“Quality,” as used in our field, is an elusive term. We all want to offer an interpretation that represents “quality work,” one that is effective/successful/faithful to the message/insert your favorite term here! Many people in our field—interpreters, educators, and researchers—have developed a vast array of instruments to help us assess our work. My sense is that most of us have moved on from the checklist approach to a more reflective analysis and have come to learn the value of rubrics. But it is not clear that we have come to terms with “quality work” when we discuss our own professional development opportunities, or continuing professional development (CPD), which is an umbrella acronym used to describe knowledge and skills development engaged in by professionals after their initial education. Many professionals require ongoing CPD, most notably, physicians and attorneys. During the 1993 national convention (in Evansville, Indiana), Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) members unani-mously approved a Certificate Maintenance Program¹ (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Professional Development Committee, 2013, p. 21) for professional interpreters working between American Sign Language (ASL) and English:

Certification maintenance is a way of ensuring that practitioners maintain their skill levels and keep up with developments in the interpreting field, thereby assuring consumers that a Certified interpreter provides quality interpreting services. Once certified, members must maintain their certification through continuing education, membership in RID, and compliance with the RID Code of Professional Conduct. This is required of all certified members. (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2019)

RID’s professional development system currently measures the specific number of hours (continuing education units [CEUs]) in a specified period, requiring 80 documented hours in a four-year period. Although this approach is standard in many professions, it is not necessarily the best use of our time, nor does it necessarily challenge us to think about our work. Much of the rhetoric around this system is couched in terms of “earning CEUs” rather than participating in a quality experience. Having a dynamic perspective of learning, reflecting, and growing is very different from one that includes counting minutes, hours, coffee breaks, and late arrivals. As language and communication professionals, actively pursuing professional development—quality work—needs to be our goal rather than the accumulation of time. This chapter describes one approach offered in a CPD program that offered participants, in this case interpreters working in a postsecondary setting, the opportunity to engage in an active-learning experience, focusing on the topic of role-space (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014).

Active Learning at Rochester Institute of Technology: An Experiment for Continuing Professional Development

Wiggins’ seminal volume about learning-centered assessment is “based on a simple principle: assessment should be deliberately designed to improve and educate student performance, not merely to audit it as most schools’ tests currently do” (1998, p. xi). His work was “addressed to educators at all levels … anyone involved with students in a school or college … can profit from the ideas and practices” he offered. Sadly, the “earning CEUs” approach does not, on the surface, fit into most active learning approaches to education and does not guarantee improved interpreting services. Now it must be stated that many of the RID-approved offerings may include time for self-reflection, deliberate application of knowledge, collaborative interactions, and any number of active learning strategies. But too many CPD experiences in too many professions are seen as a burden that comes with the job. Winston wrote, “[O]ur focus needs to be on help[ing] students learn to think, to analyze, to make informed decisions, and to reflect on the impact and effectiveness of those decisions” (Winston, 2006, p. 170). No one can object to that for our students, but we must require the same for ourselves as interpreters.

The Focus of This Activity

At the time of this writing,² approximately 18,000 students are enrolled at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), and approximately 1,100 are Deaf/Hard of hearing. To accommodate these specific students, the Department of Access Services (DAS) at RIT employs approximately 130 full-time staff interpreters, an enormous number unmatched by any other postsecondary institution in the world (R. Peterson, personal communication, January 16, 2020; see Appendix A). The number is potentially stag-gering, and the logistics of providing ongoing professional development for these interpreters could be overwhelming. However, over the years, the in-house CPD opportunities³ offered to these interpreters have grown to include an incredible variety of experiences. For example, the total number of events offered from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, was 55 for a total of 4,539 people hours.⁴ Some seminars are one-hour one-off topics; a few interpreters may meet with ASL consultants to review the vernacular students are using campuswide or in a specific course. A small group may meet 7–15 times during a semester to focus on a specific topic or skill set. Other offerings may run 30 hours over an entire academic semester and, consequently, allow for more in-depth discussions about skill activities, ethical issues, and so on. These options are a result of periodic surveys of these working interpreters in an effort to address their needs. To explore whether there was genuine interest in an online option, the assistant dean for DAS approved my facilitation of a reading group to review Llewellyn-Jones and Lee’s 2014 volume, Redefining the Role of the Community Interpreter: The Concept of Role-Space.

