Promoting Deaf Community Autonomy Through Interpreter Education Programs and CCIE Accreditation

Ernest C. Willman M.Ed. CDI, ASLTA, CPC; Tucson, Arizona

Ernest is a faculty member at Pima Community College, teaching American Sign Language, Interpreting, and Deaf Culture. Ernest holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication Studies and American Sign Language from Gallaudet University, as well as a Masters of Education in Higher Education from Drexel University. He completed his doctoral studies (working on his dissertation now) at Lamar University, with research interests in Deaf identity development, language deprivation, and the ASL/English interpreting field. He also owns a business that focuses on life coaching, leadership consultation, interpretation, and translation (English to ASL).

Pauline M. Ballentine Ed.D., CDI, Colorado Legal Credential; Evans, Colorado

Pauline holds a Doctor of Education in Deaf Studies Deaf Education at Lamar University. She is an interpreter, educator, freelance interpreter, translator, and trainer. She also demonstrates extensive training and assessment experience in interpreting nationally. She currently serves as the board chair at the Rocky Mountain Deaf School. She has extensive leadership experience, having served on high-level boards at both local and national levels. Her research focuses on Deaf and hearing interpreting, including American Sign Language, in various settings that impact the interpreting process and language itself.

ASL Video: https://youtu.be/I1gfYpoOd4w?si=vZMnC7aJX44D0A8M

Promoting Deaf Community Autonomy Through Interpreter Education Programs and CCIE Accreditation

Introduction

The significance of interpreter education programs working with the Deaf community to promote stronger ties between the Deaf population and the English-speaking world is covered in this article. Interpreter education programs require standards as they are responsible for training aspiring interpreters and exposing students to the Deaf community. The only accreditation organization for interpreter education programs is the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE).

CCIE’s mission is to promote professionalism in the field of interpreter education through: the accreditation of professional preparation programs; the development and revision of interpreter education standards; the encouragement of excellence in program development; a national and international dialogue on the preservation and advancement of standards in the field of interpreter and higher education; and the application of the knowledge, skills, and ethics of the profession. (Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education, n.d., para. 2)

The standards set by CCIE that are applied in accredited interpreter education programs teach the importance of delivering accurate, culturally sensitive services while upholding the distinctive norms and values of the Deaf community as its autonomy rises. The Deaf community is not as heavily included in decision-making in regard to interpreter education based on Harker’s (2021) and Suggs’s (2012) experiences. In this article, we propose how values-based collaboration between the Deaf community and interpreter education programs may enhance communication outcomes and advance social justice; therefore, reducing the gap between the Deaf community and the English-speaking world.

Interpreter Education Programs

The dynamic field of American Sign Language (ASL) and English interpreting is an essential bridge that connects Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing individuals with the broader English-speaking world. Within the United States, interpreter education programs play a pivotal role in shaping the competencies, skills, and ethical foundations of their students. This introduction sets the stage for a comprehensive analysis of interpreter education programs in the United States, underscoring their significance, evolution, and the critical issues surrounding their delivery.

ASL/English interpreters act as crucial communication bridges, ensuring that Deaf and hardof-hearing individuals gain access to vital information, services, and opportunities across a wide spectrum, including healthcare, education, legal contexts, and daily community interactions. Their multifaceted role demands a unique combination of linguistic proficiency, cultural acumen, and ethical discernment, necessitating interpreter education programs to offer comprehensive instruction that caters to the intricate demands of the profession. Throughout the years, interpreter education programs have dynamically evolved in response to shifting expectations and needs. Based on national criteria set by groups like the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and five other stakeholder groups, the CCIE was founded in 2006 with the goal of enhancing professionalism in the field of sign language interpreter education (Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education, 2024). Furthermore, recognizing ASL as a legitimate and distinct language (Stokoe, 1980) and acknowledging the diversity within the Deaf community have instigated transformative changes in technological advancements within curriculum design and pedagogical strategies within these programs (Van der Wind & Mooij, 2019).

Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education Requirements

The CCIE provides standards that, “address institutional practices, faculty governance, curriculum development, practicum supervision, and assessment of interpreter education” (Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education, 2019, para. 1) within the United States and Canada. Unaccredited programs are free to choose not to uphold the requirements; only accredited programs are obligated to do so. The CCIE standards, particularly in sections 5.0 and 6.0, imply and encourage autonomy within the Deaf community and underscore the need for greater promotion and expansion of accredited interpreting programs. Standard 5.0 emphasizes the importance of teaching-learning strategies and curriculum development and calls for a curriculum that is aligned with the program’s mission, values, and student outcomes; evaluates students’ ASL and English competency; sets entrance and exit standards; and integrates current events (CCIE, 2019). Standard 6.0 focuses on the knowledge competencies in interpreter education, including conceptual interpretation, historical context, ethical issues, and customer communication techniques (CCIE, 2019). It also emphasizes diversity, the interpreting profession, evidence-based research, professionalism, and human relations (CCIE, 2019). The curriculum map should accurately define and include these competencies. CCIE emphasizes the Deaf community’s active involvement in interpreter education, ensuring Deaf cultural views and linguistic insights are incorporated into the training and standards requirements.

