Exploring hearing people’s experiences of working with sign language interpreters in the workplace

Abstract

This study explored hearing (non-deaf) people’s experiences of working with sign language interpreters in the workplace. Qualitative data were collected through one-to-one interviews with managers, colleagues, or subordinates of deaf people. Transcripts of the interviews were then analysed using a reflexive thematic approach to identify themes that capture the hearing person’s perspective on working with interpreters. These themes included the positive and negative aspects of working with interpreters, the workplace norms and etiquette that affect both their understanding of the interpretation and their relationship with deaf colleagues, the way the interpreter presents both the deaf and hearing people, and finally the professional boundaries of the interpreter. In addition, the research revealed the reasons for hearing people creating their own lists of preferred interpreters and how this intersects with the preferences of deaf persons. Finally, the study explored the concept of trust and the effect this has on all individuals in the workplace.

1. Introduction

As manual work has declined, access to education combined with changes in technology—along with a rise in service industries—has enabled more deaf people in the United Kingdom to gain employment in white-collar professions (Dickinson, 2017; Kurlander, 2008), increasing interpreter visibility in the workplace (Napier, Cameron et al., 2020). Because greater numbers of people are working with, for, and alongside deaf professionals and the interpreters that often accompany them, it is essential to consider such people’s views on working with and being represented by interpreters. To explore the experiences and views of hearing (non-deaf) members of the workplace, I conducted and analysed a series of interviews with them to gain an understanding of the issues, concerns, and challenges they experience.

Throughout this article, I use A. B. Hauser and Hauser’s (2008, p. 4) definition of a deaf professional as “a deaf or hard of hearing employee, trainee or intern who requires interpreting services to access the level of communication needed for them to learn, perform their job responsibilities or both.” In addition, the term “hearing people/colleagues, etc.” describes any person who does not describe themselves as being deaf or having a hearing loss. However, although this term is used in reference to their hearing level and as a way of differentiating people in the workplace, not all hearing people are naive in their experience or understanding of deafness and deaf people. Some of the hearing people I interviewed had learned British Sign Language (BSL) to varying degrees, which provided them with a deeper knowledge of deaf culture and language. This would have influenced their understanding and approach to working with deaf colleagues (LaBelle et al., 2013).

Interpreters who regularly work with deaf people in their workplace are known by different names, such as diplomatic interpreters (Cook, 2004) and designated interpreters (P. C. Hauser et al., 2022). In this article, the term “designated interpreter” is used to refer to interpreters who work with a deaf professional on a regular and consistent basis.

1.1 United Kingdom context

This research was undertaken in a UK work-based context, where the norm is for a deaf professional to have a pool of designated interpreters who may work with them on a regular basis; for example, on a specified weekday.

Interpreters for deaf people in the workplace are predominantly funded via a UK government scheme called Access to Work (ATW), ¹ which is the primary mechanism for funding the adjustments necessary for ensuring deaf and disabled people’s inclusion in employment. Consequently, designated interpreters are generally referred to by interpreters and deaf people as “Access to Work interpreters” (Dickinson, 2010). Deaf people apply for ATW, and then receive a budgeted number of hours of interpreter support depending on their role. In general, the deaf person is responsible for booking and arranging interpreters as best fits their working pattern (and the ATW budget), collecting the interpreter’s invoice, completing a claim form, and sending it to their line manager for authorisation. The claim form and invoice are then sent to ATW for direct payment to the interpreter. This method of funding interpreters places the responsibility, and the often unrecognised burden of sourcing, booking, and arranging payment, on the deaf person (Harrelson & Nicodemus, 2022).

1.2 Workplace culture

Workplace culture, which can vary significantly between workplaces, is broadly defined as the knowledge and experience that allows people to function effectively to do their jobs (Holmes & Marra, 2002). Workplaces often have unofficial rules and insider knowledge that forms a key part of a staff member’s ability to fit in and succeed (Dickinson, 2010). Managing workplace relations, being able to mix in the social context of the office, and making a good impression on a boss are viewed as important goals for all employees (Spencer-Oatey, 2013). Indeed, successfully navigating the social environment and network within the workplace has been shown to have a direct link to career success (Holmes, 2000).

Building relationships and participating in the social aspects of the workplace can be challenging and less satisfying when communication is mediated through an interpreter. In Young, Oram and Napier (2019) study, hearing people expressed that they felt there was a trade-off between understanding the content of a conversation and getting to know the deaf person. They went on to say that direct communication while often lacking in content, gave hearing and deaf colleagues the opportunity to make important relational connections. Hearing colleagues do not always recognise the efforts and decisions deaf people make during relational work. Although hearing people often see interpreters as the answer to accessibility (De Meulder & Haualand, 2021), deaf people spend a large proportion of their lives without interpreters (Young, Oram & Napier, 2019) and are adept at direct communication through a variety of other means, such as lip-reading, using pen and paper, and simple gestures, all of which allow them to make important relational connections directly with their colleagues.

When communicating via an interpreter, the deaf professional has to rely on an “other” to make choices about how they are presented and received (Napier, Skinner et al., 2020). Good quality interpretation of spoken English is vital for deaf professionals, although a large number of interpreters lack confidence in this area (O’Brien et al., 2023). A poor interpretation of spoken English often goes unnoticed by the hearing audience, who may attribute any poor performance to the deaf person. This can have serious implications for the deaf professional’s standing and reputation (Feyne, 2017). Working with an interpreter regularly allows for increased familiarity with the deaf professional and their workplace norms, enabling interpreters to produce a more accurate interpretation (Dickinson, 2017). The deaf professional is able to educate the designated interpreter and ensure they understand the norms and expectations of that workplace (Dickinson, 2017; Pouliot & Stern, 2008). This imposes an unrecognised burden of work on the deaf professional which is not considered or seen by their hearing colleagues but is needed to ensure the interpreter uses the accepted lexicon, intonations, and phrasing that reflects the deaf professional accurately and allows them to fit into the work environment (O’Brien et al., 2023).