Why Role-Space

I began interpreting when I was a dormitory supervisor at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (PSD) in Philadelphia; my first “assignment” was a high school wrestling tournament. Although there was no label for what I did, in retrospect, I was clearly functioning as a “helper” as I directed the next competitor to approach the mat, reminded them to watch the clock, pick up their headgear, and so on. It just seemed appropriate—certainly because I knew the students but also because it helped with the flow of the competition. When I read Llewellyn-Jones and Lee’s book, it brought me back to those early days. They argue, “… the notion of a fixed role, one driven by rules that are counterintuitive to both inexperienced interpreters and the majority of those who rely on our services, simply doesn’t make sense” (p. xiii). Counterintuitive, indeed! Even as I was learning ASL at PSD, conversational intuition from my native English indicated that interacting with student wrestlers included something more than fingerspelling their names and announcing their weights.

Years later, as I followed a career as a college professor, I balked when I heard students—and working interpreters—use the expression, “I stepped out of my role.” It always seemed so unnatural, seemed to make the interpreter an aloof presence rather than an equal partner in the situation. Llewellyn-Jones and Lee’s work opens up a world of possibilities for all of us. Of course, we must continue to function within the parameters of interpreting: we are not advisors, we are not protectors, we are not advocates. But we are humans, and we are supposed to be experts in how people use languages to interact and accomplish what they want to. Learning how to adjust and successfully adapt in different situations has a dramatic effect on the outcome of an interpreting assignment. This is not limited to community work. Interpreters working in the postsecondary setting are required to render complicated content, but they are also required to understand what a student is trying to convey when completing an in-class presentation, when functioning as representative in a student government meeting, or when playing varsity soccer. The interpreter is not stepping out of her role. She is assessing the interaction and providing what is necessary for that particular interaction.

From Role to Role-Space

The early years of our profession saw interpreters working almost exclusively in the community, long before Deaf students entered the mainstream and gained a footing in K–12 and postsecondary educational institutions. The early years of our profession saw interpreters as minor characters in an assignment: “Under the usual conditions, the interpreter who appropriately fulfills the requirements of the role will not be noticed, appreciated, or applauded” (Frishberg, 1986, p. 8). It is important to note that in that same seminal text, Frishberg recognized that although part of an interpreter’s role is “communication cop” with regard to regulating conversations, they are also required to apply “judgment and careful reading of the speaker and signer’s intent to know how to facilitate the interaction … interpreters need to recognize that they have options” (p. 28). Certainly, someone needs to ensure successful turn-taking, manage cues for changing topics, and so on; those responsibilities typically fall on the interpreter. But Frishberg chided those who functioned simply as “communication cops” because they followed “some set of rules rather than using good judgment” (p. 28). She said interpreters need to be recognized “as human beings” (p. 29) and offered several scenarios where an interpreter opts for “a realistic sort of accommodation to the particular setting she found herself in” (p. 30). It seems that Frishberg was espousing what is now conceptualized as role-space (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) rather than a fixed role. But we were also living under a series of ethical codes that were quite prescriptive, causing interpreters to echo how they “stepped out” of their role. The 1986 iteration of the RID Code of Ethics (Frishberg, 1986, pp. 191–194) includes eight tenets printed in bold upper-case font, each beginning with “INTERPRETER/TRANSLITERATOR SHALL … ”. The first tenet of the early version was: “INTERPRETER/TRANSLITERATOR SHALL KEEP ALL ASSIGNMENT-RELATED INFORMATION STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL” (p. 191). The guideline begins, “Interpreter/transliterators shall not reveal information about any assignment, including the fact that the service is being performed.” In contrast, RID’s current code of conduct states what interpreters do. The current version states: “Interpreters adhere to standards of confidential communication,” and the guideline begins, “Interpreters hold a position of trust in their role as linguistic and cultural facilitators of communication. Confidentiality is highly valued by consumers and is essential to protecting all involved” (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2020). The current version reads as a professional document rather than as a list of commandments.

