Erica Alley - Professional Autonomy in Video Relay Service Interpreting

In 2007, video relay service (VRS) was a fairly new enterprise in the signed language interpreting profession. I was then a novice American Sign Language (ASL)English interpreter enrolled in a graduate program in interpreting. Like many of my fellow students, I was eager to cut my teeth on this new service, intrigued with the idea of providing interpretations via video technology. Upon being hired by a VRS provider, I was given the title of communications assistant (CA), along with the promise of an opportunity to be mentored within the companys training program. It appeared to be the perfect way for me to be safely inducted into the interpreting profession.

However, during my first week of work, I immediately felt uncomfortable with one of the instructions given to me by the VRS company manager. He explained that I might occasionally receive calls from deaf consumers who would ask to be connected to podcasts (lengthy noninteractive audio recordings about a variety of topics). He stated that some of the deaf callers might instruct me to not interpret the podcast and that I should honor their request but remain on line for the duration of the podcast, despite its length. These types of calls were even given a special namer-calls or rest callscreating the impression that these calls were a perk for the interpreter. Even as a novice interpreter, I felt there was something odd about this arrangement, but when I questioned my manager, he told me that r-calls were a common practice among VRS providers and they were handled in this manner because of the need for emerging companies to succeed in the industry as they competed with larger VRS providers. The explanation seemed implausible, but as a new CA in VRS and as a novice interpreter, I uncomfortably accepted his explanations. However, I was in a quandary about how to address these r-calls: if I refused to accept them, I might have been perceived as being insubordinate and could possibly lose my job, but if I accepted the so-called r-calls without interpreting them, I felt I was deviating from ethical interpreting practice. Wasnt the goal of my work to convey an equivalent message between communicative participants? After a few weeks, my distrust grew of both this situation and the company, and I decided to leave my position.

in the VRS setting. Personally, I was unable to identify whether rules originated with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or individual VRS companies. I wondered if other CAs were aware of the origin of the rules that govern their work. To pursue these questions, I conducted a small-scale investigation into the origin and nature of rules in VRS. Using a semistructured interview protocol, I interviewed four interpreters who worked as either CAs or held leadership roles in the VRS industry (Alley, 2014). The results of this pilot study revealed that although interpreters were aware of the rules governing their work in VRS, they were often uncertain about the purpose of the rules or who was responsible for the establishment of the rules.The question of responsibility was evident as participants repeatedly discussed the roles and responsibilities of the following three parties in establishing VRS rules and guidelines: (a) the national organization of signed language interpreters, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), in developing a Standard Practice Paper; (b) interpreter education programs in preparing students for VRS work; and (c) FCC as the legal backbone of VRS rules and how that oversight drove VRS providers to create additional rules.

The theme of responsibility recurred when participants discussed their own VRS work. Participants stated they felt they had a responsibility to produce quality interpretations and provide excellent customer service for VRS consumers. According to the participants, supervisors focused on the statistical data presented in reports to both meet FCC requirements and produce billable minutes. Although it was clear that many players were involved in the VRS conglomerate, participants exhibited uncertainty about who was responsible for the various constraints that influenced VRS work. One participant, a leader in the RID Video Interpreters Members Section (VIMS), described the dynamics as follows:

I think the FCC is upset at the providers and the providers are upset with the FCC, and... the interpreters are standing in the middle.... The providers saying, Well you have to do this or youre gonna lose your job. So then everyone goes into a panic and, Omigod, the FCCs gonna take our job away! No the FCCs not, your providers not gonna pay you.... And the interpreter is standing in the middle [trying to understand whose fault it is], Well is it the FCC or is it my provider? Who do I need to be looking at to be asking for something? And, more often than not, interpreters are starting to look at RID [whos saying], Were doing everything we can and were on the same page as the FCC here. The problem is with the providers.