As an interpreter you are asked to make split-second decisions in scenarios where split-second decisions may not be the best approach. There are times when issues or scenarios arise that need time for discussion, deliberation, and a meaningful decision making process. Throughout my time in the Douglas College interpreting program we have been taught different ways of making decisions. For myself however, there is one decision making model that has become my main process for making choices and decisions while interpreting. Dean and Pollard’s (2013) decision making model, The Demand Control Schema (DC-S), has allowed me to setup a basis for how I make decisions throughout the interpreting process.
We have talked a lot about how we make decisions in the moment throughout the interpreting program at Douglas College. While I have stated that Dean and Pollard’s (2013) work on the DC-S model is my preferred method of decision making I will also say that their structure often does not come in to play at the moment a decision is required to be made. Rather, the DC-S has allowed me to critique and reflect on the decision I have made in a structured way and then learn from those decisions. Before I begin to explain my own decision making process, allow me to expand on some of the essential elements of Dean and Pollard’s (2013) DC-S decision making model.
One of the most important elements of the DC-S is to identify what the main demand is. In other words, what is the biggest issue at hand. It is important to recognize what this demand is in order to move on to the concurrent demands that stem from this main demand. For example, if there is a safety concern in an automotive classroom, in that a student for whom you are interpreting for has missed a crucial procedural step, then our main concern is the safety of the student and all those in proximity to the danger. Once you have this main demand identified you can move on to the concurrent demands, which fall into four broad categories: environmental, interpersonal, paralinguistic, and intrapersonal. An example of what this might look like can be seen in Table 1. Table 1 is an example situation which we applied the DC-S model in a previous Douglas College course (Palmer, 2018).
Once an interpreter has outlined all of these concurrent demands which fall under the primary, or “main” demand then they can move on to the decision options they may have. Dean and Pollard (2013) call these decisions “controls”. Controls are actions that an interpreter takes in response to the demand(s). Controls tend to rate on a scale of liberal to conservative decisions. The liberal or conservative nature of the decision tends to relate to the involvement of the interpreter. Conservative decisions/controls are typically less involved or intrusive. The interpreter may take the position of being “neutral” and may feel like it is not their place to be a part of the outcome of whatever it is that is happening. On the opposite end of the spectrum a liberal decision may be made by the interpreter. These liberal decisions are much more involved and can be intrusive in nature. The interpreter may make the decision to abandon their position as the interpreter and become directly involved in the outcome of the situation. The liberal/conservative scale is a spectrum and there is rarely ever a situation where there is only a black or white, liberal or conservative decision to be made. There is a variety and it is important to know where the decision you made lies on this spectrum. In Figure 1, a figure used in accordance with Palmer (2018), we can see some of the potential controls that an interpreter may take in the situation outlined in Table 1.
Figure 1: A liberal/conservative spectrum of controls
Another related topic to the decisions we make and the liberal or conservative nature of them is the relational autonomy that we have with those whom we are working. Relational autonomy is the relationship between individuals and their position in society (Witter-Merithew & Nicodemus, 2012). When we talk about relational autonomy in regards to interpreting we are steered towards our position of power as interpreters. We are the ones that hold the power to make these decision and we need to know how these decisions impact the autonomy of those involved. I have always looked at relational autonomy as a chart/graphic. Looking at Figure 3 we can see how our decisions to become less or more involved – make more liberal or conservative decisions – impact the relational autonomy of those we are working with. The more liberal choices we make the less autonomy the person we are working with has. The more conservative controls we implement the more autonomy we allow them to have. It is important to not only find a balance but to know when it is appropriate to make decisions that may lessen or increase someone’s autonomy.
Figure 2: The autonomy of a consumer vs the liberal to conservative controls used by the interpreter
While I have outlined the decision making models above I will refer to a previous statement I made in that I tend to not have any decision making models at front of mind when I am faced with making a quick decision. I have long found that these scenarios that require a decision making model rarely account for the time needed to run through all your options and possible outcomes. Rather, I use the decision making models to reflect on the decisions I made at that time. I think this is the most beneficial part of having a decision making model: the ability to deconstruct what happened and figure out exactly why we made the decisions we did.
In my experience with difficult and ethically challenging situations I have often made my choices in that exact moment without consciously thinking about the concurrent demands or any positive or negative effects my decisions may have on the individual(s)’ autonomy. An important part of an interpreter’s decision making process, and my own process as well, is their subconscious knowledge of demanding scenarios. Throughout my time at Douglas College and with my practicum experience I have had to make difficult decisions, as well as less difficult decisions, but decisions nevertheless. My ability to dissect these decisions and find the root of why I made the choices I made help to cement a decision making process within myself that I can carry from scenario to scenario. Therefore, I do use Dean and Pollard’s (2013) model of DC-S but as a way of examining and understanding the decision I made at the time and preparing myself for future challenges and decisions I will be required to make as a sign language interpreter.
As stated in the above paper I feel like my decision making model is more of a tool for deconstruction and reflection of the decisions I make. My philosophy is that if we can better understand the reasons why we made certain decisions (good or bad) then we can better learn from them going forward. If we examine the other options we had at the time then we will have a clearer vision of other controls, better or worse, that were available to us as sign language interpreters. One of the elements of my decision making model that is more “in the moment” is my approach to relational autonomy. As I learn more about what autonomy really means and start to understand how much I value it I can notice the impact it has on my decision making in the moment. Relational autonomy can be a real hindrance on a child, especially in social situations. Therefore, in situations where there is a potential for social learning I tend to make more conservative decisions with the social learning aspect as the main catalyst for that decision.
I predict that as the years go by and I am able to analyze more and more decisions that I make, or choose not to make, I will develop a faster, more efficient decision making model. That being said, I am bound to make mistakes and using the DC-S as an analysis model as well as a decision making model will always help me better understand the decision and controls I choose.
Chris Chiarelli - An INTR Journey 