The presence of a designated interpreter is also beneficial for the hearing members of the workplace. As the interpreter becomes a regular presence, their role becomes normalised and the interpreter can manage the interactions that take place more effectively (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). This familiarity with the interpreter and their role can ease the integration of the deaf person into the workplace (Dickinson, 2017; Kurlander, 2008).

Interpreters also benefit from this regular contact with the workplace and the people in it, as they are able to build a rapport with the staff and become familiar with the context of the environment, enabling increased accuracy in their interpretation (Mapson & Major, 2021). Designated interpreters are also better able to develop and hone coping strategies, or controls, to mitigate any demands they may face (Dean & Pollard, 2013).

While regular interpreters create a degree of familiarity, a daily change of interpreter may lead to inconsistency in how the deaf person is presented. Although the deaf professional remains a constant presence, varying interpretation styles by different interpreters can have a jarring effect on everyone involved. In Feyne’s (2017) study, one deaf tour guide using American Sign Language (ASL) was interpreted into spoken English by different interpreters. The results revealed that the disparity in the presentations was so great that a hearing assessor believed each interpretation was of a different person. Given that interpreters can affect how someone is perceived to such a degree, an evaluation of consistency in the presentation of deaf and hearing colleagues is required. For example, is there a more sarcastic tone on Mondays? Or a male voiceover with a more direct approach on Tuesdays? If there are inconsistencies, does that create relational difficulties for those involved? A potential shift in the presentation of the deaf person’s character, however slight, may have an effect on team dynamics, making it harder for the hearing people in the team to get to know their deaf colleagues.

1.3 Barriers for deaf professionals

Deaf professionals often work in mainstream environments where the majority, if not all, of their co-workers, are hearing people who have possibly never met a deaf person. One of the first barriers the deaf person often faces is the social stigma of being deaf and the avoidance behaviours, based on fear and anxiety, that their hearing colleagues may exhibit (O’Connell, 2022). Language fluency can also be a barrier to deaf people as, typically, people with greater fluency in the language of the workplace are elevated to higher levels of power and status (Vigier & Spencer-Oatey, 2018). While the deaf professional may be well versed in the language and jargon used, their interpreter may need time to learn common terms and phraseology, possibly impacting the smoothness and effectiveness of communication with hearing colleagues. These barriers, along with wider stereotypical negative perceptions of deaf people (LaBelle et al., 2013; Lott et al., 2019), mean that deaf professionals are already starting from a disadvantageous position. Because the majority of the global population is able to hear, “hearingness” becomes invisible and is not thought about until a hearing individual is faced with a deaf person, who is then judged to be lacking (Bauman, 2004; Sutton-Spence & West, 2011). This adds weight to Young, Oram and Napier’s (2019) assertion that hearing people attribute any communication challenges to the deaf person, as they are seen as being disabled and unable to communicate in the same way as the hearing majority. These beliefs can be inadvertently perpetuated by the presence of an interpreter (Young, Napier & Oram, 2019).

Young, Oram and Napier (2019) describe a concept known as phonocentrism which was originated by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in 1976. This concept refers to the idea that someone’s sense of being is directly related to hearing themselves speak. The notion that speech means language and the ability to use language equates to being human is one that was taken up by Deaf Studies scholars such as Bauman (2004) in their arguments about the proliferation of audism in societal institutions. For purposes of this article, however, Derrida’s point helps to elucidate the confusion that can occur in interpreted scenarios when the deaf person’s “sense of being” is portrayed through an interpreter. Successful discourse relies on an element of shared knowledge as each utterance is formed and informed by the context in which the “speaker” is situated. The interpreter assimilates the message, extracts the likely meaning, re-constructs it based on what they believe is the intention, and conveys the interpreted message in a way they hope the receiver will understand. Misunderstandings and incorrect phraseology can occur as the interpreter does not have access to either the participant’s direct meaning or a complete understanding of the context in which the discourse is taking place (Winston & Roy, 2022). This dissonance can disrupt the conversation, highlighting the presence of the interpreter and creating a disconnect as to who originated those thoughts (Young, Oram & Napier, 2019). Interpreters who are familiar with the workplace and participants of the interaction have a greater, albeit incomplete, understanding of the context and so are able to offer an interpretation that is closer to the deaf person’s original meaning (P. C. Hauser et al., 2022).

Being interpreted can disrupt social behavioural norms and may affect the hearing person’s self-image, potentially leading to them being perceived as “face-threatening.” Interpreters may unintentionally disrupt typical interaction norms, such as enforcing stricter turn-taking during discussions (Mapson & Major, 2021). Moreover, speakers in our society expect listeners to ratify their comments by providing feedback to show they are listening (Stubbe, 1998). This is harder to achieve in an interpreted scenario, but if the interpreter is able to give minimal feedback by using “continuers” (hm, uh huh, etc.) or affirmative nods during the conversation (Vranjes et al., 2019), it can lessen the disconnected feeling and assist with the building of a rapport. Likewise, by gesturing to the deaf person and using eye gaze while interpreting into spoken English, the interpreter can reinforce the deaf person as being the source of the communication, which can be highlighted further by adding intonation and inflexion to match their presentation (Young, Napier & Oram, 2019).

1.4 Current research

Research on workplace interpreting has predominantly considered the domain from the perspective of the interpreter or deaf person. For example, P. C. Hauser et al.’s 2008 book, and later work by P. C. Hauser et al. (2022), cover various strategies used by interpreters and deaf professionals to work effectively with each other. Dickinson (2017) employed an ethnographic approach to investigate how interpreters are able to reduce their impact and improve their effectiveness in the workplace by joining the deaf professional’s Community of Practice, a group of people with shared goals and ways of working. O’Brien et al. (2023) explored the perception and understanding of trust between a deaf professional and a designated interpreter, while De Meulder et al. (2018) investigated the use of preferred interpreters rather than designated interpreters in academia. Bristoll and Dickinson (2015) discussed how the use of small talk, humour, and banter is a key factor in building and maintaining relations at work, and the challenges inherent in interpreting these types of conversations. These authors noted that a regular interpreter can ease some of the challenges due to their increased familiarity with the participants and their awareness of the cultural norms of both hearing and deaf people.

