Duty to Report: Collective Accountability for Sign Language Interpreters

Mish Ktejik EdD, NIC, SC:L, OHCI

Mish began interpreting in 2004 as a student interpreter in Milwaukee, WI, under the watchful eye of the Deaf communities. She graduated from Gallaudet University in 2009 with MA degrees in Linguistics and Interpretation. She holds an Ed.D in Leadership with a focus of Second Language instruction. Her dissertation explored the leadership experience of RID Affiliate Chapter board members. Mish is currently the department chair for the ASL/ English Interpreting Program at Portland Community College and teaches courses on ethics, interpreting processes, business practices, and the profession of interpreting. She’s previously served as a board of director for RID, ORID treasurer, and chair for ORID and PCRID committees. She spends her free time reading and cuddling with kittens. She is passionate about life long learning, teaching, and having a positive impact on communities.

Duty to Report: Collective Accountability for Sign Language Interpreters

ASL Video: https://youtu.be/biWVVAltT34?si=ITrQIS7I6EPHi2SD

In June 2023, RID’s Ethical Practices System was revised, making crucial changes necessary for upholding the standards of our field. One of the changes promotes collective accountability for anyone who witnesses or is aware of unprofessional conduct. Beginning Fiscal Year 2025 Membership Renewal, witness reporting goes even further by implementing a ‘duty to report’ practice. Failure to report known or perceived prohibited behaviors or activities will be cause for actionable discipline to any interpreter aware of a potential violation but chooses to stay silent.

The ‘duty to report’ policy marks a significant culture shift for our profession. With this policy, the interpreting profession joins the ranks of physicians, nurses, social workers, and other licensed professionals who are often required by laws or codes of ethics to report unethical behavior of colleagues. The requirement to report protects consumers by holding all professionals collectively accountable for individual behavior and for upholding the integrity of RID certifications.

It can be difficult to report a fellow interpreter’s behavior, especially if you know the report might impact their reputation or their livelihood. We have to remember that in situations like these, silence is consent. Ignoring a violation does not help your colleague and, even more important, staying silent causes harm to the Deaf communities and damages the credibility of the profession.

As an interpreter, I am familiar with the common practice of avoiding addressing potential CPC violations directly. I am guilty of looking the other way or taking a more passive aggressive approach. Unethical or unskilled interpreters might be subtly (or not so subtly) ostracized from the community, a hurtful yet common social practice in collectivist societies and groups that value skill-based performance (Kroon et al., 1991; Rudert et al., 2023). Yet this collective action ultimately results in less individual accountability as it gives way to collective avoidance (Kroon et al., 1991). At the most basic level, avoiding reporting unethical behavior is a show of solidarity, one that takes a stand AGAINST marginalized communities (Kendall, 2020).

I deeply understand that it is easier to keep one’s head down and stay silent. In my 20 years of interpreting across 8 different states, I have had very little oversight. No one holds me accountable, and I am not responsible for holding other people accountable. RID’s duty to report policy changes our professional landscape. We are now ethically obligated to report unprofessional conduct and can be held accountable if we say nothing.

RID is making strides to protect consumers, but it is only the first step towards real change. We as individuals will have to change how we view our work. Collective avoidance has been replaced with collective accountability.

Lateral leadership is the practice of influencing the performance of a professional peer. Used effectively, these horizontal influences are enormously beneficial, resulting in increased leadership skills, a stronger social support system, and a higher level of performance (Zhu et al., 2016). Ineffective attempts to influence colleagues through repeated incivility, criticism, shaming, or undermining behavior result in horizontal violence, damaging the individual and the profession (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). Lateral leadership, the opposite of horizontal violence, is a skill we can develop to support our peers and improve the culture of our field. It is understandable that lateral leadership skills are foreign to us, and that we balk at any appearance of sideways management. Many of us grew up in a hierarchical world where authority figures set and enforce the standards of behavior. Teachers or supervisors were called on to lay down the law, relieving us of learning the art of holding peers accountable.

As our profession develops, interpreters need training beyond interpreting skills and emotional intelligence, we need to be taught lateral leadership skills. When lateral leadership skills are not intentionally taught, horizontal violence occurs, causing harm to professionals and consumers alike (Hardee & Whichello, 2023). As we move into an era of higher collective and individual accountability, leadership skills will be valuable in holding ourselves and each other to professional standards.

This new era brings a paradigm shift. Interpreters largely work in a profession of independent contractors. There is no supervisor watching us, no performance reviews. We are in a position of power over Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing (DDBHH) clients and hearing clients praise our beautiful signs. Couple our power with a lack of interpreters, and DDBHH are left feeling reluctant to file any complaint against an interpreter.

Our team, if we are lucky enough to have one, is often in the best position to identify any unethical behavior on our part but is unlikely to speak out due to professional norms and lack of training. If a fellow interpreter does speak out, it often goes awry and is quickly labeled horizontal violence, discouraging others from speaking out.

With RID’s new policies enforcing accountability and integrity for interpreters, collective responsibility and positive lateral support systems become even more important. Creating a culture of shared leadership can raise the performance and ethical behavior of the entire profession.

Lateral leadership is not an easy responsibility, but it can be learned through experience and formal study. Learning how to effectively influence colleagues’ behavior with a positive approach sometimes feels like a moving target, one I have often missed.

My first memorable experience with lateral leadership happened shortly after I became a full time faculty member at an interpreting program. I noticed a shift in the community as soon as I accepted the position. Community members began sharing their unfiltered thoughts about interpreters, expecting me to address unethical or unskilled behaviors of working interpreters - a task far outside of my role as a faculty member.

