’s anything I could direct them toward services. And I kind of see that as one of our jobs too, not to get in their face but just like “are you ok? Is there some help that you need and can I help you find it?”

The educational interpreters were not hesitant to mention their willingness to help students find the resources that they need. It is also important for educational interpreters to know when their assistance and help is beneficial and when it is more beneficial for other professionals to intervene as necessary. The participants described their offers do things like walk Deaf students to an office that might be able to help them further, and also to interpret that interaction.

Separating “Friendliness Time” and “Work Time”

Inevitably, when a student and an educational interpreter work together often, they get to know each other. However, it is important for educational interpreters to be able to separate their interpreting work from their friendliness with the Deaf student.

Some educational interpreters mentioned using the instructional time as a way to divert attention away from personal conversations with which they were not comfortable. One interpreter shared the following:

If instruction has not yet started then I am [comfortable engaging]. If we’re not in active learning class time, then sure. And it depends on the amount. What would make me uncomfortable, I guess, is if anyone was being disrespected, like a professor, that makes me very uncomfortable, if they have the floor.

Some educational interpreters described their experiences earlier in their career when they struggled to keep the professional boundaries clear. However, being cognizant of the interpreting to be done and recognizing that the educational interpreter was there in a professional capacity seemed to mitigate factors of social relationships impacting the interpreting work.

Educational interpreters are able to separate the social aspect from the interpreting aspect of their time in the classroom by staying focused on the active learning time and even use that as a way to discontinue an interaction with which they are uncomfortable. As this participant mentioned, redirecting a conversation to what is happening in the classroom can also include interpreting peripheral conversations that might be of interest to the Deaf student:

If instruction has not yet started, then I am [comfortable engaging]. If we’re not in active learning class time, then sure. And it depends on the amount. What would make me uncomfortable, I guess, is if anyone was being disrespected, like a professor, that makes me very uncomfortable, if they have the floor.

Limitations

One limitation to this study relates to the small number of participants. This study did not seek to make generalizations about all educational interpreters but to highlight and find themes within the stories of a few. With more narratives may come more perspectives. Additionally, the participants in this study were relatively homogeneous in age and experience. They were self-selected and accepted on a first come, first served basis. This did not allow for intentional diversity, which may have offered different insights. Although the findings can be indicative about what happens in that environment, they cannot be generalized to all educational interpreting environments.

Additionally, it should be noted that the researcher is also a full-time staff sign language interpreter at a university and that this participant–observer role can be considered both a benefit and a hindrance. It is a benefit because of the candor a peer interviewer can elicit. However, the researcher’s own experiences may affect the questions asked and the interpretations of their responses. Ultimately, the collegial understanding afforded by interviewing those with whom the researcher was already familiar is, in this case, considered beneficial to the study.

Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted some of the dialectical tensions experienced by educational interpreters when working and some of the considerations they make when communicating with those students. The considerations point to two main relational dialectics at play. First, the openness versus closedness dialectic is evident in an educational interpreter’s desire to build rapport and relationships with the students, while maintaining a professional boundary that does not allow for deeply personal conversation. Educational interpreters value a personable and friendly relationship with students. A rapport between educational interpreters and students is important and can improve the interpreter’s actual work, as well as making the experience more enjoyable for both parties. It is possible to treat students in a friendly way by being caring, polite, and compassionate. As professionals, teachers and educational interpreters can do this without the time commitment and possible relational tensions that come with friendship. However, educational interpreters are careful about becoming too personal with students and often feel comfortable letting the students share with them but are less comfortable self-disclosing personal information. If the student does not seem interested in being friendly with the educational interpreter, then the interpreter would not force the relationship.

Second, the freedom to be dependent versus the freedom to be independent dialectic comes up when educational interpreters want to be of help to students and also realize the need to allow students to find their own way. Educational interpreters also serve as resource persons for students. Educational interpreters reinforced the idea that the academic material was paramount in the interpreted classroom. It was vital that the educational interpreters and students be able to differentiate work or active instruction time from time available for being friendly interaction.

A sense of professional friendliness, or personability, is key to successful interactions. Educational interpreters who display an appropriate presentation of self (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) are, and should be, regarded as team members and participants in the shared experience and culture of the classroom. By using the “personable but not personal” (Witter-Merithew, 2015) and teacher model as a mode of friendship (Rawlins, 2000), educational interpreters can build trust and rapport, making for more effective interpreting. Although tensions are inherent in our lives, educational interpreters can, together, find ways to work effectively and happily in the educational environment.

References

Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. John Benjamins.

Baker-Shenk, C. (1991). The interpreter: Machine, advocate, or ally? In J. Plant-Moeller (Ed.), Expanding horizons: Proceedings of the 1991 RID convention (pp. 120–140). RID Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. University of Texas Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brunson, J. L. (2008). The practice and organization of sign language interpreting in video relay [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Syracuse University.

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

Docan-Morgan, T. (2001). Everything changed: Relational turning point events in college teacher-student relationships from teachers’ perspectives. Communication Education, 60(1), 20–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.497223

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.

Harrell, M. C., & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. National Defense Research Group. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR718.pdf

Hennings, J. M. (2009). Tales of teaching: Exploring the dialectical tensions of the GTA experience [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. San José State University.

Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in sign language interpreting: Theory and practice. John Benjamins.

Lee, R. E. (2015, March 4). Interpret + person: Presentation of self and sign language interpreters [Paper presentation]. StreetLeverage Live, Austin, TX.

Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. (2014). Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. Bloomsbury Academic.

Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Gallaudet University Press. https://gallaudetupress.manifoldapp.org/projects/sign-language-interpreting

Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Erlbaum.

Rawlins, W. K. (2000). Teaching as a mode of friendship. Communication Theory, 10(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00176.x

RID. (2005). Registry of interpreters for the Deaf code of professional conduct. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-_HBAap35D1R1MwYk9hTUpuc3M/view

Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford University Press.

Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2006). Look who’s being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj007

Seal, B. (1998). Best practices in educational interpreting. Allyn & Bacon.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Classroom interaction. Penguin English.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Addison Wesley Longman.

Witter-Merithew, A. (2015, January 8). Relational autonomy as a paradigm for role conception and implementation [Lecture]. Department of Access Services professional development workshop, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY.

Appendix

Location: Interviews will be held in a private room, with just the interviewer and interviewee

Duration: Each participant will be interviewed once, for 45–60 minutes.

Procedures: The interviews will be video recorded and transcribed afterward. Researcher will conduct semistructured interview for a maximum of one hour per participant.

Interview questions:

1.How long have you been working as an interpreter? How long have you been working in the postsecondary environment.

2.How would you characterize your relationship with a typical student?

3.Are you comfortable engaging with Deaf students in conversations that are outside the course topics?

a.Are there any topics that you consciously choose not to discuss?

b.Do you do this more with some students than others?

i.How do you determine when and with whom you engage in conversations?

4.Do you feel more allied with the professor or the Deaf student?

a.Does it differ based on class? How?

5.Are there instances where your relationship with a student has developed into a friendship?

6.Have you ever had an experience where a student wanted to develop a relationship with which you were not comfortable?

7.Do you ever advise or help Deaf students with personal or academic topics?

a.Do you consider this outside of your “role”? Why or why not?

8.Do you have a method for setting boundaries with students?

9.What strategies do you use for managing relationships with students?