A number of studies have focused on how hearing people perceive or make sense of interpreted interactions, although these are in the minority. For instance, in a study on health care interpreting, Schofield and Mapson (2014) explored how clinicians in the United Kingdom are affected by having an interpreter present at their patient appointments. However, the focus was on interactions in health care settings with regular patients where the domain, power dynamics, and interactions are extremely different from those of an employment setting.

Napier (2011) conducted focus group discussions with hearing professionals, deaf professionals, and interpreters regarding their perceptions of interpreting and the interpreting profession. Attention was paid to how each stakeholder viewed the interpreter and whether attitudes about interpreters and interpreting were the same or varied across the different users. Although certain themes were raised in all three groups, it was noteworthy that each stakeholder group had a different perception of the theme and identified different points. The interpreter and deaf professionals’ groups were more closely aligned in their comments than the hearing professionals’ group, which highlights the different perceptions a majority language user might have in an interpreted situation.

In an examination of deaf museum educators’ presentations, Feyne (2017) explored how interpreters can influence the perceptions of their hearing audience. A deaf museum educator, selected based on positive feedback from deaf community members, presented in American Sign Language while four different interpreters recorded an interpretation into spoken English for hearing assessors to listen to. The results revealed that a marked difference in quality was reported by the deaf audience members of the tour and the hearing assessors. The assessors found that the interpretations varied considerably in quality, eloquence, clarity, and subject knowledge to the extent that they did not realise the different interpretations were based on the same source material. The assessors’ subsequent negative opinions of the deaf educator were based solely on the quality of the voiceovers, including issues with poor language use, lack or incorrect use of terminology, and mispronunciation of technical terms. Although the interpreters had never met the presenter and were not designated interpreters, the study highlighted the crucial role of interpreters in shaping perceptions of a deaf person’s professionalism. Furthermore, it underscored the importance of using interpreters familiar with relevant jargon and terminology and illustrated how varying interpretations could impact the consistency of a presentation given by deaf professionals to their hearing colleagues.

Interpreters can also affect the ability of deaf and hearing colleagues to get to know each other. For instance, in a study of a single workplace where many deaf and hearing people worked together, Young, Oram and Napier (2019) reported that hearing professionals took longer to get to know their deaf colleagues than their hearing colleagues. Semi-structured interviews with eight hearing colleagues revealed that although they understood the benefit of interpreted interactions in clarifying the deaf person’s views and knowledge, they experienced delays in getting to know the individual’s character and personality. They felt that communication through an interpreter created distance from the deaf person and acknowledged that direct communication, although limited and more challenging to understand, provided a better sense of the deaf person’s character. However, this dichotomy was only explored from the hearing perspective, with no reciprocal consideration of how their deaf colleagues felt in these situations and whether they, similarly, did not feel they “knew” their hearing peers.

Instances of direct communication in health care settings (Major, 2013) have also been studied, revealing that these moments of interaction between a deaf patient and their GP contributed to an increase in rapport. Consultants in health care appointments also commented that a lack of rapport was a consequence of a lack of interpreter continuity and that having different interpreters in appointments with the same deaf person can negatively affect the comfort level of participants (Schofield & Mapson, 2014). Clinicians noted that deaf patients behaved differently with new interpreters, and emphasised the importance of the trust built with a regular, consistent interpreter, which gave them confidence that a patient was receiving the best care.

Trust in the interpreter was also highlighted by Hsieh et al. (2010), although this was explored from a hearing, spoken language perspective. The researchers conceptualised trust in interpreted situations as comprising four dimensions: interpreter competence, shared goals, established patterns of collaboration, and professional boundaries. O’Brien et al. (2023) also explored the concept of “trust,” but from the perspective of a deaf professional. The researchers concluded that “trust,” especially “anticipatory trust,” is a misplaced value that should be replaced with “proof of competence” and “demonstrated skill.” Although the two studies employed differing perspectives, both highlighted that demonstrable skills and competencies are needed to establish an effective working relationship between the deaf professional and interpreter.

2. The study

In this study, I explored hearing person’s experiences of being interpreted to gain an understanding of how it feels, as a majority language user, to work with interpreters and how they experience communication with their deaf colleagues in the workplace. Furthermore, I also examined whether hearing colleagues noticed any disconnect, dissonance, or lack of consistency in the presentation of the deaf person’s “self.” If this occurred, I sought to establish whether this posed a challenge for them when working or interacting with the deaf person and whether the deaf person’s character was conveyed regardless of the interpreter.

Researcher positionality

As an interpreter, I have extensive experience of working with a variety of deaf and hearing people in a number of workplaces and I brought this knowledge and experience into my interviewing and research. It was through conversations with deaf and hearing colleagues that my interest in this subject was initially piqued and my motivation to conduct this research developed. Working as a designated interpreter, I understand the advantages and disadvantages of this approach from an interpreter perspective and, through conversations with deaf clients, have sought insights into their views; however, I have not had the chance to fully explore the perspective of hearing colleagues. In approaching this research, I recognised that my positionality gave me an insider perspective on working as an interpreter within this domain and understanding the types of issues and scenarios that exist. However, since I can communicate with both deaf and hearing colleagues, I may not fully grasp the uncertainty that hearing people experience in this area, giving me an outsider’s perspective on this research.

To remain as unbiased as possible, participants were sought who worked with deaf people with whom I was not familiar. This proved to be difficult given the close-knit nature of the deaf community and the smaller microcosm of deaf professionals within that community; therefore, a number of participants came from environments in which I had worked previously. Although I was conscious that my pre-existing professional relationships with the interviewees had the potential to skew the data, there was a benefit to these connections. First, I was able to use my knowledge of the participants and their workplaces to ask more environment-specific questions. Second, my familiarity enabled participants to feel more at ease, allowing for a deeper and more open discussion, and the respondents could freely use their workplace jargon and examples without having to set the scene or provide an explanation of their workplace lexicon.

