Opetussuunnitelmat

Objective

Part A: Developing the Profession II (8 ECTS; 240 h):
This module focuses on the development of the profession of sign language interpreting,
exploring it in a larger social context. Essentially, the module explores principles and
practices of being a sign language interpreter, giving consideration to linguistic, cultural,
professional and ethical dynamics involved in the interpreting process and also in relation
to interpersonal relationships in the Deaf community. The fact that interpreting is a
professional service bringing together and mediating between different social groups is a
particular focus. The profession of sign language interpreting and, increasingly, sign
language translation is faced with divergent customer expectations that are often hard to
reconcile. The module will provide a forum for review of development of the profession,
future directions, and reflections on how to deal with such and other current expectations
and developments in the field.

Part B: Developing Reflective Practice II (2 ECTS; 60 h):
The aim of this strand, Developing Reflective Practice, is for students to improve and
deepen their self-reflection skills. By increasing self-reflection, students will also improve
their self-awareness and the ability to regulate their behaviour in interpreting practice. This
strand is centred on the need for practitioners to maintain professional integrity in their
work decisions that are in line with broader theories from the field of professional ethics.
The particular aims of this course are for students to improve on their abilities to see theory as it frames their understanding of their and others’ professional practice. This
course also critiques the approaches traditionally taken in community interpreting
compared to those evident in other service-based professions. The students will use
demand control schema as a work analysis tool.

Content

Part A:
In this course, there is a shift from individual practice to that of their peers and in their
pedagogy. Students will be expected to choose some theories studied in 2.2 and find
avenues to disseminate information and advance discussions on the topic of ethics and
reflective practice.
Topics include:
- Ethical dilemmas, situated practice and moral sensitivity
- Deriving ethical material from observations and Think Aloud Protocols
- Case presentation and theory-based analysis (videotaped cases)
– Lobbying and policy making

Part B:
In this course, there is a shift from individual practice to that of their peers and in their
pedagogy. Students will be expected to choose some theories studied in 2.2 and find
avenues to disseminate information and advance discussions on the topic of ethics and
reflective practice.
Topics include:
- Ethical dilemmas, situated practice and moral sensitivity
- Deriving ethical material from observations and Think Aloud Protocols
- Case presentation and theory-based analysis (videotaped cases)

Materials

Part A:
Adam, R., Aro, M., Druetta, J. C., Dunne, S., & af Klintberg, J. (2014). Deaf interpreters: An
introduction. In R. Adam, C. Stone, S. D. Collins & M. Metzger (Eds.), Deaf interpreters at
work: International insights (pp.1-18). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Cokely, Dennis (2000). “Exploring Ethics: A Case for Revising the Code of Ethics.”
Journal of Interpretation: 25–57.
Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the
relationship of interpreters and the Deaf community. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson &
E. A. Winston (Eds.), Interpreting and interpreting education: Directions for research
and practice (pp. 3-28). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hauser, A., & Hauser, P. (2008). The deaf professional-designated interpreter model. In
P. Hauser, K. Finch & A. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf professionals and designated
interpreters: A new paradigm (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Janzen, T., & Korpinksi, D. (2005). Ethics and professionalism in interpreting. In T.
Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp. 165–
199). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hema, Z. (2007). “WASLI – Past Present
Future.” Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1): 143-156.
Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee, R. (2013). Getting to the core of role: defining interpreters’
role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 5(2), 54-72.
Napier, J. (2011). Signed language interpreting. K. Windle & K. Malmkjaer (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 353-372). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Napier, J. (2011). “It’s not what they say but they way that they say it”. A content analysis
of interpreter and consumer perceptions of signed language interpreting in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 207, 59-87.
Ott, E. (2013). Do we eat our young? Newsli.
Pollitt, Kyra. 1997. “The state we’re in: Some thoughts on professionalisation,
professionalism and practice among the UK’s sign language interpreters.” Deaf
Worlds 13 (3): 21–26.
Ressler, Carolyn. 1999. A comparative analysis of a direct interpretation and an
intermediary interpretation in American Sign Language. Journal of Interpretation: 71–
102.
Roy, Cynthia B. 1993/2002. “The problem with definitions, descriptions and the rolemetaphors of interpreters, in The Interpreting Studies Reader, Franz Pöchhacker and
Miriam Shlesinger, 345-353. London: Routledge.
Swabey, L., & Mickelson, P. G. (2008). Role definition: A perspective on forty years of
professionalism in sign language interpreting. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.),
Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting (pp. 51-80). Philadelphia: Joh
Benjamins.
Swaitz, D.B. 2006. Job satisfaction among Sign Language Interpreters. Journal of
Interpretation: 347-82.
Turner, Graham H. 1995. “Rights and responsibilities: The relationship between Deaf
people and interpreters.” Deafness 11 (3): 4–8.
Turner, Graham H. 1996. “Regulation and responsibility: The relationships between
interpreters and deaf people.” Deaf Worlds 12 (1): 1–7.
Wit, Maya de. 2010. “Sign Language Interpreting in Multilingual International Settings.” In
Interpreting in Multilingual, Multicultural Contexts, Rachel McKee and Jeffrey Davis
(eds), 226-242. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Part B:
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. 2012. Principles of biomedical ethics, 2nd ed., New
York: Oxford University Press.
Dean, R. K. and Pollard JR, R. Q. 2011. ‘Context-based ethical reasoning in interpreting:
A demand control schema perspective’, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5,
155- 182.
Dean, R. K. and Pollard, R. Q. 2013. The demand control schema: Interpreting as a
practice profession, North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
Rest, J. R. 1984. ‘Research on moral development: Implications for training counseling
psychologists’, The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 19 - 29.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J. and Thoma, S. J. 1999a. Postconventional moral
thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner New York: Harper and Collins.

Evaluation scale

0-5

Further information

Part A:
Assessment methods
Task 1: Writing a report based on students‘ personal interviews with experts in Sign
Language Interpretation. (25%); reassessment: resubmission.
Task 2: Group presentation and individual report. (75%); reassessment: resubmission
and presentation
Detailed guidelines and assessment criteria will be provided at the beginning of the
semester.

Part B:
Assessment methods
The Developing Reflective Practice is not assessed.