Situation: When people close to me would ask how my internship went, I wasn’t sure what I was able to tell them. I know about confidentiality, but because these events were broadcasted and will be saved, I wasn’t sure what I could tell and what I should keep confidential.
The problems in this scenario are:
-
People asking to know about my internship.
-
The event was broadcasted so a lot of people could watch it.
-
What needed to be kept confidential and what wasn’t confidential that I could share.
I could:
-
Share only that parts that were broadcast and keep the process confidential. (1.1, 3.4, 4.2, 2.5)
-
Keep everything confidential and not share anything. (1.1, 2.5, 3.4, 4.2)
-
Since this was a broadcasted event, tell people that ask all about it.
I should:
I decided to share only the things that anyone who decided to watch the broadcast would see and kept the process and how things were filmed and the “behind the scenes” stuff confidential since people don’t see that on the recording.
The CPC supports this decision because tenet 1.1 states to “share...information...on a confidential and “as-needed” basis.” Deciding to share some parts, the non confidential parts, follows this because some information wasn’t confidential and some was. Tenet 2.5 states “refrain from providing counsel, advice, or personal opinions” and tenet 3.4 states “comply with established workplace codes of conduct.” There, confidentiality is important so sharing only what the public would see follows both the CPC and the site’s rules. Tenet 4.2 states “approach consumers with a professional demeanor at all times.” Keeping confidential information confidential is respectful and professional to those involved and to the consumers.
Situation: While at an event, after the interpreters switched and became the “off” interpreter they sat on their phones for a few minutes. They both are mothers, so I understand a quick check to see if something happened, but it was a few minutes that they were on their phones and looked like more was happening than just a quick check. I don’t know if this is ok or not, but from everything I have learned the off interpreter needs to be paying attention just as much as the interpreter who is actively interpreting.
The problems in this scenario are:
-
The “off” interpreters were spending a lot of time on their phone while the other was interpreting.
-
The off interpreter would not be of help if the interpreter who was actively interpreting needed support.
-
The consumers would see an interpreter who is not actively engaged the full time.
The interpreter could:
-
Quickly check their phone for any emergency messages, if needed at all, then put it away to lend more support to the “on” interpreter. (2.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 6.3)
-
Just do what they were doing, the interpreters got the talks ahead of time so they should know the material.
-
Talk to the other interpreter and ask them to be more supportive in the future. (5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
The interpreter should(have):
-
Quickly check their phone for any important/emergency messages then put it away to be of more support to the person interpreting.
The CPC supports this decision because tenet 2.4 discusses “request[ing] support” and the interpreter who was not actively interpreting should always be supportive of the active interpreter. Tenet 3.5 discusses that interpreters should “conduct and present themselves in an unobtrusive manner” which would mean, in this case, not being on a phone for a long time. Tenets 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 all discuss showing respect for consumers and facilitating communication and by not being distracted the interpreters would be doing what they needed to. Tenet 6.3 is similar the the previous tenets and would achieve the same results, “promote conditions that are conducive to effective communication.”
Short-term impact:
Deaf consumer: They get interpreters that are not distracted and are able to support the other.
Hearing consumer: They see the interpreters being professional and get a positive view of interpreters.
Interpreter: Are more focused and able to lend support to the other interpreter.
Interpreting community: Interpreters that are focused on their work and won’t be distracted in the future.
Long-term impact:
Deaf consumer: Better access and understanding of the message being delivered.
Hearing consumer: They see the interpreters being professional and get a positive view of interpreters.
Interpreter: Are more focused and able to lend support to the other interpreter and others in the future
Interpreting community: Interpreters that are focused on their work and won’t be distracted in the future.
If I were the interpreter in this situation, my answer may change based on new or different information but I will always uphold the tenets of the CPC
Situation: Something I have noticed over the course of this internship is how much the hearing participants speak. Sometimes it is necessary and other times it isn’t and is probably disrespectful. There are times that when a hearing person is working on the teleprompter and while the Deaf people are trying to describe what to change, someone else will speak up and tell the teleprompter person what to do. It doesn't happen often, which is better than all of the time. And obviously we need to be able to communicate with the camera man, so not everything will be in ASL, but the majority of it should be.
The problems in this scenario are:
-
Hearing people are speaking in the presence of Deaf individuals.
-
Receptive skills and processing are not being full used.
-
A hearing person is speaking over a Deaf person, and they aren’t aware.
Possible solutions:
-
Make sure I am always signing, and when someone starts speaking keep signing to make sure our conversation and accessible to everyone there. (2.2, 2.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 6.3)
-
Ask people to sign when they start speaking. (5.3,4.4)
-
Do nothing and let people do what they want.
I should:
Make sure I am always signing, and when someone starts speaking when it isn’t necessary, keep signing so anyone can join in if they want and not feel excluded.
The CPC supports this decision because tenet 2.2 discusses the consumer’s needs and to follow those and make adjustments, and since we are in an environment where ASL is the dominant language, we need to make sure we are always using that language. Tenet 2.3 says to “render the message faithfully” and when a person decides to use the language used by the majority, they are doing that and giving full access to communication. Tenet 3.5 says that interpreters, or in this case anyone involved, need to “conduct...themselves in an unobtrusive manner” which would mean signing and not speaking. Tenet 4, specifically 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 all discuss respect for consumers. Using the language used by the majority is respectful and shows that we are willing to include, even if we are not specifically conversing with a Deaf individual. Finally, tenet 6.3 states “promote conditions that are conducive to effective communication.” An environment of equal access to all communication is exactly that.
Short-term benefits:
Deaf: Access to all communication
Hearing: More of a habit and awareness to always use ASL
Interpreter: The hearing people, who are also interpreters, know to not do this in the future.
Interpreting community: Interpreters who are inclusive and are aware.
Long-term benefits:
Deaf: Access to the information/conversations.
Hearing: More of a habit and awareness to always use ASL
Interpreter: The hearing people, who are also interpreters, will go to future jobs and always use ASL
Interpreting community: Interpreters who are inclusive and are aware of those around them.