3. Method and analysis

3.1 Methodology

Because the research involved exploring participants’ lived experiences, a qualitative approach was chosen to allow participants to actively construct and reflect upon these experiences. This approach recognises that knowledge is constructed through social interaction and that participants’ interpretations of their experiences are subjective (Braun & Clarke, 2021a). By adopting a constructivist epistemology, I sought to reveal the ways in which hearing people make sense of their interactions with their deaf colleagues and interpreters in the workplace.

3.2 Participants

Participants were sourced by approaching fellow interpreters who were known to work as designated interpreters with deaf professionals. They were asked to share information about the research with their deaf clients and ask them if they were willing to pass this on to their hearing colleagues. Information was also provided in BSL to ensure deaf professionals fully understood the nature of the research request and to ensure full transparency. It was left to the discretion of the deaf professionals whether information about the research was shared with hearing colleagues.

The inclusion criteria were simply that participants needed to be hearing individuals who work with one or more deaf colleagues, regardless of their knowledge or qualifications in BSL. Including participants who had some BSL learning enabled me to capture the perspectives of those with a higher degree of direct communication, the expectation being that their insights might highlight differences between direct communication and interpreted interactions.

Five people expressed an interest in participating in the interviews, each with varying levels of experience working with deaf colleagues. The most experienced participant had 23 years of experience and the least experienced had only 5 months. The participants held diverse roles, ranging from line managers of deaf colleagues to peers and subordinates of deaf supervisors. Two participants had previously worked with deaf colleagues in other roles and had experience booking and coordinating interpreters. Most interviewees worked in the charity sector, with one from a commercial business.

To preserve anonymity, efforts were made to conceal the identity of the workplaces discussed in this study and greater attention was paid to the relationships between people. Because the use of names allows a clearer understanding of these relationships, I chose to use pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of the interviewees, deaf people, and interpreters. Due to the small size of the community in which interpreters work, gender neutral names were assigned to the hearing participants, and “they/them” pronouns will be used to further avoid identification and ensure the confidentiality of personal details. These names were Charlie, Sam, Pat, Jesse, and Alex.

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Although group interviews were initially considered, so as to prompt a discussion about different challenges and elicit experiences from different workplaces, the logistics associated with participants’ varied time constraints proved challenging. There was also the potential for participants to be reluctant to express any discomfort or concerns in a group comprising strangers, whereas they were likely to be more open in a one-to-one interview.

Prompt questions were sent to the participants beforehand to provide guidance on the areas our discussion would cover and to give them time to reflect on their experiences. Interviews took place remotely using a video conferencing platform, Zoom. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymised, and subsequently analysed using a reflexive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2020).

3.3 Thematic analysis

The interview transcripts were repeatedly scrutinised, and codes were allocated to units of meaning and observations made by the interviewees. The coding style was reflexive in nature as no predetermined themes were available for a coding reliability process, and no framework was applied, unlike the codebook approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021a). By following a reflexive style of coding, I was open to the data and able to react to the information presented.

I adopted an inductive approach to the analysis whereby the transcripts were coded reflexively as themes emerged (Braun & Clarke, 2020). While assumptions could be made as to the hearing people’s experiences, there was no wealth of existing data available from which a framework could be created or applied before the analysis. Given the nature of the subject matter, my primary analysis required the adoption of a latent approach as the thoughts expressed by the participants at the start of the interviews were frequently half-formed and incomplete. This allowed me to capture the evolving nature of participants’ perspectives and experiences as the conversations progressed (Braun & Clarke, 2021b).

4. Findings

The analysis led me to identify four broad and interconnected themes which are now reviewed in more detail:

• The hearing perspective of working with interpreters.

• The various norms and etiquette in workplaces.

• Representation of character.

• The interpreter’s professionalism.

4.1 The hearing perspective

All interviewees reported similar concerns when they first started working with deaf people and interpreters, such as a lack of confidence, feeling de-skilled, and being uncertain of the situational norms in an interpreted setting. The interviewees reported feeling that although they knew how to do their jobs, they were uncertain of whether they had to “do something differently” (Pat) when working with their deaf colleagues, which made them question their abilities. They also felt overly self-conscious and concerned about the interpreter’s perception of them. These concerns arose from having no previous context and a self-proclaimed lack of understanding of the considerations necessary to integrate a deaf person into the team and how to work with interpreters.

There was a definite awareness of the communication barriers that existed. Participants explained that they attempted to communicate with their deaf colleagues using other means, such as gesturing and attempts at lip-reading, but they experienced frustration at being unable to communicate in a more meaningful way, and heightened efforts were made to ensure the deaf person was included in the workplace. Participants expressed their uncertainty regarding the best way to include their deaf colleague when there was no interpreter present. Having an interpreter in the office was seen as positive and reassuring as they felt an interpreter would allow them to better include their deaf colleague in group conversations.

The process of interpretation and use of sign language was initially a novelty for the hearing employees; however, as the presence of the deaf person and their interpreter became normalised, the novelty reduced. In addition, the more the interviewees worked with their deaf colleague and their interpreters, the more familiar they became with the interpreter’s role and the functions they performed. During discussions regarding BSL and the introduction of basic sign language in the office, hearing co-workers became more cognisant of the differences between BSL and English. As a result, they became less interested in specific translations and more conscious of the possibility of mistranslation, and also more aware that the meaning could get lost in the interpreting process. This was a particular concern for hearing managers who reported that they had not appreciated the difference in the languages. Once they realised that interpreters did not use their exact phrasing, due to the differing grammatical structures of the languages, the need to ensure the interpretation had the correct context and intent became paramount:

We’ve had a couple of reflections after meetings where … there’s been an issue and it’s like, “well, why didn’t [the deaf person] get that?” And it’s like, “well, I’m not sure if that was interpreted the way we actually said it.” (Pat)

Some interviewees commented on how the lag time between the source utterance and the interpretation had been something they needed to get used to, but that, while sometimes difficult, it could be a source of amusement:

It feels a bit like, you know, on TV, when they go to a news reader who’s in a different location, they’re just sort of standing there for a minute. (Alex)