Autonomy - What Does It Look Like in the Deaf Community

Deaf autonomy is the right of Deaf people to make their own decisions about their lives, their culture, and their language (Padden, 2007). It is about recognizing Deaf people as capable and competent individuals who have the right to determine their own paths (Padden, 2007). Audism and the pathologization of deafness impact the lived experience of Deaf people. Audism, the belief that hearing people are superior to Deaf people, has led to discrimination against Deaf people and the denial of their right to use ASL (Eckert & Rowley, 2013). The pathologization of Deaf people has led to efforts to “fix” them through unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions, perpetuating the notion that Deaf people have inherent deficiencies (Lane et al., 1996). These issues collectively contribute to the marginalization of Deaf people and highlight the need for a more inclusive and equitable society that recognizes Deaf culture and language, respects Deaf autonomy, and provides equal access to opportunities and resources. Since autonomy is socially created, it depends on the individual’s ability to make clear and well-informed decisions (MacDonald, 2002). Power dynamics, which are molded by the social interactions and institutional framework of the professional realm, impact professional interactions (Crenshaw, 1996).

Due to inherent social mechanisms that enable hearing interpreter autonomy, such as ties to the Deaf community, common work experiences, legal obligations, and payment systems, hearing interpreters reap the benefits of hearing interpreter autonomy (Witter-Merithew et al., 2010).

Autonomy issues appear in Deaf people intertwined with issues such as sign language use, access to sign language interpreters, and Deaf cultural preservation (Santini, 2015). Stories have shown that when Deaf individuals are granted the autonomy to make choices in these domains it can lead to improved educational outcomes, increased participation in the workforce, and a stronger sense of belonging within the Deaf community (Padden, 2007). Additionally, research frequently explores how societal attitudes, government policies, and institutional practices can either promote or hinder the autonomy of the Deaf community, highlighting the need for increased awareness and advocacy for Deaf rights and self-determination (Leigh et al., 2022). In sum, research on the significance of autonomy in the Deaf community underscores its pivotal role in fostering empowerment, cultural preservation, and equitable participation in society, ultimately promoting a more inclusive and just environment for Deaf individuals.

Autonomy between Interpreter Education and Deaf Community

Concern over the possible long-term effects of the decisions and deeds of ASL/English interpreters is becoming increasingly evident in Harker’s (2021) investigation of the interpreting industry. This concern also extends to how these decisions affect a broad set of people, including hearing, Deaf, and DeafBlind people (Harker, 2021). The main query posed is: What are we doing to improve the prospects for Deaf children in the future? The subjects covered in Harker’s (2021) speech include organizational structures, interpreter education initiatives, and the tenacity and impact of Deaf community leaders. According to Russell and Shaw’s (2016) research, interpreters have a critical role to play in acknowledging their privilege and power, which is necessary for directing proactive decision-making to support successful interpretation. Although most of their work is centered on the legal setting, the interpreting community at large is affected by its ramifications. Studies by Bontempo and Napier (2007), Brunson (2007), Roberson et al. (2012), Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2005), and others reveal a concerning lack of expertise and abilities provided to sign language interpreters, particularly for general practice because an excessive number of interpreters are attending schools that lack accreditation.

As previously stated, CCIE emphasizes the importance of the Deaf community’s active involvement in interpreter education. Interpreter education programs that are not accredited by CCIE should actively seek accreditation through CCIE to ensure their programs include the autonomy of the Deaf community, and Deaf interpreters in developing curricula, methods of instruction, and evaluation standards. Engaging with Deaf stakeholders and ensuring Deaf cultural views and linguistic insights are embedded in interpreter training benefits the Deaf community and the interpreting profession. Including Deaf representation is a way to develop interpreters who are not only linguistically proficient but also aware of the cultural needs of the Deaf communities they serve; hence, the interpreting profession will be elevated. The inclusion of Deaf autonomy in the curriculum within all interpreter education programs serves to effectively educate students to push for the closure of the disconnect between two different cultures and worlds.

Significance of Impact on Deaf Consumers and Interpreters

Interpreter education programs need to teach students strategies that will effectively provide Deaf consumers with autonomy while they are interpreting. Interpreters should develop their autonomy decisions to include respect for individual preferences, effective communication, enhanced cultural competence, ethical practice, improved collaboration, and increased trust (Witter-Merithew et al., 2010). By focusing on Deaf people’s autonomy, interpreter education programs teach interpreting students to increase understanding of the diverse communication styles of Deaf consumers and interpreters, which include variations in sign language, language proficiency, and cultural norms. A related scholarly article discussed that decision latitude quality decreases when there are fewer feasible alternatives due to system-bound constraints, inadequate training, or lack of expertise, and an interpreter’s moral behavior is compromised when they lack personal autonomy (Witter-Merithew et al., 2010). Autonomy discussions with interpreting students also promote cultural competence, enhancing interpreting students’ ability to provide culturally sensitive interpretations.