Llewellyn-Jones and Lee cite Tate and Turner’s research questioning whether stepping out of role “was because of the interpreters’ misreading of the intent of the code or whether the code didn’t adequately reflect the work interpreters do” (p. 5). Likewise, Llewellyn-Jones & Lee (p. xiii) argue that “the notion of a fixed role, one driven by rules that are counterintuitive to both inexperienced interpreters and the majority of those who rely on our services, simply doesn’t make sense. Every communicative interaction is different.” And to explore those interactions, they began by asking “what interactions look like when … two interlocutors who share a common language and culture interact and converse” (p. 8). This is important! They continue, “If we can identify the norms of face-to-face interactions, we can begin to discuss how an interpreter can be introduced without having an inhibiting or negative impact” (p. 9). This information should be the driving force behind how we approach our work, how we present ourselves, whether working in the community or in an educational setting. The focus of this groundbreaking text was on the community interpreter. However, after reading the book, it seemed clear to me that the concept of role-space could and should be brought to interpreters working in the academic setting because any time an interpreter is working, it is an event between at least two interlocutors, at least two people hoping to have a successful communicative interaction.

A true professional interpreter adjusts their work to each specific assignment and does not assume that a “one size fits all” approach is effective; we assess the goals for the assignment, the language skills required, and we also assess the people involved. Does this person seem unusually nervous or indifferent to the other interlocutors? What does each person bring to this assignment, and what does the interpreter need to do to make this successful? Where does the interpreter “fit”? How large or small should their “footprint” be? These questions—and many more—run through the interpreter’s mind as they step into the room. Hence, even if they have not heard the term “role-space,” they certainly spend time analyzing the assignment. In addition, anecdotally, when talking to interpreters about their work, more experienced interpreters are quite aware of the social challenges they face and ask themselves a variety of questions, such as: How do I fit in this situation? How much information about myself should I share? How much should I/shouldn’t I interact with the Deaf and hearing interlocutors? Have I met these people before? Role-space addresses these questions with an approach that is grounded in theory and presented in a way that helps interpreters reflect on their work regardless of whether the assignment is what we have traditionally called community work or in an academic setting.

Role-space builds on Goffman’s concept of “presentation of self,” which Llewellyn-Jones and Lee explain as “in all interactions with others, individuals are engaged in a type of performance” (p. 16). Goffman’s original thoughts were are follows:

When an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them. They are asked to believe that the character they see actually possess[es] the attributes he appears to possess, that the task he performs will have the consequences that are implicitly claimed for it, and that, in general, matters are what they appear to be. (1959, p. 15)

This provides an excellent foundation for interpreters to begin reflecting on their work and supports the concept of role-space (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014, p. 15). How we present ourselves to the world—specifically, for interpreters, how we present ourselves to the interlocutors in an interpreting assignment—seems to be evolving. Our field has long abandoned the conduit approach to our work, realizing that the interlocutors in our assignment require our focus. Metzger (1999) offered a simple model of “overlapping dyads” (p. 181) that showed the interpreter as an equal participant. And, of course, Roy’s seminal work presenting interpreting as a discourse process (2000) emphasized and clarified the interpreter’s role as a participant and not a conduit in the discourse.

Llewellyn-Jones and Lee’s (2014) work on role-space also includes a valuable discussion on alignment (pp. 33–55), which underscores true interpreter participation; they recommend that the interpreter “truly participate” as a way of achieving “equality of alignment” (p. 41) rather than attempting to achieve the unachievable concepts of impartiality and neutrality, the dated pretense of pretending one is not there. This validates Roy’s work (2000), meshes with Goffman’s presentation of self (1959), and leads interpreters to more successful interactions. It also sets up the interlocutors to create meaning together. Llewellyn-Jones and Lee offer a simple but enlightening example of how an interpreter can position “him or herself equidistantly” (p. 44) from the hearing and Deaf interlocutors rather than the traditionally taught slightly behind the hearing person. “The result [of equidistant positioning creates] a genuine opportunity for a triadic communication event; one in which there is a … shared construction of meaning” (p. 44), which also ties in well with Janzen and Shaffer.

Janzen and Shaffer’s work on intersubjectivity (2008) emphasizes how interpreters cocreate meaning with both the English users and the ASL users, an approach that is gaining ground because it makes so much sense. An interpreter does not find the meaning on their own; they are not unaccompanied on this journey. They work with the interlocutors to create meaning because they are a participant in the interaction.