Initially, there was some confusion surrounding the etiquette of working with an interpreter. Sam admitted to being unsure whether they were allowed to interrupt if they did not understand the phrasing used during the interpretation into spoken English. This hesitancy indicated a recognition of the work required to produce an interpretation; however, it also raises concerns that people listening to a spoken interpretation feel unable to interrupt and clarify as they would with a hearing speaker:

I always used to worry that it was rude … to stop an interpretation because [I’m] not understanding [what was said]. Or that it’s some sort of weakness on [my] part. (Sam)

This uncertainty extends to the role of the interpreter in informal discussions. While Pat and Alex work in different places, both expressed concern that the deaf person was not included in office chats, and they said they were uncertain of how or whether to ask the interpreter to involve the deaf person:

… sometimes [the interpreter] would interpret, and sometimes they’ve got their head down in a laptop, and they just wouldn’t get involved. And that always felt a little bit difficult in terms of … were they going to be interpreting for the deaf person when there were those more casual interactions or weren’t they? (Pat)

Attempts to create a form of direct communication included hearing participants making more use of gestures, body language, and facial expressions while being more aware of these in their deaf colleagues. There was a recognition of the effort deaf people made to adjust their signing, such as using more iconic signs and slowing their pace. Jesse specifically referred to this as an act of “generosity” and understood and appreciated the effort being made to include them.

The increase in remote working over the last few years has increased the amount of digital chat taking place across teams (Gifford, 2022; Mutebi & Hobbs, 2022). Alex uses a Microsoft Teams channel to communicate within their team and thus can have direct communication, digitally, with their deaf manager. The limitations of this form of communication were recognised, together with the difficulties of interpreting tone from the text-based chat, although Alex felt this was a common issue regardless of whom you were talking to:

When [they] talk in person [they are] super animated and bubbly. And maybe that doesn’t come across quite as much online. But I think that’s maybe the same with everyone. (Alex)

4.2 Workplace norms and etiquette

Interviewees were concerned that interpreters would not understand jargon, abbreviations, or unique project names and therefore could not accurately understand the details of the conversations taking place. This was particularly problematic when non-regular interpreters were used:

I know [the interpreter] needs to be somebody that is able to grasp the [specific] terminology and have good understanding of what we’re talking about to interpret what I’m saying … because we’re often talking technical to technical … so it does worry me. (Pat)

One interviewee, Jesse, also recognised that workplaces had different demands which may not suit all interpreters’ skills and personalities. For instance, they work in a domain where the boundaries, expectations, and demands on an interpreter can vary significantly, and explained that co-working interpreters would sometimes need to work simultaneously owing to the size of the room and the movement taking place. Conversations, instructions, and directions may need to be interpreted from different parts of the room and so interpreters would need to become more physically involved. Furthermore, interpersonal relationships were sometimes quite sensitive and needed to be managed carefully. Jesse stated that watching how interpreters coped had been fascinating:

Well, there’s two things, there’s a vocabulary issue where people are like, “I just don’t know what you’re talking about” …. And then there’s the … the sort of chaos. … you get the new interpreters [who] are just like, “I don’t know what’s happening!” (Jesse)

Another linguistic concern raised was that the phraseology of the interpreters could sometimes hinder understanding. The interpreter’s word choice, use of tenses, and incorrect intonation when providing a spoken interpretation of a deaf person could sometimes be jarring and lack the smoothness necessary for comprehension. Moreover, the incorrect or incomplete use of language sometimes affected the hearing person’s comprehension, and “you [could] feel a conversation just sort of disintegrate” (Jesse).

4.3 Representation of character

The interviewees stated that the regular interpreters all seemed to portray a consistent presentation of the deaf person, and they did not notice any major changes in the deaf person’s character as the interpreter changed. The most noticeable change in presentation occurred when an “outside” interpreter was working either alongside or replacing a designated interpreter. Regular interpreters were described as fitting in well with the environment and were seen as “colleagues” (Alex), facilitating a smooth and comfortable working relationship between them. Conversations through designated interpreters were more successful as they understood the context of the interaction and usually employed the lexicon of the workplace better than “outside” interpreters.

While their ability to do the job was acknowledged, having an “outside” interpreter was likened to ‘having a substitute teacher who’s not quite as good as the regular teacher’ (Alex). The hearing professionals accepted that the “outside” interpreter had not met the team or worked within their workplace, hence having no knowledge of the working relationships of the team. They also recognised this as a reason for being unable to infuse their deaf colleague’s personality into their voiceover. This resulted in a more formal presentation of their colleague than they would normally receive which, they reported, could be unsettling. Hearing participants also found that the interpreters themselves seemed to be more distant and it felt like they were “just there to do the job” (Alex), although Alex also acknowledged that, especially when meeting online, it could be difficult to form a rapport in a one-off event.

The working relationship between a deaf person and their interpreter, as well as the interpreter’s ability to reflect the deaf person’s personality, was assumed by hearing colleagues to be the reason why some interpreters were preferred for specific meetings. Most participants commented that deaf colleagues did not seem to mind who the interpreter was for more general meetings, but became more selective for meetings of a more technical or personal nature. Interpreter availability sometimes created problems when scheduling meetings, especially when the pool of preferred interpreters was small.

Previous research has revealed that deaf professionals place importance on the interpreter’s ability to represent them well in the workplace and use language appropriately (P. C. Hauser et al., 2022; O’Brien et al., 2023). However, hearing people’s priorities for the interpreter seemed to vary depending on their hierarchical position, and hence the types of meetings they held. When asked about the interpreter’s ability to represent the deaf person’s character, those in a more senior position prioritised “an accurate interpretation” (Sam) over being able to “see” the personality.

The hearing participants explained that they too had created lists of preferred interpreters. This was mostly due to the comfort, trust, and the feeling of being in “safe hands” (Alex) that had been built up over time and through frequent contact. When questioned whether and how they would challenge which interpreter was booked, most said they would not and did not feel it was their place to do so:

I resign myself to knowing that I’m not going to hear exactly what the deaf person is saying, and I sort of modulate and try to just ask for facts. (Jesse)

By contrast, those participants who held more senior positions in their organisation said they would challenge the booking of a specific interpreter, if necessary, but were aware of the power they held:

When they have a preferred interpreter, and I can’t stand them, it gets really awkward because then I’m aware of where I sit in the whole power thing … in terms of my job and as a hearing person. I have to compromise. (Charlie)

The compromises mentioned by Charlie and another participant who managed a deaf employee ranged from not saying anything to being more direct and either asking the deaf staff member to use the interpreter in meetings that did not involve them or booking a different interpreter depending on the importance of the meeting. This issue is explored further in the discussion section.

