8 minute read
From the Desks at HQ
Digital Membership Cards
Did you know RID members have access to a digital copy of their Member ID card? Members are able to download a digital copy directly from their member portal in just a few short steps!
Step 1: Login to your member portal
Step 2: Click the green button that says: “Printable Member Card”
The card will immediately download to your computer and/or device and you will now have access to a digital copy of your card.
For an easy-to-navigate diagram, visit: https://rid.org/membership/member-portal-navigation/
If you have any further questions, please be sure to reach out to our Member Services department via email (members@rid.org) for assistance.
RID Member Deals!
Have you checked out the exclusive RID member benefit on your profile?
Simply login and click on the teal "member deals" tile on the right side of the page!
Membership Renewal, Extension & Donation Reminders
Membership renewal is now available. If you are able, please opt to renew online through your membership portal. Please remember: You may renew your membership for FY 2021 until December 31, 2020 without penalty. FINAL CALL:
Final call for COVID Relief Donations
Interpreting @ VIEWS Archives 1981: Research Needs in Interpreting Identified COLUMN peer-based articles and columns, interpreting skill-building and continuing education opporby VIEWS Editorial Staff tunities, and local, national, and international interpreting news.
VIEWS, RID’s digital publication, is dedicated to the interpreting profession, and is about inspiring, or even instigating, thoughtful discussions among practitioners.
This publication represents a rich history of knowledge-sharing in an extremely diverse profession. We value the experiences and expertise of interpreters from every cultural, linguistic, and educational background.
VIEWS seeks to provide information to researchers and stakeholders about these specialty fields and groups in the interpreting profession. We aim to explore the interpreter’s role within this demanding social and political environment by promoting content with complex layers of experience and meaning.
Over the years, VIEWS has published contributions from the field, including research- and VIEWS has also been an avenue to report to membership on matters such as reports on the Certification Program, RID committee and Member Sections news, new publications available from RID Press, and news and highlights from RID Headquarters.
The VIEWS archives begin in 1965 with a “Happy Birthday to Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf” newsletter, listing accomplishments in the year since the founding of the Registry.
Today, RID is continuing to explore transformation and growth within the interpreting profession. VIEWS has likewise been exploring our historical archives to illuminate RID’s leadership and participation in the service of our membership and our communities. We would like to share this report from February 1981. The original report was written by VIEWS’ Home Office, and is reproduced in its entirety here.
Identification of research priorities in the field of interpreting was the focus of a conference held in Tucson, Arizona during October. Sixty-five participants from across the U.S. outlined research priorities during the four-day conference entitled, “Interpreter Research: Targets for the Eighties.” Participants in the conference included interpreters, interpreter trainers, researchers for many disciplines, representatives of government including Congressional staff members and staff of the Department of Education, consumers of interpreting service and other professionals in the field of deafness. The conference was conducted ty the National Academy of Gallaudet College through a contract with the Office for Handicapped Individuals.
Edward E. Corbett, Jr., Director of the National Academy of Gallaudet College and Vice President of RID opened the conference by explaining the task of the conference is to translate the results of the discussions and deliberations to program ideas and priority listings for interpreting research. These items will be submitted to the National Institute for Handicapped Research, or to other possible funding sources. Patricia Forsythe, Staff Director of the Senate Subcommittee for the Handicapped, was optimistic about the future of interpreter training legislation. She provided a brief history of interpreter legislation and an explanation of the new Department of Education.
Dr. Forsyth said that only one completely new program had been funded in the 1980 rehabilitation budget, and that this sole exception was for Interpreter Training Program. Nine hundred thousand dollars was appropriated for 10 awards, and the same amount is budgeted for FY 1981. She stated that the Assistant Secretary for Special Education, Edwin Martin, has indicated those funds will be monitored through his office to ensure that interpreter training will be broad-based rather than focused on one specific area like education or rehabilitation.