Lateral leadership, sometimes called sideways managing, was completely out of my comfort zone (and still is). I avoided responding to the community comment until one evening I was interpreting an academic presentation on a socially relevant topic. Very quickly, I realized my team was in over their head, presenting an unintelligible interpretation. Worse yet, they seemed unaware that their skill level did not match the requirements of the job. I did my best to feed and fill in what I could, and attempted to take longer and longer turns.

At the end of the presentation, my team asked the Deaf clients for feedback. Put on the spot, both clients gave vague compliments to my team, sidestepping any specifics. Confused and doubting myself, I also said nothing, defaulting to interpreting norms of staying silent.

A week later, the Deaf clients contacted me, expressing frustration with the interpreter and the unclear interpretation. They asked me to tell the other interpreter to stop taking work until their skills improved. I was stunned by the request. It would be inappropriate for me to approach the other interpreter, right? I have no authority over them nor was I a client. At the time, I was surprised the Deaf clients avoided giving honest feedback. Since then, I have learned more about the oppression of Deaf people by interpreters and realized this reluctance is common.

At that time, I viewed the Deaf communities as the authority on giving feedback to interpreters. I naively expected DDBHH individuals to be comfortable sharing their thoughts and intervening when necessary and was confused by their reluctance. Now I understand that in this situation, as in so many others, the Deaf clients did not feel comfortable approaching the interpreter who was a member of the hearing, privileged, oppressive majority and who, from that position of power, had unwittingly oppressed the Deaf clients further by providing an unskilled interpretation.

Instead, the clients turned to me, a privileged hearing interpreter in a position of authority who could be a proxy, protecting their identity and reducing the risk of further oppression.

I admit that I did everything I could to avoid taking individual responsibility for another interpreter’s interpretation. I urged the Deaf clients to contact the person directly. I stated all the reasons I was not qualified to critique a colleague or ask them to stop interpreting. I suggested contacting the agency. If the interpreter had been certified, I would have suggested filing a complaint with RID. I hid behind ‘empowering the client’ when they were asking me to be an accomplice.

At the end of the conversation, the Deaf clients’ request was clear and I agreed to contact my team. Keeping the clients’ complaints confidential, I contacted the interpreter and asked them if they would be open to feedback. It was my first intentional attempt at lateral leadership and I was hugely relieved when the interpreter was open to having a conversation about their skills.

Since then, I have been asked to intervene with other interpreters as well. And I do, feeling awkward every time. Some attempts have gone very well. Those conversations are inspiring and I enjoy the collaboration that comes out of it. Other conversations were muddled through as I failed to communicate well, leaving the other interpreter feeling angry, shamed, or defensive.

Over time, a pattern emerged. In the conversations that go poorly, the interpreters often defend themselves using statements such as “none of my clients have ever complained” followed closely by “that can’t be true because I have Deaf friends who understand me.” These arguments echo the common line “I can’t be racist/homophobic/transphobic because I have a friend who is Black/gay/trans.”

The interpreting profession is entering an era of higher standards and an increased level of accountability. We can no longer be a part of collective avoidance when we see unethical choices, oppressive behavior, or unskilled interpretations. Instead we must practice holding ourselves and others accountable to demonstrate ethical, skilled, culturally appropriate behavior.

Lateral leadership is a shift in the traditional power structure, one that needs to happen to protect clients and improve our profession. Interpreters, myself included, often stay in our privileged bubble, unaware of our oppressive behavior because it largely goes unchecked. Let us not make the error of assuming a lack of complaints is the equivalent of a job well done. We make our living off of marginalized communities, and we cannot put the burden of accountability on them. We need to hold ourselves and each other to a higher level of professionalism. Together we can create a system of individual and collective accountability.

Below are some suggestions to support shared accountability:

• Create a community of deliberate practice. Meet with a partner or a small group and commit to analyzing your interpreting skills on a regular basis.

• Participate in regular supervision sessions to review and discuss decisions made during previous assignments.

• Engage in reflective practices. Reflect on what you did during an assignment, why you chose that action, and whether it was successful. Consider other options and make a plan for applying them in the future.

• Self-assess your skills at least once a year. Record your work and review it, checking for language fluency and message accuracy.

• Formally assess your skills every few years by taking a performance assessment or a language proficiency assessment that provides detailed feedback.

• Get in a habit of discussing feedback protocol during your pre-assignment agreements with your team. Ask them if they would be open to giving and receiving feedback.

• Ask before giving feedback. An interpreter might not be in the right mental or emotional space to receive feedback, and you may not be the right person to provide feedback.

• Create positive connections with colleagues by taking a team approach to the work.Lateral leadership works best between people who have developed trust and a shared understanding.

There will be times when you attempt to lead laterally and it may not be well-received. Reflect on those experiences and commit to the life long work of matching your intent with the impact. Our profession is changing. RID’s new EPS Policy and Enforcement Procedures is evidence of that change, but true change cannot happen just on paper. It takes individual commitment to do the work of holding ourselves and each other accountable for our choices and performance. As we continue to have the privilege of working as interpreters, collective accountability supports our goal of providing the highest level of service possible for Deaf communities.

References

Becher, J., & Visovsky, C. (2012). Horizontal vi olence in nursing. Medsurg Nursing, 21(4), 210.

Hardee, A. & Whichello, R. (2023). The role of leadership in prevention of horizontal violence in nursing. NE Board of Nursing.

Kendall, M. (2021). Hood feminism: Notes from the women that a movement forgot. Penguin.

Koçak, D. (2019). New Leadership dynamics in the information age: lateral leadership and thought leadership. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(38), 223-241.

Kroon, M. B., Hart, P. T., & Van Kreveld, D. (1991). Managing group decision making processes: Individual versus collective accountability and groupthink. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(2), 91115.

Rudert, S. C., Möring, J. N., Kenntemich, C., & Büttner, C. M. (2023). When and why we ostracize others: Motivated social exclusion in group contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834-852.