Although the primary focus of the research was interpreters’ presentations of the deaf person, the data also highlighted interpreters’ portrayals of hearing people. Just as hearing people have assorted styles of speech, there are equivalent styles of signed language. That said, some interviewees commented that they could not see any difference in the way the interpreters conveyed the various hearing people. The interviewees who raised this point had at least Level 2 qualifications in BSL and were regularly in meetings with deaf people and interpreters; hence, they could observe the way different people were interpreted. The variation in people’s speech styles was not seen to be reflected in the interpreter’s production of signed language. For example, Sam explained that they were quite different from their co-worker—one was highly gregarious and extroverted while the other was calmer, collected, and introverted. Nevertheless, it was extremely rare for interpreters to differentiate between two people who present very differently based on their production of sign language:

… it will come out and look the same way, and it shouldn’t. (Sam)

Jesse’s experience with this seemed, to some extent, to differ from Sam’s. Although they both expressed the view that the interpreters’ style of BSL did not seem to change for different hearing people, Jesse noticed a change in the physical stance of several interpreters prior to signing for them, especially in group discussions:

It feels like every time I’m interpreted, people do this <raise shoulders>. And I’m like—is that how I stand? (Jesse)

While the regularity with which this change in stance occurred made Jesse feel slightly self-conscious of their posture, it demonstrates that interpreters can adjust their presentation of people to some extent, although it may be that some interpreters are more adept at characterisation than others, or that Jesse is more aware of it.

One interviewee, who had managed several deaf people, recognised that the quality of an interpretation into English could have a significant impact on whether a deaf person successfully achieved their targets. When questioned, most interviewees stated that they were rarely asked for their opinion about an interpreter’s translation or delivery into spoken English. Some interviewees posited that deaf colleagues assumed hearing staff would need to know both languages to adequately assess the translation without considering that they were able to feed back on the quality, language use, and content of the spoken English. An alternative perspective offered was that communication barriers prevented deaf person from approaching their colleagues directly and asking for feedback. Another suggested a deaf colleague may be embarrassed at having to ask someone else how “they” sound. The only interviewee who had been asked for feedback regarding an interpreter was a Child of Deaf Adults (CODA) who had previous knowledge of the deaf community and sign language and was thus able to be approached directly. Although two of the participants acknowledged the extra work deaf professionals perform to manage interpreters (P. C. Hauser et al., 2022; O’Brien et al., 2023), neither recognised that deaf professionals may lack the energy and time to gather feedback as it would take them away from their actual job.

4.4 The interpreter’s professionalism

The interviewee with the least experience of working with deaf people had fewer negative experiences of interpreters, whereas those with greater experience had encountered more situations where communication was stilted, the deaf person was misrepresented, or both. When a problem arose in the communication process, participants described feeling uncomfortable as they said that the interpreter and the deaf person would converse with each other in BSL; hence, the interviewees were not able to fully comprehend the cause of the issue or assist in resolving it.

The interviewees noted that there had been occasions which caused them to question the interpreter’s professionalism. For instance, Jesse shared a scenario where an interpreter translating into BSL had chosen to expand on comments made during a meeting and, unprompted, inserted a self-authored explanation of a technical term. The interviewee had a basic knowledge of BSL, having gained a Level 1 qualification, and so queried the interpreter after recognising that the translation of the spoken comment was much longer and thus suspected the interpreter was adding information without receiving a question from the deaf person:

We need to establish who [the deaf person] goes to for explanations because …. it felt wrong. (Jesse)

Jesse’s discomfort was heightened because there had been experts in the room and, when questioned, the interpreter had explained the term incorrectly. The lack of transparency over the interpreter’s decision-making meant that the deaf person had not realised the explanation had come from the interpreter. Jesse suggested that it was highly likely the deaf person thought their hearing colleagues had been patronising them when, in reality, the interpreter had made assumptions about the deaf person’s knowledge.

The duality of an interpreter’s position, as often they are the only person who can sensorily access both languages, was recognised as a challenge that must be carefully managed so as not to upset the power dynamic and create the potential for disempowerment. This duality can be apparent during office socialising when the interpreter is able to converse with the deaf person’s colleagues directly while the deaf person must rely, to a certain extent, on the interpreter. Interpreters’ relationships with colleagues were not always contained within the work environment. Charlie recalled an interpreter commenting that they regularly went out for meals with another hearing colleague of their deaf client. Charlie was uncertain about the appropriateness of this relationship and felt that it could cause the deaf client to question the interpreter’s professionalism.

One interviewee remarked that they had questions when it came to homonyms—two words that look the same but have different meanings. They explained that there had been times when a deaf person, looking at written English text, would miss the context of the text and incorrectly sign one meaning of the word when another meaning was correct. The example given was “rose” being signed as a flower without realising that it meant the past tense of “rise.” The interviewee was aware of that error as they possess a basic level of BSL and could recognise the “flower” sign as incorrectly presented in their discussion. They also acknowledged that it reflected an interesting balance of power dynamics and although it was not the interpreter’s role in that setting, “they are often the only one that can spot those mistranslations.”

Trust was commented on repeatedly by all interviewees. All felt that the interpreter has enormous control over the way deaf and hearing colleagues are represented and the way in which information is conveyed. They felt it was essential for both the hearing and deaf person to trust that the interpreter would convey information accurately and confidentially. This trust was shaken slightly when working with ‘outside’ interpreters as they had not had previous contact with them and so did not have the same level of trust that had been established with the designated interpreters.