Autonomy discussions align with ethical principles of confidentiality, accuracy and impartiality, emphasizing the importance of providing interpreting services in the best interest of the Deaf consumer and interpreters. Trust is built in the interpreting process when Deaf consumers and interpreters see hearing interpreters value their autonomy and choices (Foster, 2018; Reinhardt, 2021). Developing a shared feedback foundation from members of the interpreting community will result in fresh, practical recommendations that will improve the research being done on Deaf autonomy in interpreter education.

Recommendations

The authors propose that programs for interpreter education that are not accredited by CCIE include a clear focus on Deaf autonomy in their curriculum. We also recommend that they strive for CCIE accreditation, as well. The authors encourage all interpreter education programs to have clear standards that seek to improve accessibility and maintain respect for the autonomy of Deaf consumers. The following suggestions are intended for interpreter program developers to include on how to engage with Deaf consumers and their communication preferences.

• When creating curriculum and instructional methodologies for interpreter education programs, it is critical to consider the diverse educational backgrounds and perspectives of Deaf people.

• The program outcomes should emphasize the autonomy of Deaf people, recognizing and utilizing their unique skills and perspectives. Giving Deaf people a voice in curriculum design, training, and decision-making processes is recommended for interpreter education programs. Program faculty should also consider the CCIE standards 5.0 and 6.0 as a reference when crafting or revising the curriculum.

• Research activity in the field should explore and document the impact of incorporating Deaf people into interpreter education programs. Investigating the outcomes of such inclusion can contribute valuable insights into the effectiveness of training initiatives, cultural competence development, and overall improvements in the quality of interpreter education.

In conclusion, the authors emphasize that collaborative effort between the Deaf community and interpreter education programs is needed to forge robust connections between the Deaf community and the English-speaking world. Recognizing the pivotal role of interpreter education programs and valuing the significant contribution of the Deaf community in promoting Deaf autonomy is key to this endeavor. The CCIE accreditation, dedicated to outcomes creation, fellowships, preservation discussions, and ethical application, stands as a guiding light, enhancing the professionalism of interpreter education. Embracing these values holds the potential to benefit both the Deaf community and the field of interpretation, ultimately contributing to a more integrated and inclusive society.

References

Bontempo, K. & Napier, J. (2007). Mind the gap! A skills analysis of sign language interpreters. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1(2), 275-299.

Brunson, J. L. (2007). Your case will now be heard: Sign language interpreters as problematic accommodations in legal interactions. Journal of deaf studies and Deaf Education, 13(1). 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ deafed/enm032

Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Educa tion. (n.d.). Home https://www.ccie-accreditation.org/

Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Educa tion. (2019). Standards. https://www.ccie-accreditation.org/standards.html

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thom as, K. (1996). Critical Race Theory: The key writings that formed the movement. The New Press.

Eckert, R. C., & Rowley, A. J. (2013). Audism: A theory and practice of audiocentric privilege. Humanity & Society, 37(2), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597613481731

Foster, M. (2018, October 2). Erosion of Trust: Sign Language Interpreters and Hearing Privilege. [Conference session]. StreetLeverage-Live. https://streetleverage.com/2018/10/ erosion-of-trust-sign-language-interpreters-and-hearing-privilege/

Harker, H. (2021, September 2). Authority: Why it matters to sign language interpreters. [Conference session]. StreetLeverage, Austin, TX, United States. https://streetleverage. com/live_presentations/authority-why-it-matters-to-sign-language-interpreters/

Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the Deaf-world. Dawn Sign Press.

Leigh, I. W., Andrews, J. F., Harris, R. L., & González, Á. (2022). Deaf culture: Exploring Deaf communities in the United States. Plural Publishing.

MacDonald, C. (2002). Nursing autonomy as relational. Nursing Ethics, 9(194), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733002ne498oa

Padden, C. (2007). Deaf autonomy: An inter pretation. The Deaf Studies Reader, 57-70.

Reinhardt, L. R. (2021). Swift trust formation: Experiences of Deaf consumers and ASL-English interpreters (Publication No. 28415793). [Doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Roberson, L., Russell, D., & Shaw, R. (2012). A case for training signed language interpreters for legal specialization. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 4(2), 52-73.

Russell, D., & Shaw, R. (2016). Power and privilege: An exploration of decision-making of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation, 25(1). https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/ vol25/iss1/7

Santini, J. (2015, March 6). A dangerous idea: Autonomy in Deaf education. [Video]. TEDx Talks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiptJm48Ghk

Stokoe, W. C. (1980). Sign language structure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 365–390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155741

Suggs, T. (2012, December 11) Deaf Disem powerment and Today’s Interpreter [Conference session]. StreetLeverage-Live. https:// streetleverage.com/live_presentations/ deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/

Van der Wind, E., & Mooij, A. (2019). Deaf edu cation in the 21st century: A global perspective. Springer.

Witter-Merithew, A., & Johnson, L. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.

Witter-Merithew, A., Johnson, L., & Nicodemus, B. (2010). Relational Autonomy and Decision-Latitude of ASL-English Interpreters. In Proceedings of the 18th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, pp. 49-66, San Antonio, TX.