Who’s in Control? A look at Remote Interpreting

-by Giovanna Lester © 2012RI_world

Remote Interpreting (RI) is defined as any form of simultaneous interpreting in which the interpreter works away from the meeting room either by telephone or by utilizing video-conferencing tools such as cable arrangements, closed-circuit TV and other similar technologies.

Despite what many believe, RI is not new. Agencies and organizations that are part of RI’s history include:

  • ♦ UNESCO “Symphonie Satellite” – 1976
  • ♦ NYC-Buenos Aires United Nations experiment – 1978
  • ♦ European Telecommunications Standards Institute study on ISDN video telephony for conference interpreters – 1993
  • ♦ Various tests by the European Commission – 1995, 1997, 2000
  • ♦ United Nations tests – 1999, 2001
  • ♦ European Parliament – 2001

However, two important factors have contributed to RI’s increasing prevalence in recent years. The first and probably most important factor, from the point of view of language service providers and conference organizers, has been the advances in technological developments. These advances allow for the delivery of better sound and image quality for conference attendees and interpreters. The second factor is the development of technology industry standards that have made using these technologies easier and more affordable.

Some noted improvements relate to design elements such as improved ergonomics, less complex set-ups and a reduced number of input sources. The above developments, however, have had no direct impact on the professional interpreter, and the human element has become the most important variable in the process.

RI_interpreterThe human body has its own limitations and these have been noted in studies as recently as 2006 and as far back as 1998. For example, the lack of visual input results in greater stress, and affects the interpreter’s ability to commit information to memory. Improper set-up can result in physical tiredness (eye fatigue, fatigue related to mental multi-tasking, etc.). Other complaints noted were related to the social isolation and the technical aspects of controlling multiple input devices.

A controlled study (Moser-Mercer, 2002) has shown that working live in a conference setting is less stressful and less tiring than working in RI environments. Another study, by Erickson and Kintsch (1995), shows that the RI-created environment affects interpreters’ efficiency, comprehension and production processes in their short- and long-term working memory, which is reflected in the quality of their performance.

My personal experience in the area of RI is not extensive, but it is varied in regard to both set-up and pay. It seems that the market has not found its point of equilibrium yet.

One of my first experiences was with the more complex set-up. It involved (1) using a landline and (2) a cell phone while (3) negotiating Yahoo instant communication service in order to (4) coordinate the hand-off to my colleague, while at the same time (5) following the PowerPoint slides on my computer, (6) using a headphone for the audio line and (7) holding the landline phone upside down so its microphone was closer to my mouth and the rest of the phone did not bump into my headset! Fortunately, the client had provided the PowerPoint slides ahead of time, which assisted my colleague and me in becoming familiar with the terminology and determining the rhythm and delivery needed to fit text and sound together.

In another instance, the client had me listen to the live presentation once, then listen to the recording of that live presentation, then interpret while listening again—all with no visual clues, no handouts, and no PowerPoint slides. I still needed two separate lines: one for hearing and one for speaking.

At my most recent endeavor in the RI field, the client got it almost completely right. I was invited into a studio and provided with the material ahead of time so we could agree on the rendition of certain terms and coordinate the speaking/slide synchronization. And there was a rehearsal the day before the event. On the day of the event, we had people joining us from eight different countries. Since we had been given their presentations ahead of time, there were very few surprises and all of them were negotiable. My colleague and I were given professional respect (they took our input into consideration and made changes to set-up and script), and were respected as human beings as RI_mikewell: we were given comfortable chairs, snacks, lunch, and technical support. Another indication of professional respect was the level of pay. The only reason it was almost perfect is because the monitor was below eye level and the microphone was not at the right height, which caused me to hunch forward, and resulted in upper back discomfort. The assignment was only one hour long and I could not have endured it for much longer. Again, ergonomics is very important.

What I learned from the above experiences: Remote Interpreting is the new darling in the field because companies are faced with new financial demands, and they are considering a wide variety of technologies that can potentially assist them in navigating those demands. However, they still need to learn what can and what cannot be expected in terms of interpreter performance. This is actually a great opportunity for professional interpreters—the human element—to have a stronger say in the development of this segment and to set limits.

