Shirley:  Can you introduce yourself please?

David: Hi I'm David McQuiggin and I'm from Sydney in New South Wales.

Shirley: Great, Nice to meet you David, I'm Shirley. We're here to talk about interpreting and its ethics. Which I know is a big topic. Myself and others are looking forward to hearing about your thoughts and experiences in your work and to share that valuable information with the community. I'm looking forward to learning from you David.



David: Oh, okay.

Shirley: No pressure right? Ha-ha you'll be fine.

David:   Okay, Well... When it comes to ethics there are no black or white prescribed rules as such. ASLIA has a Code of Ethics, and spoken language interpreters have their own set of ethics too as well as our own set of morals, values and ethics too. In regards to interpreting, we have the ASLIA Code or Ethics available for us to read and refer to. However when an ethical dilemma presents itself in our work, the Code doesn't give us the specific answers that we're looking for. It is difficult as we know the issues that arise in interpreting are so diverse and complex. Take the NDIS for example.



Shirley: I know since the roll out of the NDIS we have seen work in places where the boundaries may not be as well defined. Can you tell me David, in your experience as an interpreter, what are some of the effects you've seen?



David: If we're talking about right now, it would be the impact the NDIS has had on social inclusion. People are able to book interpreters for different type of events like parties and social gatherings. Deaf parents with non-deaf children are able to book their own interpreter to talk to their kid's friend's parents while their kids have a play-date together. Interpreting in those informal social settings is unprecedented. Now with the NDIS it's happening more and more. For me as an interpreter, I am a guest in Deaf people's personal lives. I suppose prior to the NDIS I was still interpreting and a part of Deaf people's lives. How do I explain this? This space, we're working in- their home that for me is big. As an interpreter I need to modify the way I work in that space. It would be like interpreting at a 21st party all proper, stiff and robotic. It wouldn't work.

Shirley:  Of course you would adjust the register depending on whom and where you were working.

David:  Yeah, there's an ethical decision that you need to make. This isn't just something new for interpreters; this is a new frontier for the Deaf community also. It's a hard one Shirley. I don't have an answer.

I do feel that interpreters in training, newer, early career interpreters and even some experienced interpreters too want an answer for everything. But it is so contextual it really depends on many factors







Shirley: Do you think it would be beneficial to make some changes to the Code of ethics and include some examples to make it clearer for interpreters to follow and get the information they seek? Like you said in its current form there are no real answers found in the code for ethical dilemmas in specific situations.

David: In theory having a Code of Ethics with answers to every possible dilemma would be great but it's simply impossible to cover the breadth and depth of work we do. Also your set of personal ethics Shirley differ to mine. I have the professional ethics as well as my own ethics which are quite intuitive and personal. I like to eat meat but I know that other people don't as it goes against their own ethics. It's tricky. 



Shirley: I think you're right in saying some deaf people may not understand the Code of Ethics well enough and may ask interpreters to do certain things that are not within the scope of their work and what they've learnt throughout their training. This can lead to a bit of conflict. What's your strategy to best inform people of work limitations?



David: If we talk about 'Grassroots Deaf people' they can lack the understanding of how interpreters work within the Ethical framework. Um it's a hard one. You see I wear many different hats, I'm David, and I'm an Auslan interpreter, ASLIA NSW/ACT Committee's President. There are interpreters who would say that those who are not certified shouldn't work as interpreters. As they've worked hard to gain their certification and others who haven't are taking their work. 



 Shirley: So who's responsible to manage that? 



David: Well perhaps they lack the necessary experience; this perhaps is another ethical dilemma in how they cope. If they are unable to manage a certain situation, if conflicts arise or lack of insurance coverage for example.

Shirley: Now with the roll out of the NDIS and the demand for interpreting increasing, do you think there is enough training provided in the way of Ethics? Do you think there are enough resources for interpreters?



David: I think there needs to be more of a focus on ethics, definitely. We need to be constantly reminding people about how important they are. I read the Code of Ethics regularly myself and I'm self reflecting all the time to ensure I am staying true to the ethics. Often what happens is interpreters attend PDs, come away with learning that aren't put into action and are subsequently lost. As interpreters we need maintain self reflection and think about the work we're doing. We're part of a profession; we provide a service which has impacts on both Deaf and non-deaf people that we work with.  

Shirley: You're an experienced interpreter with 12 years under your belt; do you have any significant concerns from what you've seen in regards to interpreter ethics?





David: Well I guess at the moment with the NDIS, money is probably the big concern.

Shirley: Can you elaborate?



David: Now that interpreters are approached to work directly for Deaf people, the issues around rates and conditions are a concern. Deaf consumers are able to pick and choose cheaper interpreters but a low price doesn't always mean quality. It's like comparing The Reject Shop to David Jones. It has it benefits for deaf people. There is a risk that interpreters may accept direct work from a client which was previously allocated to them through an agency. 

