Consulting with the Profession

The study began by canvassing the views and experiences of SLIs employed in the workplace domain. The questionnaire (Appendix A) was derived in part from the research questions, and was designed to help achieve my research goals and contribute to answering these questions (Robson 2002). From my professional experience as an SLI, and as the result of informal discussions with interpreter colleagues, I had already identified certain issues as being significant to SLIs working in employment based settings. Anecdotal evidence from discussions on interpreter e- groups had also suggested some relevant topics for exploration. The aim of the questionnaire therefore was to ascertain whether the issues that I had identified were in fact issues that were directly relevant to this field of interpreting. Whilst the criticism often levelled at researchers developing ideas, and then testing those ideas through a questionnaire, is that they have already decided on what is important (May 2001), the use of other methods of data collection in this study, together with the researcher reflexivity, has contributed to contending with researcher bias.

4.3.1 Questionnaire administration

The decision to use a questionnaire as opposed to other methods of data collection (such as focus groups) meant that I could reach a relatively wide audience. The questionnaire was constructed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative questions and underwent a number of rewrites before being piloted. The pilot phase involved the questionnaire being distributed to eight interpreters based at Radfordshire Sign Language Interpreting Service. Four completed questionnaires were returned, and based on comments and responses to the questionnaires the format was amended to make it clearer and more accessible.

The amended questionnaire was then distributed to a wider group of SLIs. An announcement outlining the research, and inviting SLIs to participate, was issued via interpreter e-groups, namely E-NEWSI, ASLI e-group, and the greyzone (Appendix B). The first e-group is accessible to any SLI who requests membership of the group, and is generally used to discuss issues relevant to SLIs based in the UK. The second e-group, ASLI (Association of Sign Language Interpreters), is specifically for members of the professional body of SLIs in the UK. Whilst there is often a similar discussion of issues across both e-groups (many SLIs are members of both e-groups),

with discussions sometimes overlapping the two groups, the ASLI e-group also discusses issues pertinent to the members of the professional body. The third e-group, the greyzone, is in effect a ‘closed’ e-group, being accessible to current and past students (and their tutors) on the Post Graduate Diploma in BSL/ English Interpreting course taught at the University of Central Lancashire. In selecting these e-groups as a vehicle for distributing the questionnaires I was able to reach a range of SLIs, at different levels of qualification, and at different stages of their careers. SLIs were asked to contact me by email to request a questionnaire. In addition to the e-group distribution, two batches of ten questionnaires were sent to the interpreting service at RAD (The Royal Association for Deaf People), and to Leicester Centre for Deaf People (now known as Action Deafness), who had previously agreed to take part in the research.

In deciding to distribute the questionnaire predominantly via the interpreter e-groups, I had to consider the nature and motivation of likely respondents. Both the E- NEWSLI and ASLI e-groups tend to attract contributors who have a keen and active interest in their profession. Those who post emails, views and comments on the e- group forums are generally more experienced and confident SLIs, meaning that newer and less self assured members might be reluctant to request a questionnaire. In addition, the fact that members of these groups were required to self-select in order to participate in the research meant that they were likely to have already formed some perceptions as to the challenges and difficulties in interpreting in the workplace domain. I was also aware that I could potentially exclude SLIs who did not engage within the various e-group forums. However, the distribution of questionnaires to two organisations outside of the e-group forums meant that I was able to include SLIs who might not respond to the e-group request.

Although there are no figures available as to the number of SLIs undertaking AtW type interpreting in the UK, drawing on my personal knowledge of the profession I believe that most SLIs will work in this domain at some point in their career. I therefore feel the questionnaire respondents are representative of SLIs in the UK. The nature of AtW assignments can result in less experienced SLIs undertaking work in this field. The fact that the SLI works with the same deaf employee on a regular basis means that this domain can be seen as a ‘safe’ and unchallenging environment for

trainee interpreters. I therefore feel that in terms of the spread of experience across the sample of self-selecting respondents, the type of work was likely to have resulted in responses from both experienced and less experienced SLIs.

4.3.2 Questionnaire response

In total 110 questionnaires were issued, with 57 questionnaires being returned. Given that one of the main arguments against the use of ‘postal’ questionnaires is the low response rate (Newell 1993; Robson 2002) this constituted a very satisfactory return, attributable to a number of reasons. Potential respondents to questionnaires are in no way obliged to take part in a study (Newell 1993), and therefore some degree of persuasion is required. In the current study the ‘persuasion’ was an indirect appeal to SLIs to become involved in a ‘collaborative venture’ (Hinds 2000: 44), encouraging them to use the opportunity to state their opinions, relate their experiences and contribute towards public or scientific knowledge (Sudman & Bradburn 1983). The fact that signed language interpreting is still an emerging profession (Scott-Gibson 1990) means that members are often keen to see it develop, with an interest in research that will contribute towards adding to the body of knowledge in this field. In addition, as outlined in Chapter Two, SLIs are also engaging more frequently in office based or workplace interpreting, resulting in challenges and difficulties that they have an interest in resolving. Given these factors it is likely that having requested a questionnaire, SLIs had already made a commitment (albeit quite possibly an unconscious one), to complete and return it.

In conclusion, the distribution of the questionnaire mainly through the medium of the internet meant that I was able to reach a wider audience, and achieve a degree of interactivity and personal contact that is more difficult to establish through postal distribution. The data from the questionnaires was analysed thematically and the results, together with the journal data, are discussed in Chapter Five. The questionnaire responses formed a source of secondary data, providing background support for the primary data, the video-recorded interpreted interaction.

At the end of the questionnaire SLIs were invited to participate further in the research by volunteering to keep a journal or diary of their workplace experiences over a three month period. The aim of this method of data collection was to gather as much information as possible about how SLIs interacted with deaf and hearing participants. A total of 40 SLIs agreed to keep a journal. Not all were questionnaire respondents, as some SLIs had made contact after hearing about the research in other ways.

Recommendations regarding diaries or journals generally suggest that the format should be fairly structured (Hinds 2000; Robson 2002). This is because diaries are usually kept over a set period of time, with the responsibility for completion placed firmly with the respondent. However, I decided to be fairly non-prescriptive with the format, asking participants to keep a ‘reflective journal’, thus allowing for a less structured approach (Robson 2002). This decision was partly linked to the timescale, as recording information that required answering a structured set of questions or points over a three month period would be very time consuming. A more important reason was that I also wanted to give SLIs the opportunity to comment about any issues they felt were pertinent to their workplace role, enabling them to deviate from the previous categories of questions that had been included in the questionnaire. Whilst there are concerns about collecting data via diary or journal keeping, in terms of the dangers of misreporting (Robson 2002), the fact that the reflective journals were not the sole method in the study meant that the issues raised could be balanced against the data obtained from the questionnaires, video and video playback interviews.

I issued a simple journal template with a guidance sheet (Appendix C), together with an example of a journal entry based on my own experience (Appendix D). I was aware that respondents could potentially see the sample journey entry I provided as being indicative of the type of issues I was looking for. I therefore stressed that this was only an example, and that SLIs had the freedom to write about whatever issues were important or relevant to them.

In total, 24 SLIs returned their journal entries. The material ranged from a brief reflective account of one interpreting assignment, to some in-depth accounts of a number of assignments occurring over the three month period. The journals were in

some cases very detailed and highly revealing, and whilst the wealth of rich data provided could be seen as one of the disadvantages of using this method (Hinds 2000; Robson 2002), it substantiated and consolidated many of the issues that had been raised in the questionnaire data. The journal data has been thematically analysed, following the categories established by the questionnaires, and the results are discussed in detail in Chapter Five.