You are on page 1of 5

Brianne Butterfield

Jacob Cameron
Kaela Brewer
Shane Montemayor
Connie Spanton-Jex
November 28, 2014

Group Case Study


In this case study we will discuss all perspectives from the parties involved and the values
that govern the conflicts. The case study goes as follow:
A large grocery store has hired a deaf employee, and you are hired to
interpret the employee training program. The trainer is reading straight
from a manual at warp speed. You have stopped him several times to slow
him down, without much luck. You stop him again to repeat information,
and under his breath, you hear him mutter, I knew hiring a retard was a
bad idea. - Connie Spanton-Jex
We, as interpreters, must first determine what are the values that are influencing this scenario. By
doing this, it is possible to come to several different solutions for this scenario.
First, we have determined two sources of conflict: The trainers rate of speech and their
prejudice that deaf people are retarded. We believe that by the trainer speaking rapidly and the

!1

interpreter interrupting, the trainer becomes disgruntled which produces the heated comment.
The trainer may also perceive that since the interpreter needs the speech to be slower, the deaf
client may be slow minded.
Now that we have identified the source of the conflict, lets take a look at what values and
perspectives each party may have. Starting with the trainers perspective, who values time; after
all, time is money in the individualist culture. By the interpreter asking for clarification or to
reduce the speed of speech, the trainer feels this conflict with their value, which produces their
comment. From the trainers perspective, he shouldnt have to slow down because if he does,
then he runs the risk of not completing the training in time. Perhaps the trainer may also be bored
because of having given the presentation many times and just wants to rush through the
information.
From the perspective of the deaf client, they value information according to their
collectivist culture. When the information being provided by the interpreter isnt clear or is
confusing, this may cause doubt between the deaf client and the interpreter. Perhaps the deaf
client views the interpreter as being inadequate due to the amount of interruptions from the
interpreter. From this perspective, one could assume that the deaf consumer may also feel
embarrassed because of the interpreter.
As for the interpreter, they may be upset that after several requests for the trainer to speak
slower, their requests were either ignored or forgotten. This may cause the interpreter to be
further upset that there isnt another interpreter. After the trainer makes their comment, the
interpreter may also make judgments about the trainer being ignorant. This stress worsens when
the interpreter debates what to do about the comment. The interpreter may wonder whether they

!2

should render the message faithfully, according to the Code of Ethics, or not interpret the
comment since the comment wasnt intended for everyone to hear. The interpreter may also
debate confronting the trainer directly about the comment.
There are endless possibilities of what might be going on in someones head, along with
what values influence their perspective. However to take a deeper look into this scenario well
explore on a more basic human perspective, the drama triangle. The trainer, interpreter and deaf
client all have a position in the triangle and a power that each individual holds.
Lets begin with the trainer at the moment that the comment was expressed. The trainer
would hold Legitimate, Informational, Coercive, and Expert Power. Legitimate Power is present
with the authoritative role of the trainer. The Informational Power comes from the trainer holding
information for the training. Coercive Power is also tied to the role of the trainer, they have the
ability punish the trainees if they do not conform or participate. The Expert Power is in reference
to the trainers experience with the store, policies and knowledge of the job.
The interpreter has a slightly different recipe, which include: Informational and Personal
Power. The interpreter has Informational Power because they are the one that knows both
languages of the two parties that need to communicate with each other. Personal Power is used
when this interpreter interrupts the speaker to repeat or clarify themselves.
When these powers are used, they influence the situation to either be a successful or a
disastrous encounter. In this situation the powers caused tensions to spike which transitioned into
a drama triangle. In one corner we have the trainer who has become the persecutor. By making
the comment they place the deaf client in the victim corner. This leaves the interpreter as the
rescuer position, wondering what to do.

!3

If were able to take a step back and look at the paradigm, we may be able to understand
the situation more. In this situation we believe justice vs. mercy is the prominent paradigm;
where it is just for the trainer to speak at a pace that would allow them to complete the training
on time; however it would be merciful if the trainer slowed their speech to allow the interpreter
to convey the message clearly and accurately.
This may be obvious, however there may also be other influencing conflicts that the trainer
harbors other than just completing the training on time. Perhaps the trainer may have a stereotype
that all deaf people are uneducated or mentally handicapped. Perhaps both the deaf client and
trainer may even perceive the interpreter not qualified to work due to the interruptions. Lastly,
due to the comment, the interpreter may view the trainer as ignorant of deaf culture.
To make the situation even more interesting, we must consider what conflicts are at play.
First we can see that there is a structural conflict due to the unequal power/authority, and unequal
control with the interpreter interrupting the class. There is also an interest conflict because the
trainer needs to stay on schedule, however the interpreter needs them to take more time so an
accurate interpretation can be produced. Of course, the Trainer does not feel it is fair to have to
slow down. Furthermore, the interpreter does not feel it is fair to have to interpret at a rapid pace.
A final piece of the mosaic that needs to be addressed before coming to a solution is to
determine what tenets of the code of professional conduct are applicable. First we believe that
tenet 2.3 is crucial to this case. We must render the comment faithfully and in the spirit in which
it was said from the trainer to the deaf client. Along with tenet 2.5, where we must refrain from
reacting to the trainers comment and remain neutral to the situation. Along with supporting the
deaf clients rights with tenet 4.4, which provides the deaf client the opportunity to respond.

!4

Lastly, an interpreter could apply tenet 6.3 which promotes conducive conditions for effective
communication. This could be when the interpreter asks for the trainer to slow their speech.
After considering all angles of this situation, we came up with three different solutions: Just
convey the comment from the trainer, do not convey the comment or take the blame and convey
the comment. By conveying the comment to the deaf client, it provides them with the
opportunity to defend themselves, however if the deaf person reacts, the trainer becomes upset
that the comment was relayed. If the interpreter pretends not to hear the comment, that saves face
with the trainer and protects the deaf persons feelings temporarily, however they will be
unknowingly working with a trainer that is discriminating against them. Lastly, we believe that
the interpreter should convey the comment and then clarify that the inability to interpret the
message was the interpreters fault, not the deaf clients. By doing this, the blame is taken off the
deaf client and corrects the actions of the trainer. However, this interruption delays the class even
more.
This situation is definitely an ethically challenging one, though taking advantage of the
controls available along with the tenets in the C.P.C., an ethical solution could be implemented.
The interpreter need only take into account the controls available to them and the consequences
of the decision they make.

!5

You might also like