Accessing the Workplace

Given the complex nature of the settings, the sensitive nature of some of the workplaces that I approached, and the potential for large numbers of participants, the practicalities of obtaining video evidence required thorough planning. Negotiating access to authentic interpreted interaction in the workplace was an extremely sensitive issue, and the concerns of all parties to the event had to be fully addressed. The collection of the video data was conducted in conjunction with Radfordshire interpreting service. The initial aim was to gather ten to fifteen authentic work-based scenarios of video-recorded interpreted interaction.

Throughout the process of collecting the video data, the issue of confidentiality was paramount. The challenge facing the researcher whose study involves the collection of video data is that of preserving participant anonymity (Heath & Luff 1993; Metzger 1999), as participants can be easily identified, making this a concern to all those taking part in the recording. Although none of my data was collected in highly sensitive settings (e.g. medical encounters) there were still many issues of confidentiality that had to be taken into account. Some of the organisations that agreed to allow me to film in their workplaces undertook work of a social services nature, whilst others were in the area of banking and finance. All participants were assured that the video data would only be viewed for transcription and analysis purposes, and would not be published in its original format. I confirmed that all place names would be altered, and that participants would be made anonymous. For some workplaces I gave the undertaking that prior to publication or use of potentially sensitive data I would seek their approval that it had been rendered sufficiently unspecified.

4.4.1 Recruiting deaf participants

Deaf participants were recruited by a series of face-to-face meetings at Radfordshire Deaf Society. These evening sessions were advertised by a poster displayed in the foyer of the Deaf Society (Appendix E). Individual letters (Appendix F) were also sent out to five deaf people whom I knew were in employment. Whilst this meant that some deaf participants were in effect ‘targeted’, or directly selected, I do not feel that this has had a detrimental effect on the study. There were no subconscious decisions driving my selection of deaf participants, as they were contacted purely due to their employment status, rather than on the premise that their particular situation could yield ‘interesting’ data.

Consideration was given to producing the invitations and information in BSL format, but the time factors and costs involved made this prohibitive. The decision not to provide a standard BSL version of the invitations and information about the project does raise questions in terms of accessibility for the deaf community. However, the face-to-face meetings conducted with all the potential deaf participants meant that I could make the aims and the practicalities of the research project clear and accessible. The direct contact also gave participants the opportunity to ask for clarification or further explanation, something that would not have been possible via an invite in BSL video format. Finally, conducting face-to-face meetings gave me an opportunity to engage with potential research participants in their first language, and to demonstrate my commitment to ensuring they understood the aims of the research.

I also took the opportunity of the face-to-face meeting to go through confidentiality and ethical considerations, and asked all participants to sign an expression of interest/ consent form (Appendix G). Given the fact that the meetings were conducted in BSL, and that I provided an explanation of the issues regarding confidentiality and ethical considerations in the participant’s first language, I am confident that I made sure their

consent10 _{was as informed as possible, and that their agreement to take part in the}

project was genuine.

10_{BAAL’s (British Association for Applied Linguistics) ethical guidelines for applied linguistics}

Some deaf participants canvassed for the project did not attend either meeting at the Deaf club so ‘follow up’ letters were issued. I undertook two home visits to deaf participants who were unable to attend the open evenings, and also visited one deaf employee in their workplace to outline the project. I feel that this demonstrates the extent to which I was regarded as a ‘participant’ observer, or as someone who was, in part, a community insider. My ‘insider’ status was a major advantage in securing agreements with a fairly wide range of participants, and was due in part to the trust that I had established with those participants, as well as my commitment to feed back the results of the study to all the stakeholders involved. Whilst all these arrangements were time consuming, especially for someone who is not a paid researcher, I felt that they had immeasurable benefit in establishing good faith, trust and personal commitment to the research project.

Only one deaf person, who originally agreed to take part, subsequently withdrew their consent. One other deaf person was very interested in the project, and was keen to be involved, but was undergoing sensitive negotiations in terms of their employment contract. After discussions with both the deaf client and their employer it was felt that it was not appropriate to include them in the research. At the end of the recruitment process I had therefore secured agreement from five deaf employees, from five different institutions, willing to take part in the research project.