Dr. Forsythe discussed the new alli-
October 1980 Tucson, Arizona
ances that the Department of Educa- sciences, with particular emphasis on tion has been able to forge between interpreting research. education and rehabilitation. These He cited three important differences: hopefully, will bring about new opportunities for handicapped people in (1) Natural sciences have more preeducation, rehabilitation, and em- cise measuring systems than behaviorployment areas. Of particular impor- al sciences. tance will be the increased service potential for handicapped individuals (2) Natural sciences have a theoretin the young adult age bracket. ical base which provides a framework Wallace Babinton, Director of the new does not have such a base. Information Office of the National Institute for Handicapped Research, (3) The average person understands affirmed the institute’s commitment the importance of research in natural to research on interpreting and deaf- sciences, but has little or no appreness. He cautioned the conference to ciation for research in interpreting. focus on a specific area of interpreting research needs, rather than Dr. Lowell bluntly stated these probon broader issues in deafness because lems must be overcome if research in dealing in broad issues would not be interpreting is to be a viable aid productive. to those of us in deafness. He emwe must be willing to compromise in order to perpetuate movement towards our goals
James Stearns, Assistant Deputy of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), in the Department of Education, made an appeal for more direct communication from the field of deafness into his office. On behalf of Ed Martin, Assistant Secretary (OSERS), Dr. Stearns praised the participants for their leadership in the deafness field and their collective contributions to the progress that has been made. Dr. Stearns also met with the Directors of the 10 new Interpreter Training Programs while at the conference.
Edgar Lowell, Director of the John Tracy Clinic, and known as the “father” of the RID, addressed some of the problems confronting research in the field of interpreting. He contrasted research in the natural science with research in the behavioral for studying. Interpreting research phasized public recognition of the importance of research in deafness and interpreting as a major task that requires “thinkers” and “doers.” He noted that sometimes even people in the deafness field do not appreciate the value of research. Dr Lowell encouraged conference participants to become involved in the political process as advocates. He cautioned that we must be willing to compromise in order to perpetuate movement towards our goals.
The conference participants were divided into three rotation groups of: (1) research on utilization, (2) research on language processing, (3) research on interpreting training. Dr. Don Moores, Dr. Norm Tully and Dr. Nancy Frishburg served as group leaders for these three sub-groups. Conference participants attended each
of the three sub groups and raised questions related to research needs in each area.
After three days of open discussions on a wide range of topics, the conference participants were asked to identify priority items and outline possible research proposals in these priority areas.
Several topics discussed during the three days included entrance requirements to training programs, definition of a “good” interpreter, attitudes, communication models, consumer satisfaction, employability and job market, validity and reliability of certification standards, training materials and curriculum, standardization or training, processing of auditory and visual materials in addition to several other topics.
On the final day of the conference the participants were required to identify priority issues and rank these issues. The five areas receiving ranking were:
(1) Profile of the competent interpreter relevant to characteristic of sign language and oral interpreters
(2) Study of the RID evaluation system for the purpose of development of new evaluation materials and training of evaluators.
(3) Exit and entrance criteria for interpreter trainees to determine what is needed to produce the good interpreter with the least amount of time and money consumed and use of personnel.
(4) Labor market analysis determining the employability of interpreters in various settings and projection of needs. (5) Curriculum and materials in interpreter training programs to identify the core curriculum required by all interpreter training programs including instructional content and measurement of its effectiveness. These five priority areas will be transmitted to the Office for Handicapped Individuals, the National Institute for Handicapped Research, other government agencies and other possible sources of funding.
One other recommendation by the conference is the establishment of a center for interpreter research. Conference participates decided to make this recommendation based on the tremendous need in the field. Currently there is authorization under P.L.. 95-602 for the establishment of twelve interpreter training centers. Ten of the centers have been funded.
The conference recommended that one of the remaining two authorized centers be designated as a center for interpreting research. Support for this recommendation was given by both staff members of the Congressional representatives and the Department of Education.
Vic Galloway summarized the meeting for participants by identifying the need for cooperative efforts of all involved. He stressed that “interpreting services are now recognized as a legitimate service.” Although we recognize the need for research in the field “we have to be practical… we must address quality issues at the same time and must approach the solution of the issues one at a time or two or three at a time.”
Dr. Galloway stressed that the five priorities will lead to a new body of knowledge for researchers and training of interpreters. 5 www.rid.org 31