Scientific studies show that the stress on interpreters during RI goes beyond the psychological. It is physical and has been recorded: eye strain, muscle fatigue, confusion and headaches, among others. Citing the Moser-Mercer study of 2002: “The remote interpreting situation appears to represent not only a novel environment for interpreters in which they need to invoke more effortful problem-solving strategies, but seems to cause more than the usual physiological and psychological strain in that the coordination of image and sound, the piecing together of a reality far away and the concomitant feeling of lack of control all draw on mental resources already over-committed in this highly complex skill.” Erickson and Kintsch (1995) suggest that shorter on-task times may improve interpreter performance.

During my experience as Moderator of the Technology Panel at InterpretAmerica’s Second North American Summit on Interpreting, I had the opportunity to discuss technology, training, expectations, design, and other related topics with several of the manufacturers present. It was surprising to learn that they do, in fact, want our input — that of the actual end-user, the Interpreter, and not just that of the buyer — with regard to their equipment design. They were surprised as well to learn that not much training was provided to either the interpreters or the technicians setting up our booths, and that the buyers of their equipment expected the technicians to read the manuals and convey that information to the interpreters. Some of these findings are recorded in the report by Marjory Bancroft, aptly titled, “Interpreting: Full Speed Ahead, Blazing a Trail toward National Unity,” available for download at http://www.interpretamerica.net/publications (starting on page 36).

Bancroft’s report, in addition to being more recent, took into account the recommendations of panels composed of stakeholders with different backgrounds and roles in the interpreting field. Hence, it may be the most relevant with regard to interpreter input on technology development.

Technology and the human element have to come together. And since technology is manipulated by and created to serve the human element, it is us interpreters who have to determine how to apply the technology, how to accommodate our physical and psychological needs, and how to educate our clients as to our own, human limitations in order to curb their expectations. We also need to work with technology providers to assist in the task oriented and ergonomic aspects of the devices we use. Until interpreters take these responsibilities to heart and start educating our clients and advocating for improvements in working conditions, we can’t expect change.

====================

References:
AIIC: http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article879.htm#job – Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters
AIIC: http://aiic.net/ViewTheme.cfm?Theme_ID=353 – Collection of articles and white papers on remote interpreting

AIIC: http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article85.htm – Guidelines for Remote Interpreting

Cadernos CML: http://multimedialinguas.wordpress.com/edicoes/ano-i-2010/0001-janeiro/panayotis-mouzourakis-%C2%ABremote-interpreter-training-training-for-remote-interpreting%C2%BB/

 

11 Comments
  • Kathleen Shelly
    Posted at 09:00h, 22 April Reply

    This is so fascinating, Gio. I don’t know if I would be able to work this way, but it is very good to know what would be required, and what constitutes ideal work conditions with this sort of work. Thanks for your well-written and informative piece.

  • Gio
    Posted at 10:22h, 22 April Reply

    Thanks, Kathleen. This segment of interpreting is at an interesting point in its development and we, interpreters, need to know that we can provide input.

    One day a colleague asked if I could interpret for a conference call, when we arrived at the location it was actually an “in-house” international conference (all their foreign offices) requiring remote interpreting. My colleague was not familiar with the format and missed a great opportunity to educate her client.

    As William Carr stated during the Interpret America Summit last year, technology will not replace interpreters, but interpreters who do not become familiar with technology will become obsolete and replaced with those who do.

    And I believe we can influence the market by educating our clients and letting them know what is acceptable and what is not.

  • Rebecca Bryant
    Posted at 10:22h, 25 April Reply

    This is such an important topic for discussion within the profession! There really is potential for this technology to be used effectively — but best practices need to be better established and actively promoted.

    We’re going to be talking about RI and how many other technologies are impacting the day-to-day work of interpreters at this year’s Interpret America. Whether interpreters want it to or not, technology is changing both our work and how the public perceives the value of our work. Come and join the discussion with technology developpers, LSP’s, and others. Be an influence for technology developments that consider real world working conditions.

    • Gio
      Posted at 10:46h, 25 April Reply

      How I wish I could be there this year again! You are absolutely right when pointing out that best practices need to be better established – identified, defined, implemented.