And so, when Goffman says, “In everyday life, of course, there is a clear understanding that first impressions are important” (Goffman, 1959, p. 8), professional interpreters need to understand that this applies to everyone, to all the participants in the discourse. It is challenging for an interpreter to begin the first day of a college class, for example, never having met the professor or the student before. It is also challenging for the professor and the students; this might be the first time the professor is teaching this class at this university. How can an interpreter work to create meaning with interlocutors they have never met before? And who is trying to make a good first impression—should we assume everyone is? Goffman’s concept of performing applies to everyone involved in this interaction, and much time could be spent dissecting everyone’s part. My online CPD provided time for interpreters to reflect on some of these questions and to analyze whether their own performance, their first presentation of self, was effective and what impact it had on the other interlocutors in subsequent class meetings.

The Online Continuing Professional Development

The online IST was designed to introduce and provide active learning opportunities related to role-space. It was an advanced CPD, intended for interpreters with at least 5 years’ experience in the postsecondary setting and required both an initial and a final face-to-face meeting. Simply put, they were required to read the Llewellyn-Jones and Lee volume, participate in weekly online reflective discussions (focusing on the prompts I developed), and complete a final project designed to help them reflect on a real-life interpreting assignment. Five years into their work at DAS, most interpreters have developed a level of comfort with the rhythm of the university, with the academic setting, with the diversity of Deaf students encountered in and out of the classroom, and have learned more about what they do or do not know with regard to language (both signed and spoken) and the process of interpreting. This CPD was not really about interpreting but about reflecting on one’s presentation of self and the “socially appropriate” part of the work (Winston & Monikowski, 2000, p. 16). It was about how understanding the concept of role-space can improve the daily interactions of an interpreter. It was about taking time to reflect on one’s interaction with other interlocutors.

Weekly assignments required reading one chapter from the text and responding to online prompts meant to guide rather than restrict their reflections. The prompts were designed to relate directly to their current class assignments. For example, Chapter 2 is titled “Role, Interaction, and the Presentation of Self” (p. 12). The following was the prompt for that chapter’s online discussion:

How we present ourselves to the world—specifically how we present ourselves to the interlocutors in our assignment—I’m not sure how often we think about this. We have our routines, we become familiar with settings/people/content—not necessarily a bad thing. Being aware of how I present myself requires energy and attention. Consider your current assignment. How did you present yourself the first day? In retrospect, what were the “norms” of that setting? Did you follow those norms? Or now that you think about it, was something “off”? Was it you or was it one of the other interlocutors? Please try to be specific and relate this to what you do. Try not to be hypothetical. (Monikowski, 2015)

And Chapter 6 is titled “Applying the Model to Historical Data.” The following was the prompt for that chapter’s online discussion:

On pages 99 and 100 in our text, in the re-analysis of Roy’s work, Llewellyn-Jones and Lee offer a fascinating example of both interaction management and presentation of self with a covert strategy selected by the interpreter. This is one of my favorite examples in this text! I’ve done that—I had no idea what or why but I knew something needed to be done. And afterwards I wondered if I had done “too much” by not including the instructor. Was my choice appropriate? Has this ever happened to you … you instinctively chose to do X and it seemed to be quite successful but somewhere the specter of our ethical boundaries looms large. Given what we’ve read and discussed about role-space … now what do you think?

The project (see Appendix B) required the interpreter to reflect on a specific course she was interpreting at the same time she was participating in this CPD. This was designed so the interpreter could provide an accurate account of her role-space rather than “remembering” what happened last semester or even last year. Returning to Wiggins, the goal of the project was not to cover knowledge but “about uncoverage—being introduced to new ideas and being asked to think more deeply and more carefully about facts, ideas, experiences and theories previously encountered and learned” (1998, p. 85). This was an opportunity for each of them to reflect on how they interacted with the other interlocutors in that setting, using role-space as the underlying construct. The final projects reflected their learning and their recognition of how their decisions about their presentation of self and role-space changed. Some of their reflections are shared in the next section.

Final Projects: What They Learned

Interpreters were required to upload a poster to the online portal one week prior to the final face-to-face meeting so everyone could review all the projects. During the final face-to-face meeting, each interpreter explained her project and its impact on her work and also fielded questions from her peers. By far, the most common conclusion offered from their reflections was “interpreters are human,” which hearkened back to Frishberg, although her volume was not included in this CPD. Their conclusions certainly support that interpreters are not meant to fit into one specific role but, rather, support Llewellyn-Jones and Lee’s belief that “… interpreters’ behaviours are governed by the role-space they create and inhabit in any given situation” (p. 10).

