Positioning the Practitioner-Researcher

It feels appropriate to begin this section by reflecting briefly on the impetus for the current study. As already noted in Chapter Three, many practitioners within LE are motivated by issues arising from their own experience and from observations of tensions within their particular workplaces. The origins of my interest in workplace interpreting can be traced to a short exchange that took place between two employees,

one Monday morning. A simple enquiry from one co-worker to another- ‘how was your weekend’- seemed on the surface to be the type of small talk exchange that regularly occurs across a variety of workplaces, from factory floors to offices and major institutions. However, in this instance the exchange was between a deaf employee and a hearing employee, and I was the interpreter. As the deaf employee described in some detail the activities she had engaged in that particular weekend, I noted her hearing colleague’s discomfort with the length of the reply. This was evidenced by attempts to end the conversation (e.g. shortening of replies, minimal feedback signals, displaying exclusionary body language, and focusing attention on the computer). Ultimately the deaf employee addressed me directly, remarking on what she perceived as her co-worker’s rude behaviour. I felt highly uncomfortable and was aware of an urge to ‘explain’ my understanding of what constituted acceptable Monday morning ‘small talk’. My subsequent reflection on this short interaction led me to consider the complexities of workplace discourse and the norms, both implicit and explicit, which underpin employee behaviour in this domain. It also led me to question the SLI’s role in this setting, in respect of how the SLI can affect and influence the relationships between deaf and hearing employees.

These reflections thus led to the development of my study and have undoubtedly influenced my decision-making processes in the selection and analysis of the data. At a political level, the researcher’s own interests, ‘shaped by their particular life

histories and positionings’, have a significant role to play in forming the areas and

approach of research (Tusting & Maybin 2007: 580). The researcher’s individual background and life history will influence the questions they ask and the manner in which they try to address their queries (Cameron et al. 1992). The nature of ethnographic methodology, whereby the researcher is immersed in the environment within which they are conducting their research, means that they inevitably form part of, and shape, the research that is being produced (Tusting & Maybin 2007). The process of doing ethnographic research entails ‘living in a world of reflexivities’ whereby every aspect of the process of data collection and analysis ‘entails

interdependences between the researcher, participants and the texts they produce’

(Barwell 2003: 4-5). The interpretation of both the content and practice of interaction are ‘contingent on the experience of the interpreter’ (Barwell 2003: 2), and thus examination of, and reflection upon, the researcher’s personal history, professional

experience and relationship with the research participants allows the research findings to be viewed from differing perspectives. It also contributes to an understanding of the cultural lenses through which the researcher interprets their data, as well as enabling an appreciation of the ‘truth claims’ made by the research (Tusting & Maybin 2007: 579). It is useful from the outset therefore to consider the issue of reflexivity, and to take into account the ways in which my particular social identity and background (Robson 2002) impacts on the research process, as this is an important factor across the current study, from the process of data collection through to analysis.

As a hearing person, from a hearing family, English is my first language. With a background in trade union activism, my first experience of BSL was as part of a customer services initiative whilst working for a government department. I subsequently worked as a CSW (Communication Support Worker) with deaf people in educational settings, before moving on to undertake a post-graduate BSL/ English Interpreting qualification, graduating in 2001. Having mixed with the deaf community on a predominantly social basis, my subsequent employment as a Welfare Rights Worker at a local deaf society regularly brought me into contact with other members of the deaf community. In terms of my interpreting career, I have from the outset been involved in ‘Access to Work’ or office based interpreting. I currently work as both a ‘staff’ SLI within a private company and as a community SLI within a team based at a local deaf society interpreting service.

My employment as a freelance interpreter and as a member of a community interpreting team has influenced my relationships with all participants in my study; deaf employees, SLIs and to a lesser extent, hearing employers and employees. Many deaf people who participated in the study know me as an interpreter, as a friend, a colleague, and as a researcher. Although I believe that I am not strictly an ‘outsider’ in terms of membership of the deaf community, I am neither a full member. There is undoubtedly a tension that exists due to my being part of the oppressive majority group, hearing people. However, my past involvement in campaigning for deaf people’s access to benefits, together with my professional and social relationships with deaf colleagues has meant that I have established a considerable level of trust within the community. This has in turn enabled me to draw quite heavily on the

contacts and relationships with deaf people in my local area. Their positive response to my research requests can be attributed in some part to the trust that they had invested in me. In addition, during initial discussions and later interviews with deaf employees, I demonstrated a desire to contribute to a change in their work environment and this, together with a commitment to providing feedback of the findings and results of the study, is a possible motivating factor in their participation. In terms of the hearing participants, I was already known, either personally or through professional involvement as an SLI, to the majority of workplaces I approached to be involved in the study. Many of the employers were aware of the difficulties experienced by their deaf employee, and were enthusiastic about the potential to make changes which could lead to improved working relationships. The discussion with employers centred on my commitment to provide information from the research which could contribute to a positive working relationship between deaf and hearing employees.

In participatory research models, where the aim is to gather a rich range of data whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility of producing positive and practical outcomes for both individuals and organisations, short term outcomes as well as longer term results are important in the feedback process, ensuring a more concrete visible return for the organisations investment in staff time and general goodwill (Stubbe 1998). The commitment that I made to share research findings, and to work with employees and employers to develop better working practices was, as already mentioned, a major factor in gaining the agreement of all participants. The importance of establishing an ongoing relationship with the participants, making sure that they are fully aware of what the research is, and are satisfied with the level of feedback that they will receive (Stubbe 1998), cannot be underestimated.

This is particularly relevant in regard to the deaf participants as historically they have been the subjects of research without benefiting from any insights into the research findings. Whilst this is also often true of other (non-deaf) research subjects (see for example Cameron, 1992, on the unequal distribution of knowledge), deaf peoples’ lack of access to traditional research feedback methods constitutes in effect a double barrier. The commitment to provide feedback was a major undertaking, and one

which has long term implications outside of the scope of this study. However, it was considered to be an integral part of the research process and therefore worth the undertaking.

Finally in this section I wish to address the degree to which I was a participant- observer in the data collection process. Whilst not a participant in the truest sense of the word, in that I was not directly involved in the events selected for filming, I had nonetheless previously interpreted in all of the settings in which the data was collected. Consequently I had knowledge of both the participants and the domain, and I was also known to the participants in those settings, in my role as an SLI. I feel that my strong connections with the local deaf community, and my rapport with the SLIs from the local deaf society, meant that I was viewed as a participant-observer in the recorded events. My observations therefore have been on a par with that of a genuine participant-observer, in that I have been able to observe and understand the nuances and insider perspectives of the event. As Robson (2002: 328) notes, once the participants are aware that they are being observed ‘the observer is inevitably, to some

extent, a participant in the situation’, and there seems no doubt that I have been to

some extent a participant in the processes I observed whilst collecting the video data. The researcher’s perception of the participants’ aims and expectations are as essential as their actual observations (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz 1982). My inside knowledge and experiences of the events I observed whilst filming granted useful insights into the nature of the interaction between participants, and provided an additional tool with which to identify patterns in the data. However, it is important not to allow knowledge of the field to lead to assumptions about what might be seen in the data. My less direct involvement in the events under observation enabled this balance, giving me a slightly more objective view of what was taking place. This shift from the ‘inside out’ (see Chapter Three), through the use of linguistic analysis, can assist in exposing what is happening in familiar events, enabling the identification and isolation of participant behaviour in the interpreted event as ‘strange’ (Scollon & Scollon 2001).