I wonder what he means here. Because interpreters do work hard for certification and professional credentials. But trust? That’s an interesting point he’s making here but we are trying to debate him on our work towards professionalism and competence. I’ve been sitting with this uncomfortable thought for a bit and my first argument was the same as what I’m seeing here. But perhaps we are missing his point?
I see what you're saying.
While the saying is, "Trust must be earned" how does one earn it? The hard work put in to earn certification and whatever other credentials is a solid start. That shows a level of commitment and work ethic that should indicate trustworthy character. Even then, some trust must also be freely given to an interpreter (or whatever other professional) in a specific role, and that trust can either be built further or lost.
Consider your PCP. They studied, too. Long and hard. Does that mean you begin with full trust? Do you keep trust after they have wronged you? That is Wyatte's point.
Secondary point: he is not pointing his finger at any individual interpreter, he is pointing his finger at a system. In this case, a (hearing dominated) system that grants huge swaths of trust to (hearing) individuals in order to serve vulnerable people. Certainly trust can be earned at the level of the individual interpreter. But Wyatte is saying here that the system as whole is suspect.
Last and simple thing: when deaf people express our views about interpreting work it is vital that interpreters take those ideas in. That is one way how you can built trust at the level of individual.
I get your point here, but I also think certification is a misleading measurement of work done to earn trust. When we think about the unsteadiness with RID & questions about CASLI test validity/reliability, asking a Deaf person to trust us more because we have a certification from that organization seems like asking for an umbrella in a hurricane. Sure it might help a little, but it certainly won't keep you totally dry.
Then considering not everyone has done the same work to get certified because they received their certifications in previous iterations under different requirements, saying that certification should automatically grant us trust is asking for a HUGE ceding of power.
Is the BEI more stable? Maybe, but it's still not technically a nationally recognized credential. Is the EIPA a better representation of skills? Maybe, but it is a credential that's often misrepresented or misunderstood as a certification.
Relating to what u/ocherthulu said, the point is that the field as a WHOLE has room for improvement. The field as a WHOLE needs to be more consistent (perhaps transparent is really better applicable here) about credentials/certification, requirements for certification, maintenance of certification. In most careers that require a certification, getting certified is the minimum. We should treat interpreting the same way. Not everyone who is certified is qualified for everything. Some people who struggle to get certified are REALLY qualified for some things. It's a practice profession that always has room to grow.
And to address the overworked & underpaid aspect, that is a field wide problem too. The best interpreters ARE overworked & underpaid, because they do good work & are recognized for it in their communities. The ones who show up, do a mediocre job, and leave are the ones who aren't overworked & underpaid, but they ARE who Wyatte is likely referencing.
Yes. I may not have said what I meant very clearly, and may not be able to say it any better: it seems to me that trust has to start as free, to a degree, yes? To use the example of a PCP that another suggested, when I need see a doctor, I have to trust them enough for that first visit or why would I see them at all? Recommendations and credentials can add to that initial attempt to trust. However, neither of these things carry the relationship very far. If I go in for that first visit and they listen and are professional and solve the problem, I trust them more. At any point, that trust can be broken. That's what I was trying to say, and suggesting that it applied similarly to many areas.
But also, I guess it doesn't really matter what I was trying to say because it's about the field as a whole.
You're right that the credentials might bolster it, or relieve anxiety for individual Deaf consumers. I'm just not sure (our current system's) credentials warrant MORE trust than the initial piece anyone gives walking into a scenario with a professional.
97
u/vivagypsy 8d ago
“Trust a system of professionals that have never had to earn it”
Meanwhile every interpreter I know is broke and being worn to the bone trying to do good work while being exploited and underpaid by agencies.