Clearly, how one presents oneself is paramount. We are professionals, but we need to acknowledge that we are also individuals; to me this is an important part of being a professional. This is the primary value of role-space: first impressions are important, interpreters are involved in the discourse, conforming to communicative norms is important, but one size does not fit all. Somehow, the role-space approach seemed to resolve any prior guilt that these interpreters carried prior to this CPD—whether it came from a prescriptive ethical code or an unwritten rule from generations before. There is no need to “step out of one’s role” because there is no single role that they carry with them.

These interpreters seemed to instinctively know that successful social interaction with interlocutors required a flexibility of presentation of self. The dated “stepping out of my role” approach to the work evaporated because our role often requires us to participate, to interact, to do something other than interpret between two languages. We really do know how to adapt to different situations; we need to learn how to allow ourselves to adapt when we wear the mantle of interpreter.

The final projects of these interpreters represent a semester of self-reflection. I offer three examples that show the range of interpreting assignments at RIT: an Industrial Design course for seniors, a nontraditional course with seniors working in groups or teams, and a graduate-level course for Hospitality and Tourism students. Examples in the interpreters’ own words seem appropriate to share here.

Interpreter A

One interpreter applied her budding knowledge of role-space to analyze a senior-year Industrial Design class, with six Deaf students, two interpreters, 15 hearing students, and two professors. She described the class as “especially casual” because side conversations were common, students often tried to engage the interpreter in conversations, and the professors’ presentation styles were informal. She also reported,

students were throwing projects across the room. This was before class. I engaged in catching and tossing back, [joking] about interpreting while still holding the object. Surely other interpreters would have chosen not to engage—should I be doing this?

Although she does not overtly mention it here, she seems to be reflecting on her decisions regarding alignment with the students. Is it appropriate? The interpreter noted she had worked with these students and these professors for several years. And she said the situation required “a high presentation of self; stiff or boring interpreters are frowned upon in this program.” It is extremely important that this interpreter recognized this; she assessed the environment and the interlocutors and realized she needed to adjust her role-space by opening up a bit, loosening up a bit, not presenting a small role-space, and demonstrating alignment with the interlocutors. Her conclusion is quite telling: “This [role-space project] has been very helpful in validating and putting vocabulary to behaviors I already employed and thought were working, but sometimes second-guessed. It all came down to ‘don’t be weird’.” This interpreter has definitely learned how to apply role-space to her work, and it has given her the vocabulary—and I daresay the confidence—as she continues to make challenging decisions.

Interpreter B

Interpreter B was in a senior-level nontraditional setting with group work and workshops happening during the semester. There were over 100 students enrolled in the course, and she worked in a smaller group with one Deaf student, two interpreters, six hearing students, one professor, and a variety of mentors from industry; her group was assigned a project with specific requirements from real-world customers. She began the first few weeks of the semester with a very “tame” presentation of self, using the “fly on the wall” approach, her focus being on “the interaction management axis because there were 100 people all talking in their groups.” She eventually approached the professor to see if there was a different place for her group to meet, given that she and the other interpreters “asked the group member to speak up multiple times.” Once “all the interlocutors [got used to] working with interpreters … I found myself letting go.” This interpreter also discussed how one hearing student expressed confusion about how to address the Deaf student directly, rather than addressing the interpreter. The interpreter

explained [that he should] talk directly [because] I am here to interpret between the two of you … I realized this was an “ah-ha” moment for both of us. I realized I could successfully “break out of my role” and have the interaction go smoothly.

This was truly important to her because, on reflection, she stated, “For the rest of the semester I noticed the level of comfort and joking that happened is [the same as] two members of a group working together which made me feel it was a successful decision.” This is learning. And I know she will take this with her to future assignments.

Interpreter C

This interpreter worked in a graduate-level course in the university’s Hospitality and Tourism program with two Deaf students, two interpreters, nine hearing students, and one professor. She reported that this graduate course is different from her other undergraduate assignments owing to the interlocutors being “more casual and comfortable with themselves.” During the semester, they all go on several field trips to local restaurants for class assignments and “they become more comfortable with each other throughout the semester.” She also reflected that

presentation of self was high and social interaction was more in line with the escort interpreter [in the text, p. 86]. The students would ask me for advice on [local] restaurants because they knew I was a foodie and live [in town] for over 15 years.

Once again, the interpreter was seen as human, as a participant, rather than a conduit (Roy, 2000).