4.4.2 Gaining access to the workplace

The research was carried out at five different workplaces. Once the individual deaf employees had consented to taking part in the study, I approached their employers, to engage them in the research process and to gain permission to film. A letter explaining the aims of the study, together with an outline of the research remit (Appendix H and I), was issued. This was followed by a telephone call to discuss any concerns that employers might have and to arrange a suitable time, date and scenario to record. This process was very time consuming, due to my own schedule and to the anonymity and confidentiality, plus the right to withdraw from the study at any point during the process.

busy timetables of the employers involved. Telephone calls often had to be repeated if the client was out, or chased up if they failed to respond to messages. I was conscious throughout this process that a balance had to be struck between getting the employer to agree to allow access, and not making them feel under pressure to make that agreement. I had anticipated considerable resistance to my request and was therefore pleased that all the employers, bar one, agreed to take part in the study. I visited two of the companies to outline my research project, and this face-to-face approach enabled us to work through any concerns they had and issues that might arise. One of the employers subsequently agreed to be involved in the case study, where the main participants in the recorded interaction were interviewed regarding their experiences. The one employer who objected was undergoing sensitive employment negotiations with their deaf employee, and as already highlighted in this chapter, we mutually agreed that they would not be a suitable candidate for the study. The five workplaces have been assigned noms-de-plume in order to maintain anonymity as far as is possible and will be referred to as Livingwell, Radford City Social Services, Moneymaker PLC, Radford University and Radford Education Services.

4.4.3 Workplace profiles

In terms of providing some context for the video transcripts in Chapter Six it is necessary to give a brief outline of the five organisations involved in the research. Livingwell, a medium sized organisation providing independent supported living for people with physical and mental disabilities, was the setting for two of the team meetings filmed for the research. Radford City Social Services is a small, specialist deaf service team, based within the city centre and one of their regular team meetings was recorded for the project. Moneymaker PLC, a subsidiary of a large national banking organisation, and dealing with finance arrangements for major purchases, provided the opportunity to film both a one-to-one supervision meeting and a team meeting. Radford University is one of two large universities in Radfordshire, and team of learning support advisors based within the university kindly allowed me to video a two hour meeting. Finally, Radford Education Services was the setting for

another team meeting recorded for the study. All of these organisations were predominantly staffed by hearing people, with deaf employees in the minority.

4.4.4 Obtaining consent from signed language interpreters

All of the SLIs filmed during this project were employed by the interpreting service in Radfordshire. A letter was issued to potential participants (Appendix J) and I gave a presentation at the Deaf Society, outlining the scope of the project and describing the involvement that I would be seeking from SLIs. By thoroughly briefing the SLIs about the aims of the research, prior to commencing the video data collection, I sought to make them as open to the project as possible. I was conscious that my presence when filming the data was likely to have considerable impact on the SLIs involved. As a fellow SLI, I was able to understand both languages being used by the participants, and was therefore in a position to pass judgement on my colleagues’ performance. Aware that some SLIs could feel under pressure to take part in the research (due to my positioning as a researcher and a fellow SLI) I reaffirmed their agreement prior to each recording, giving them the opportunity to withdraw should they wish to do so.

Much of the previous research on signed language interpreting has focussed on aspects of performance such as interpreter error and omissions (Roy 1989), and I made it clear to SLIs participating in the study that I was not seeking to apportion blame, or criticise their interpreting performance (i.e. the quality and accuracy of their sign production or voice-over). From my own experience I know that being filmed is an uncomfortable and potentially stressful process, and I therefore emphasised that my main focus would be on the ways in which the SLI’s presence affected workplace interaction. It is difficult to truly identify the extent to which the SLIs felt coerced into participating in this study. There were undoubtedly power issues at play, despite my attempts to stress that they were under no obligation to consent to being filmed. At the end of the day it is very hard to say ‘no’ to a colleague. However I tried as far as possible to ensure that individuals did not feel ‘guilt-tripped’ into participating, and made it clear that they could withdraw should they wish to. This aspect has implications in terms of future studies of this nature, and is discussed in Chapter Eight.

Despite all of the preparatory work I have no doubt that my presence, as a researcher but also as a colleague, had an impact on the performance of the SLIs involved in the project. Whilst many SLIs have become accustomed to being video-taped, as part of their evidence collection for interpreting qualifications, the additional pressure of having a colleague present, directly observing their performance was clearly a stressful experience for some SLIs, and may have resulted in unnatural performances. For example, SLIs may have felt uncomfortable with seeking clarification from participants, feeling pressure to produce a ‘perfect’ interpretation. Alternatively, they may have ‘over-performed’ in an attempt to demonstrate their competence. I was aware of these factors prior to the collection of the video data, hence the importance of ensuring that SLIs both understood and felt comfortable with the aims behind the collection of the data. Additionally, the aspect of ‘performance pressure’ has been considered when viewing and analysing the video data.