5. Discussion

This study was initially concerned with the consistency of the presentation of the deaf person and how their hearing co-workers felt when the deaf person had a different interpreter, and therefore different representations, every day. However, the data indicated that none of the participants reported this to be a persistent problem and they felt it was “something you just get used to” (Sam). This was curious because anecdotal evidence from fellow interpreters seems to suggest that some do experience such discontinuity. This lack of reporting may be a result of my prior knowledge of the interviewees. That said, other difficulties were discussed openly and I feel confident that issues could have been raised and considered in a non-judgemental or anonymous discussion.

Regarding the presentation of the deaf person’s character, the interviewees found other interpreter-related phenomena, such as the inevitable time lag between a question and answer, unproblematic. A greater cause of dissonance and disconnect with their deaf colleague occurred when there was an interpreter present who was not a designated interpreter and therefore displayed an understandable lack of familiarity with the people, jargon, and conversational norms of the office.

Participants’ concerns about feeling nervous, de-skilled, and lacking in confidence when they first started working with deaf people and interpreters stemmed from a lack of knowledge and being in a new situation where they had no frame of reference or understanding of what was expected (Schiff & Schiff, 1975). While hearing participants had a frame of reference for being in the workplace, most people interviewed had never worked with a deaf person before and so had no previous experience or schema to remind themselves how to feel or behave. As the participants gained more experience and built their frames of reference, they grew in confidence. If a workplace was a deaf organisation or an environment where there were numerous deaf members of staff, it would follow that greater exposure would make this initial phase of discomfort pass quicker than if there was a lone deaf person in a predominantly hearing environment. This is similar to Schofield and Mapson’s (2014) research in health care settings which revealed that as hearing staff became familiar with the regular interpreters, initial discomforts were resolved and they were able to develop ways of working that became familiar to them.

5.1 Influence over interpreter bookings

In the United Kingdom, the government’s Access to Work funding is usually allocated to the deaf person, as they are best placed to identify adjustments that will fit their needs. This means the deaf employee has the responsibility, burden, and control with respect to booking interpreters (O’Brien et al., 2023), but no formal mechanism exists for hearing consumers to feed back their views and/or concerns about the interpreters being booked. If hearing people have issues with interpreters, they must approach the deaf person directly which can create tension, particularly if that conversation needs to be interpreted. Although it is possible to report concerns to the interpreter’s registering body, most interviewees were unaware of this and the ones who were aware said their issues were on a personal level, and were thus unwilling to make any formal complaints.

Most participants in this study had never been asked for feedback regarding the spoken language skills of the interpreters they worked with, or whether the delivery style and content met the expectations of the environment and audience. Most interviewees felt it was not their place to approach the deaf person with any concerns they had and seemed quite reluctant and hesitant about doing so. The reasons for this may be the language barrier, a lack of knowledge regarding whether they can feed back, or a concern that providing feedback may need to be done via the interpreter they wish to comment on. There might also be an element of discomfort involved, with a member of the majority language group not wanting to impose their views on a member of the minority group (Sutton-Spence & West, 2011).

The language and terms used by the interviewees may reveal another reason for the reluctance of hearing people to offer feedback on the interpreter’s work, this being a vocabulary deficit associated with interpreting. The interviewees who had been working with deaf colleagues for the longest used terms such as “time lag” and “voiceover” during their interviews, whereas the interviewee who was newest to the experience described the effects of these terms, e.g., “you have to wait for the interpreter to finish,” rather than use the terminology. Working with an interpreter is a new experience for most hearing people, so they may not have the vocabulary to adequately articulate specific critiques or observations about an interpreter’s ability to interpret spoken English. I suggest that as an interpreter becomes more familiar and informal discussions increase, interpreting-related vocabulary will become more common in the workplace, leading to greater confidence in addressing issues. However, this process takes time, and some employees may be more inclined to engage with these concepts than others.

What became a notable topic of discussion was that just as deaf people develop a list of preferred interpreters, hearing people also develop a list of interpreters they favour for certain meetings with deaf colleagues. The reasoning given was similar to that presented in research regarding deaf people and interpreters. Specifically, there was a level of confidence in the interpreter’s ability, the hearing person knew the interpreter would be open to admitting errors, and the key factor was trust (A. B. Hauser & Hauser, 2008). Realistically, however, the only influence the hearing person has over interpreter choice is the option to present their own preferred list which may or may not match that of the deaf person. Given the different hierarchical relationships that exist in the workplace, the deaf person could end up in conflict with their hearing manager over the choice of interpreter. In this situation, the question arises as to which party is more likely to concede.

5.2 Trust

Trust was a key element throughout the study with all interviewees repeatedly commenting on the trust placed in the interpreter by both deaf and hearing members of the workplace. Although the participants’ definition of “trust” was not explored, they highlighted the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, confidentiality, and transparency. These differ from the elements that O’Brien et al. (2023) suggested should replace the concept of “trust” from a deaf professional perspective, as they argued that “proof of competence” and “demonstrated skill” are what is required from an interpreter, instead of trust.

The difference between the two may be the amount of exposure they have had working with interpreters. With little, if any, previous exposure to interpreters, the hearing participants seemed to inherently assume a level of interpreter competence and it was only after multiple errors and a lack of transparent decision-making that their trust in the interpreters was eroded. By contrast, O’Brien et al.’s (2023) assertion that “trust” needs to be earned and cannot be inherently assumed was reached following the co-authors’ evaluation and analysis of their many years of experience working with interpreters.

Trust in an interpreter’s professional boundaries was especially important to interviewees in higher positions of authority who used interpreters in highly sensitive meetings. These interviewees often created their own list of preferred interpreters who had demonstrated all four of the dimensions of trust outlined by Hsieh et al. (2010). Sam noted that while interpreters made efforts to keep discussions about their work anonymous, the small size of the interpreting community and knowledge of the domains interpreters worked in often made it easy to deduce the people and workplaces being discussed. Situations could easily arise where a deaf person trusts the interpreter’s skills and competence, yet their hearing manager may not trust their discretion. When the deaf and hearing people disagree about an interpreter, and the dimensions of trust (Hsieh et al., 2010) are in conflict, it can be difficult to find a resolution. The interviewees in positions of authority felt that the interpreter’s integrity outweighed other aspects of their work.