The relationship built through rapport and past interactions makes the interpretation easier but I must be more aware of not being so high on my presentation of self … when it is not necessary for a successful interpretation.

This awareness of presentation of self and recognition of alignment certainly fulfilled the goal of the project, and she came to this conclusion herself. Perfect!

Moving Forward

The apparent goal of this CPD was to explore the concept of role-space, but the underlying goal was to explore and apply a more sophisticated understanding of a specific interpreting assignment through active learning, application of that learning to current experience, and self-reflection of the entire process. As the facilitator, I found the topic a rich and sophisticated one for interpreters to embrace. As a result of this first effort, several webinars have been offered for professional interpreters around the world (TIEM Center, 2020). These online CPDs offer support to interpreters as they face the challenges of their work, as they reflect on their effectiveness, as they strive to provide their best to the interlocutors they meet on a daily basis. Hopefully, with a better understanding of role-space, interpreters can become more confident and comfortable with their decisions. As for online opportunities, DAS continues to offer a few every semester, sometimes including a face-to-face portion (R. Peterson, personal communication). And webinars abound! Announcements for CPDs appear in my email box on a regular basis. The interpreter needs to be a savvy consumer to determine whether they support critical thinking and self-reflection or whether they are merely another platform for simply counting hours.

Fortunately, the concept of role-space is being infused into the work of professional interpreters (e.g., Devaux, 2017; Haualand & Ringsø, 2015) and in the basic education of interpreters—most notably in the Netherlands. Hammer and van den Bogaerde (2017) developed a “didactic approach to train undergraduate sign language interpreters on their interpersonal and reflective skills … Based predominantly on the theory of role-space by Llewellyn-Jones and Lee …” (p. 63). And Rød Michalsen’s recent presentation (2018) focused on “role-space in an everyday life as an interpreter.” Fitzmaurice (in press) also includes role-space in an upcoming publication on educational interpreters in the United States. From this perspective, at this point in my career, the future requires us to be human—certainly remembering that it is not “our” lives but “their” lives and so the decisions are theirs and not ours. But also remember that successful communication requires that all the interlocutors participate. Role-space gives us the foundation to assess how, when, and how much.

Notes

1.Although RID uses the acronym CMP for its program, this chapter will continue to use the widely accepted CPD as the umbrella acronym to avoid confusion.

2.Enrollment numbers differ every year, as does the number of interpreters, but not to a significant degree.

3.RIT’s umbrella acronym is IST, In-Service Training. This chapter will continue to use CPD.

4.People hours = number of events times the number of approved registrations, an RIT in-house calculation (see Appendix A).

References

Devaux, J. (2017). Technologies in interpreter-mediated criminal court hearings: An actor-network theory account of the interpreter’s perception of her role-space [Doctoral thesis, The University of Salford]. Open Research Online. http://oro.open.ac.uk/54390

Fitzmaurice, S. B. (2021). The role of the educational interpreter: Perceptions of administrators and teachers. Gallaudet University Press.

Frishberg, N. (1986). Interpreting: An introduction. RID Publications.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

Hammer, A., & van den Bogaerde, B. (2017). Sign language interpreting education: Reflections on interpersonal skills. In L. Cirillo & N. Niemants (Eds.), Teaching dialogue interpreting: Research-based proposals for higher education (pp. 64–81). John Benjamins.

Haualand, H., & Ringsø, T. (2015, September). Co-constructing role-space [Paper presentation]. European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters Conference, Warsaw, Poland.

Janzen, T., & Shaffer, B. (2008). Intersubjectivity in interpreted interactions: The interpreter’s role in co-constructing meaning. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 333–355). John Benjamins.

Lee, R. G., Winston, E. A., Monikowski, C., & Weisman, L. (2018) Face to face vs. screen to screen: Re-envisioning online continuing professional development for interpreters. In E. A. Winston, R. G. Lee, & C. Monikowski (Eds.), Reaching new heights in interpreter education: Proceedings of the conference of interpreter trainers (pp. 315–324). CIT.

Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. G. (2014). Re-defining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. SLI Press.

Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Gallaudet University Press.

Monikowski, C. (2015). Role-space: You’ve heard the term but what does it mean? In-service Training for Department of Access Services. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY.