Shirley: What would you do in that situation?

David: I would direct the deaf person to contact the agency I'm employed through to book further work.

Shirley: But if the deaf person is adamant that they want to book you privately. Perhaps they don't want to use the agency, they'd rather you directly?

David: There are other ways to be contacted. If I'm booked through the agency then I have an ethical obligation and I must honour that relationship with the agency. I am only there with the Deaf person at that time as I've been allocated by the agency. It's not appropriate to indulge in those conversations. As a professional I owe it to the agency and the booking client to enter into those discussions. Now in the age of Social Media, there are multiple avenues to contact interpreters offsite.

Shirley: Would it be fair to say that some interpreters may not be aware or lack the understanding  of these boundaries? What would you suggest they be mindful of when managing these situations?

David: Again, it depends. As professionals, we need to be mindful of the potential situations that may arise and have strategies in place for those. We need to make sure that any decision we make is carefully considered. Like speaking with other interpreters who may have developed their own sort of check list when it comes to accepting a booking. Making sure they are being accountable, available, maintaining their integrity and are competent for the job. 

Shirley: What would be your advice to interpreters beginning their career in regards to staying ethical and in the context of the NDIS?

David:  There are three things, always reflect on yourself and your work. Secondly, talk with other interpreters. Either over the phone or a video chat with an experienced colleague you can talk to. 

Keep learning. There are always new experiences and situations arising. It's impossible to experience all of them in your career. By chatting with your peers, having larger discussions, others are able to benefit and learn from your experiences too. These conversations become tools that interpreters can carry with them and use when making their own decisions in similar situations. 

Just back on a previous question you had asked Shirley, about education, training and professional development. Don't get me wrong the roll out of the NDIS is great, but there are still gaps in information. 

Are the Deaf community being educated adequately about interpreters, booking them, managing relationships, roles, rates of pay, how the interpreter navigates all of this and the NDIS under their ethical framework? It's continuous learning for them as much as it is for interpreters. We will never understand all the moving parts.

I would say it's important for everyone to know that the code of ethics isn't a prescriptive set of rules, it's a guide and again it all depends.

Shirley: You're right David. I hope now moving forward that interpreters are able to keep having these discussions. Its 2019 now, technology is moving forward fast, as is the NDIS. Hopefully with the new landscape interpreters are able to manage and maintain their understanding of the ethics and how they can apply it to their work and perhaps even have the Code modified to suit the current climate.



David: You're right, have the Code of Ethics reflect the changes that have come about. We can't use it as a Bible of course, but we can use it and refer to it for guidance around decision making. 



There are interpreters who will interpret and do nothing outside the scope of that, where as others may interpret then once finished make informative comments to the parties involved. Which is the right approach?  Both really. You can't exactly take off your interpreters' hat to comment. It again comes back to the comment of education, or the lack of. It can be frustrating, we expect better. What are your thoughts Shirley?



Shirley: It's difficult. As we mentioned before, a large section of the Deaf community, those who may be 'Grassroots' or Deaf people who aren't yet actively participating in the deaf community. They're missing this information; the purpose of having an interpreter is to facilitate communication bilingually and biculturally so both parties understand each other. They in part have a responsibility to explain things.  If interpreters aren't proactive in passing on this information to either party then nothing will change?

If I was allocated to interpret at the Cochlear Centre, between a medical professional and a Deaf person and they are discussing the benefits of receiving a cochlear implant and they're talking about other Deaf people with implants and their experiences, but hit a wall and don't know where to get the information from, and turn to me as the interpreter. How do I respond? I'm being asked, permission is granted for me to respond. Or do I remain 'impartial' and not answer? What would you do in this situation David?



David: What would I do? I would want the ground to open up and swallow me whole. No, If I go back to what I was first taught as an interpreter the training was very much about remaining impartial and not to advice or give any personal opinions. However we know now that interpreters are people with a breadth of knowledge in different areas. For me, I think if I was to say 'Sorry I'm just an interpreter” and not respond that could be perceived as being quite rude. The interpreters' role was once seen as a conduit, completely impartial, relaying information back and forth between two languages. Nowadays interpreters are so involved.  Involved in many different parts of the deaf community and are privy to a lot of information. If two people were unsure, and turned to me for advice, I would give a few options that I'm aware of. 

If I didn't say anything, not only would I feel rude, after the assignment had finished I would walk away feeling uncomfortable with my choice.

Shirley: Would you say that it could affect your wellbeing?

David: Yes, Yes it would. If I provided appropriate options in response to their questions I would walk away feeling that the Deaf person has benefitted from that information, the medical professional too has knowledge in an area they didn't previously. That sits right with me. 



Shirley: Great, I think that's enough for today. Thank you David for your input. You have a lot of experience and I think it's great you've been able to share it.

David: It's a challenging topic, but worth having these conversations. Interpreters need to continue engaging in these discussions more. Thank you Shirley