When a lack of transparency existed and hearing interviewees were uncertain about an interpreter’s behaviours, they started to question the interpreter’s competence and professionalism. Once lost, trust is difficult to regain. Regarding the example discussed previously, when the interpreter unnecessarily added an incorrect definition of a technical term, Jesse adjusted their behaviour towards that interpreter rather than risk repeating the situation. Because the deaf person seemed to favour this interpreter, rather than discuss their discomfort, Jesse curtailed their involvement when that interpreter was present by simply “asking for facts.”

This disintegration of trust ultimately harmed the working relationship as Jesse was unable to interact with their deaf colleagues as they would prefer to. It also created questions about whether (1) the deaf co-worker picked up on Jesse’s discomfort and (2) if the cause was attributed to the interpreter or if the deaf person took Jesse’s change in behaviour as something directed at them personally. The fact that people actively change their working practices to accommodate the skills (or lack thereof) of the interpreter reveals the significant impact an interpreter has on workplaces and their relationships with the deaf clients with whom they work.

The findings of the current study indicated that deaf and hearing colleagues often work with interpreters in a siloed manner. Although hearing professionals develop familiarity and trust with interpreters, they do not feel comfortable providing feedback on their work. Moreover, although deaf professionals typically invest time in evaluating interpreters’ performance (O’Brien et al., 2023), the deaf staff referred to in this study did not approach most of the interviewees for feedback on the interpreter’s spoken English presentation. These findings highlight the need for a safe space where deaf professionals and their colleagues can openly discuss interpreters and workplace interpreting. Creating such a space would require tailoring the approach to suit specific workplaces and individuals, with careful consideration of the most suitable mechanism for fostering open dialogue.

5.3 Representation of character

This study underlined the importance of presenting deaf people appropriately in the workplace as this has profound effects on the deaf person’s ability to interact with their team and achieve their targets. It also reinforced the benefits of having consistent interpreters who enable not only the deaf professional to have a better understanding of the jargon, protocols, and etiquette of the workplace (Henley & McKee, 2020) but also the hearing members. The findings of Schofield and Mapson (2014) regarding clients’ preferences in health care settings appear to be mirrored within the workplace setting. Having consistent interpreters enabled hearing professionals to become more familiar and comfortable with them, alleviating concerns and facilitating the deaf person’s integration into the workplace.

Some interviewees questioned whether interpreters represent the character of hearing individuals in BSL as effectively as they convey the personality of deaf individuals through spoken English translation. This concern may stem from a lack of knowledge about signed languages and how they make use of multiple features in addition to signs, such as space, facial and body expressions, and the speed and force of signs (Janzen, 2005). It is possible that although they cannot see any noticeable difference in sign production, interpreters are using other elements of BSL to convey various elements of the hearing person’s character.

Although Jesse agreed interpreters were not reflecting people differently in terms of signing style, a consistent posture change was enough to signal when they were being interpreted. A possible explanation for these differing opinions may be the domain in which the interviewees work. The interviewees came from diverse professional backgrounds, which likely attracted interpreters with similarly varied experience. Interpreters working in creative fields may pay more attention to physical presentation, whereas those in more corporate domains might not detect or prioritise such characteristics.

Interpreters play a crucial role in shaping how individuals are perceived in context (Young, Napier & Oram, 2019). If interpreters standardise the presentation of all hearing people in BSL, an issue Sam expressed concern about, deaf staff members might struggle to recognise and build a rapport with their hearing colleagues. Rapport building is crucial for all members of the workforce (Dickinson, 2017). When a new employee joins a team, not only must they adapt to the workplace, but existing staff must also adjust and integrate the new member (Holmes et al., 2016). Thus, it is equally important for deaf individuals to understand their hearing colleagues’ personalities and for hearing colleagues to understand the deaf person. Understanding the personalities and characters of co-workers and superiors significantly enhances deaf professionals’ ability to connect with and integrate into their hearing colleagues’ environment. Regular interpreters play a key role in this process, allowing managers to grasp the impact interpreters have on a deaf employee’s work. For instance, Sam noted that interpreters can significantly influence how a deaf person’s sales pitch or funding presentation is perceived by the audience.

6. Limitations and future research areas

One limitation of this study was the small sample size, which reduced the breadth of employment situations and experiences that could be explored. A larger number of participants from a wider range of employment contexts would yield much richer and more extensive data. In addition, the familiarity between the interviewer and interviewees might have made participants reluctant to share more critical or negative feedback. Collecting data from participants with no knowledge of the interviewer would have facilitated the production of a more balanced overview.

Further research should also consider gathering a deaf perspective on these findings. For example, the hearing interviewees recognised efforts by deaf individuals to communicate directly and to build relationships; therefore, it would be valuable to understand how much of the deaf person’s actions were pre-planned. In addition, exploring deaf individuals’ views on how interpreters convey the personalities of hearing colleagues could provide deeper insights. Investigating the reasons underpinning hearing people’s preferences for specific interpreters and analysing their rationale for these preferences would also be valuable.

7. Conclusion

In the United Kingdom, the onus on sourcing, organising, and facilitating payment of interpreters is the responsibility of the deaf professional. This dynamic, coupled with prevailing views of disability, often leads to the misconception that interpreters are solely there for the deaf person, overlooking their role in also facilitating communication for hearing colleagues (Mole, 2018; Young, Napier & Oram, 2019). Given the increasing number of deaf professionals working with designated interpreters, exploring the experience of hearing colleagues will be advantageous to everyone.

Although hearing people generally have less experience with interpreters compared with deaf people, there are commonalities between the two groups. Deaf people have highlighted the importance of interpreters understanding the norms of their workplace (P. C. Hauser et al., 2022; O’Brien et al., 2023), feeling disempowered by being presented through a third person (Young, Napier & Oram, 2019), and the importance of trusting the interpreter to present both yourself and the information you are conveying accurately and professionally (Napier et al., 2008). The current study revealed that these concerns are also those of hearing colleagues working alongside deaf professionals. By creating a starting point for discussion, this study thus promotes more open and informed interactions among deaf individuals, interpreters, and hearing colleagues.