Monikowski, C. (2016, June 26–July 1). Role-space for interpreters working in the post-secondary setting [Presentation]. Critical Link 8 conference. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2019, December 12). Certification maintenance program. https://rid.org/continuing-education/certification-maintenance/

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2020, April 13). Code of professional conduct. https://rid.org/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Professional Development Committee. (2013, Spring/Summer). Happy birthday CMP! VIEWS, 30(2), 21. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1wurqZtcLLlUVhnYXJiQWpCYmM

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

Rød Michalsen, M. (2018, February). Practice in theory: The concept of role-space in an everyday life as an interpreter [Presentation]. Theory in Practice—Practice in Theory: The 8th Nordic Seminar for Sign Language Interpreters.

TIEM Center. (2020, April 14). Home. https://tiemcenter.org/

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.

Winston, E. A. (2006). Enhancing critical thinking and active learning in online courses. In E. M Maroney (Ed.), A new chapter in interpreter education: Accreditation, research, and technology. Proceedings of the conference of interpreter trainers (pp. 167–182). CIT.

Winston, E. A., & Monikowski, C. (2000). Discourse mapping: Developing textual coherence skills in interpreters. In C. Roy (Ed.), Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters (pp. 15–66). Gallaudet University Press.

Appendix A

Department of Access Services

Training Data for FY 2018–2019
Professional Development Courses: Professional Development Courses (PDCs) offer in-depth work with current best practices, content, interpreting and linguistic theory, and skills-focused activities, Culture, Diversity and Inclusion and professionalism and ethics topics. PDCs typically run 1–2 hr each week for the full semester. PDCs can be traditional face-to-face events or they may be offered online.

Small Group PD Courses: Small groups are self-selected, private groups of up to 6 people with specific interest in a particular topic or skill set. They are typically 7–15 weeks in duration during the regular academic semester or for a few sessions during exam/break weeks.

Workshops: Workshops are principally an exposure mechanism to current best practices, academic content, interpreting and linguistic theory, and skills-focused activities, helpful/assistive technology, and Culture, Diversity and Inclusion, professionalism and Ethics topics. Workshops are typically 2–6 hr in duration; offered during breaks between semesters.

Seminars: These mini-PD workshops offer an opportunity for interpreters to get a “bite sized” bit of information on a variety of topics. Seminars are often presented by DAS ASL consultants on topics related to trends in ASL and the vernacular that students are using that interpreters need to know! These seminars are also an opportunity for tune-ups on academic content and commonly used terminology and signs related to an upcoming campus event. Seminars generally run 1-hr and are offered periodically during the regular semester.

Professional Development Program Trainings October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019 194 people participated in the PDP Program in the last fiscal year.

*People hours= Number of Events × Number of Approved registrations.

Appendix B

Role-space: You’ve Heard the Term, But What Does It Mean?

Project guidelines

The primary goal of this project is to acquire knowledge about one’s own role-space in an actual ongoing interpreting assignment. This will require you to practice your “powers of observation” as well as apply information from our readings (specifically the Llewelyn-Jones and Lee text).

Given our readings and discussions, you will be creating a written and a visual representation of the role-space in a specific interpreting assignment. Some of the things you need to consider (definitely not all of these):

•Your presentation of self

What are the “requirements” for this setting?

How do the other interlocutors present themselves?

What factors do you consider to help you decide on your own presentation?

Was your first presentation of self successful?

Did you make any adjustments as time went on—what, how, why? Be specific.

If you had the opportunity to begin again, would you do it differently?

•Social expectations of all involved

What “footing” has been established in this setting? What is the relationship between speakers?

How do they interact with the hearing students? With the Deaf students? With you?

Where and how do you fit into these expectations?

Are these expectations a challenge for you? Why or why not? How?

•What specific points from the Llewelyn-Jones and Lee text apply? What about some of the other readings?

Visual representation—given Llewelyn-Jones and Lee’s attempts to visually represent the concept of role-space, you will need to create a visual image of the assignment you analyzed for this project. I uploaded a template to our website as a guide for the poster you need to create, and I’ll have a place for you to upload it to [internal website] so you can share this poster with everyone.

In addition, you will create a brief video presentation (approximately 3 min) where you can share your thoughts about that poster.

Sections of this chapter originally appeared in the 2018 Proceedings of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (Lee, Winston, Monikowski, & Weisman, 2018) and are used here with permission from CIT. Other sections were originally presented at the 2016 Critical Link 8 conference at Heriot-Watt University/Edinburgh, Scotland (Monikowski, 2016).