We have been studying models from a theoretical perspective for juniors and working to apply the models to the interpreting work with the seniors. Our question for you is - How do you employ models in your practice as an interpreter?
Models could include socio-linguistic models such as Dennis Cokeley's, meaning-based models like Debra Russell's, Gile's Effort Model, or Betty Colonomos' model. These models help us to conceptualize the work we do as interpreters - taking in a message in one language, processing it to distill meaning, and then reproducing that meaning into another language. There are obviously many, many more models that could be listed - models developed by spoken and signed language interpreting researchers/practitioners.
Students have asked about how working, experienced interpreters apply models in analyzing their work. Again, How do you employ models in your practice as an interpreter? If you are not familiar with any "models," how do you conceptualize your work and analyze to improve your work?
To be honest, I find most models to be ineffective. Once you have learned and internalized the basic premise of a model, the only way to get more out of the construct is by having a colleague with a similar pedagogy to bounce ideas around. If you don't have anyone around who is familiar with the models you know, it becomes difficult to use these models in a practical fashion.
ReplyDeleteThe example that is more relevant of late is the Demand-Control Schema (DC-S). I have attended at least a half dozen trainings that use this model as starting point, but the instructors involved never give an explanation anything like the previous explanations I've seen of this model. Given that no one seems to understand the constructs of this model, I think it is the perfect example of how even a popular model is ineffective as a means to discuss our work.
What all of this really means is that we should be looking for ways to teach interpreters to think critically about the work without trying to limit them to the patterns of various theoretical models that rise and fall in popularity and are rarely (if ever) subject to peer-review analysis or substantive practical application.
I suppose that teaching people to think for themselves may be the most radical model of all....
I don't disagree that many people teach models that they themselves don't fully know or understand to the point that they can apply them effectively. People who teach a model should understand and know it through and through, indeed. But that doesn't mean models or as I think of DC-S is, "taxonomies" are not beneficial and that one should not attempt to advance the model or the application of it. Indeed they should. I would suggest the problem in the interpreting field is "one-off" workshop mentality as its main form of professional development. I wonder if the half dozen trainings you mention above were one-off opportunities and whether or not that contributed to disclarity.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that a model (regardless of the model you are thinking of) can prove to be beneficial is if you apply it regularly and yes, within a community of "knowers" (Parker Palmer). But it is hard to convince people that on-going reflective practice (as we have tried to advance in Rochester and other places), that is, thinking about and talking about your work for the purposes of improvement is a worthwhile activity (vis-a-vis case presentation). In many other professions, reflective practices are time-honored, structured, required, and ethical activities. In interpretering, we prefer to show up on a weekend and engage in a workshop for eight hours than to show up twice a month for two hours for several years (and beyond) and engage our peers in constructive dialogue about our work.
What you're suggesting above is that we should teach without models...and yet, all other professions have models and taxonomies for the teaching of their young professionals. Are models and taxonomies limiting? Of course they are -- they are artificial in nature. But that does not mean there is not benefit. Taxonomies exist in every aspect of life -- your grocery store has categorized foods together in different aisles to help people in their thinking and selection process. Can you imagine in psychiatry, clinicians trying to understand and treat mental illness and diagnosis without the structure of the DSM? Is it limiting, yes. But for decades now, people determine that the usefulness of taxonomies outweigh the limitations.
All practice professions are interested in teaching critical thinking to their young professionals and all must and do employ taxonomies to get there. AND, critical thinking isn't accomplished after four years or after six years -- it is an on-going career expectation that you think reflectively about your work.
Do we need models and taxonomies for advancing our education and research? Yes, we do. But, as you point out, we need to first make sure that our teachers understand the models that they are teaching, that we follow up our own learning with more education (many of these models mentioned above including DC-S have literature and some of it even peer-reviewed), and that we seek to find opportunities to regularly apply this model in our work with a community of peers. The fact that this might not currently exist does not mean one should not work towards that noble goal. I don't think abandoning taxonomies is the answer.
Robyn Dean
rkd4@hw.ac.uk