      We, the professional interpreters, need to take our role to heart on this issue and start talking, acting and become part of the process of development of not only best practices but also standards. AIIC, ATA and NAJIT do great work, but we the individuals at the end other end of the telephone need to explain to our clients what is and what is not acceptable practice.

      Looking forward to more opportunities to work together with you, Rebecca! Abraços calorosos de Miami.

  • @ProfessorOlsen
    Posted at 13:06h, 28 April Reply

    Gio,

    Thanks for the great blog. I have recommended it to several colleagues and tech developers. We will miss you at the 3rd Summit, and thanks for spreading the word!

    • Gio
      Posted at 17:23h, 28 April Reply

      I so wish I could be there! Will follow via Twitter. Tell Kat to keep those fingers nimble :o)

      Thanks, Barry.

  • Ewandro Magalhaes
    Posted at 15:17h, 29 April Reply

    Hi, Gio,

    Congratulations on a well-crafted article on an important topic. I, too, have been exposed to the situation you refer (probably working for the same client, a phamaceutical company), taking turns with a colleague sitting in Dallas (I was in California). The stress level was absurdly high, clearly beyond acceptable. I tried it once and that was the end of it for me. When they called me again, I graciously declined.

    As regards the studies conducted in the past, while agreeing with some of the reservations put forth, I think we have to realize that a lot has been done in terms of technology over the last decade. And much more can be done if, as you suggest, we work in closer proximity with those who design these technologies. This changes the picture entirely.

    We’ve been working a lot on remote participation at ITU, and I have reason to be cautiously optimistic. Most of the resistance we faced, so far, was unfounded or could be worked around through technology or a procedural change.

    In any event, this is a discussion we should all get involved in, so I congratulate you again for raising the issue and for doing so in your usually personal and gracious manner.

    Ewandro Magalhaes

    • Gio
      Posted at 15:25h, 29 April Reply

      Oi, Professor!

      You are absolutely right with regard to how those studies would apply to today’s scenario and the importance of our participation in shaping that segment of the industry.

      I have been bitten by the bug and the businesswoman in me already exploring possibilities and investigating ways to become more involved in it. I’d love to learn about the work being developed at ITU. Any special recommendations of sites/papers for me to check?

      Thanks!

      Gio

  • Jennifer De La Cruz
    Posted at 02:17h, 12 May Reply

    I’m a little late to the discussion, but this topic has been on my mind after having seen a YouTube video from Spain on the future of remote interpreting.

    You said: “However, they still need to learn what can and what cannot be expected in terms of interpreter performance.” I think that this can also be something interpreters can use some guidance as well. I’ve been in situations many times where it seems like I have to comply with whatever the clerk or judge thinks I can do with technology. Luckily, after many years in the business, I feel like I have a voice to step in and say, “Wait a second…” and exercise my right to be the human, and the professional, in the situation.

    Perhaps more guidelines can be developed, much like a subsection of an ethics/standards document on this topic. Again, the interpreters who deal with any remote technology could stand to have something to guide them, and even back them, in these situations.

    As always, nice work!

  • Gio
    Posted at 09:40h, 12 May Reply

    Jennifer, I agree 100%. It is part of the evolution of professions in general: a service is provided as a favor, a need is recognized, demand starts growing, newcomers see an opportunity for making money, demand continues to grow without concern for the many variables (quality/cost/time/etc). The professionals have to step in and help define standards. When we all recognize that we do have the power to influence the future of our profession(s), we will be less accepting of substandard work conditions and impossible demands.

    You mention developing guidelines. Who is going to do that? WE the professionals, together with our professional associations, have to do that. ASTM, AIIC, NAJIT, ATA have been working hard on that front, but if the practicing individuals to not educate themselves with regard to standards, guidelines, provisions, etc. what good is their work?

    This is a very good theme for a future blog article :o)

  • NAJIT Blog
    Posted at 00:03h, 15 January Reply

    […] there room for dialogue? Remote simultaneous voice-over seems to be in its infancy and professional interpreters have to work together with those who […]

Post A Comment