Self-Promotion on Social Media Platforms

Tressela Bateson, MA EPS Administrator

Tressela lives in Virginia. She is a graduate of CSUN and Gallaudet University.

As a practice profession, interpreters have a paramount need for continuous, conscious examination of their work. The RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC) is the bedrock of decision-making for interpreters throughout the nation. Authors of the current CPC, written in 2005, had no idea of the social media flood to come, and today, there is a disintegration of professional integrity and the desire to exist on social media.

We live in a world where self-promotion equates existence for many, especially younger generations. In other words: if you are not publicizing your success, you are not successful. However, there is a group of individuals who define success and find satisfaction without the need for recognition. These individuals, according to David Zwing (2021), find satisfaction in meticulousness, savoring great responsibility, and seeking only internal satisfaction. These create a trifecta of traits—a near antithesis of our societal ethos of insouciant attention-cravers—that we’d all do well to follow. getting things done right. These traits, are ideal for interpreters, especially when responsible for facilitating communication in a variety of life events. The satisfaction of such work lies in adequately meeting the objectives of facilitating communication successfully and seeing, a client’s name in marquee lights rather than one’s own.

Unlike spoken language interpreters, visibility is required for sign language interpreters to perform their jobs. However, professionalism and expectations from Deaf individuals are that interpreters should be “silent” participants in communication exchanges. Yet interpreters have become increasingly visible in media and social media, which seems to have been prompted further by the COVID19 pandemic where public health information dissemination brought interpreters to the forefront. There has been an influx of social media posts featuring interpreters, most recently riding on the sensationalism of Oscar-winning film CODA along with other films and appearances such as Deaf U, Audible, and so forth.

While increased visibility of ASL in the media and the provision of sign language interpreters is certainly welcome, eyebrows are often raised when an interpreter posts a selfie on Instagram or makes a

TikTok video of interpreting an event. Since the beginning of the profession, the Deaf community has played an essential role in gatekeeping, guiding the interpreting profession, and determining standards and values. When Deaf community members raise eyebrows over something, interpreters should pay attention, especially in reference to the CPC

The guiding principle of CPC’s first tenet — Confidentiality — states: “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.” When confidentiality is broken, trust erodes. Without trust, interpreting cannot be successful.

The CPC applies before, during, and after an interpreted assignment. Assignment-related information includes the event itself and the location, which often is easily identified by a selfie or even inadvertently by commenters. While in some instances, the location may not have been revealed, topics discussed during the interpreted situation are commented upon on social media, and you share your opinion or frustration about having to interpret that topic, talk to a mentor. Deaf people’s private conversations and events do not occur to become topics of public discussion. They are not your conversations or your experiences.

There is also the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). Suler explains that we behave differently online than we do in face-to-face interactions, often more brazenly and disinhibited online. When we post anything online, we should consider whether the same thing might be said as freely in face-to-face interaction. Confidentiality considerations warrant the same standard in either environment.

Say you are given a medical assignment to interpret. During the assignment, the topic discussed goes against your moral values. Your fundamental dilemma: interpret as impartially as humanly possible or decline the assignment, leaving the consumers stuck. You decide to be an ethical interpreter and provide access despite the conflict churning in the back of your mind. After the assignment, you create a video online talking about your experience. Any individual familiar with the interpreting and/or Deaf community can easily find a lot of information through a simple search. By viewing your video, a person look at your profile and find your name and a general location either by your posts or even Googling. Another resource might be the RID membership database. Based on this information, that person could then figure out who lives in that area, who has the medical issues you talk about (even if generically), and make assumptions about who you interpreted for.I A little bit of information is a dangerous thing in this situation, and could quickly end up in the wrong hands. This then causes general erosion of public trust in sign language interpreters, not to mention defeats the whole point of the confidentiality tenet. Another problem with such a post is that you make it about you rather than keeping it strictly professional and a service provision. If you have to think twice about posting on social media, it’s probably not a good idea. If you are posting without thinking twice, start thinking about what you post, especially if related to interpreting. A helpful tip is to consider the intent of your post. Is your intent to be informative and educational, or to promote yourself and/or your work? Is it about seeking recognition for your role? While some instances may overlap, analyzing the intent of the message may identify when an article or post is selfpromoting versus informative. While it may not always be possible to avoid an inquisitive reporter if you are interpreting public and publicized events, always defer if you are asked to participate in an interview, make sure you can control the narrative; even better, invite a Deaf community member to be interviewed in your place. The reporter’s goals are to create a sensa-

“When confidentiality is broken, trust erodes. Without trust, interpreting cannot be successful.”

tional article that gets more clicks, likes, and shares. The hearing non-signing community has no clue about the history of marginalization of the deaf community.

Consumers attending an event or venue venue/event/occasion may request interpreters and know that YOU are publicizing their request, thinly veiling this as a celebration of access. Confidentiality applies to Deaf

Interpreters and Hearing interpreters alike.

As we see more CDIs in the news, media, and public events and more interest in the Deaf

Interpreting profession. A reminder that you are there to provide a service, to provide access. To remain unobtrusive and not use the interpreted situation for personal or professional gain (Tenet 3).

While the illustrated behaviors in the CPC do not explicitly define “confidential interpreted information,” your presence as a service provider gives you unique knowledge of a situation, therefore it is implied that benefitting from being present (other than receiving payment for services rendered) Sharing a selfie of yourself at an event is Identifiable assignment information, and compromises the integrity of the situation..

Appearing in public venues is not an exception to confidentiality. While published articles or links showing your interpretation may be public, using the shared images

or links is not an “as-needed basis” and likely violates confidentiality. I use the term “could” because I am not authorized to determine what is a violation and what is not; only an adjudication panel can evaluate this. While a panel may decide that the act may not rise to the level of a violation, it often does warrant a reprimand or private censure. The bottom line is: the less you say about an assignment you work, the better.

The current CPC is sufficient to address this concern, especially confidentiality and self-promotion through social media. Wink pointed out four symptoms of distortion in his article; the first two symptoms are prioritizing the right of online self-expression over ethical responsibilities and the disillusion that a social media page is an intimate private space. You have the right to express yourself online, but you do not have the right to discuss the assignment, or the fact the assignment even occurred. Don’t share what isn’t yours.

ASLIA and ASLI have developed suggested guidelines for social media, including some suggestions for professional behavior. See the links below for your review.

“A reminder that you are there to provide a service, to provide access. To remain unobtrusive and not use the interpreted situation for personal or professional gain.”

References:

Zweig, D. (2021, March). What do fact-checkers and anesthesiologists have in common? The Atlantic.https://www.theatlantic. com/entertainment/archive/2012/03/ what-do-fact-checkers-and-anesthesiologists-have-in-common/253838/ Suler, J. (2004, June). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326. https://www.liebertpub.com/ doi/10.1089/1094931041291295

Further reading:

https://asli.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/

Social-Media-Guidelines-1.pdf https://aiic.org/document/4506/Social%20

Media%20-%20Some%20suggested%20 guidelines%20-%20ENG.pdf https://aslia.com.au/wp-content/ uploads/V.5-Media-Interpreting-Guidelines-Final-1.pdf https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=joi https://streetleverage.com/2012/02/ does-social-networking-impair-sign-language-interpreter-ethics/ https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/ articles/an_plus/2020/may/ ensure-ethical-use-of-your-associations-social-media-platforms