दुभाषिया की मध्यस्थता मानसिक स्वास्थ्य अधिनियम आकलन (INForMHAA)

परियोजना प्रगति अद्यतन संख्या।2 – Jemina Napier

यह वी/ब्लॉगपोस्ट बीएसएल, अंग्रेजी, स्पेनिश, फ्रेंच और हिंदी में उपलब्ध है

BSL: https://youtu.be/Q4bjGhdApfw

यह वी/ब्लॉगपोस्ट,  INforMHAA प्रोजेक्ट टीम की ओर से इस परियोजना पर अब तक की गई शोध का विवरण है।

पहले वी/ब्लॉगपोस्ट ने परियोजना के लक्ष्यों और प्रमुख कारणों की जानकारी प्रदान की है।  इसमें हमारे सलाहकार समूह, रोगी और सार्वजनिक (पीपीआईई) समूह की भागीदारी के बारे में भी जानकारी दी गई थी।

इस शोध परियोजना के लिए मुख्य प्रश्न यह है कि : मानसिक स्वास्थ्य अधिनियम के अनुसार किए गए आकलन (assessment) पर दुभाषिए की मध्यस्थता का क्या प्रभाव पड़ता है और ऐसे मध्यस्थता वाले आकलनों को कैसे सुधारा जा सकता है?

निम्नलिखित उप-प्रश्नों के साथ:

  1. मानसिक स्वास्थ्य अधिनियम (एमएचए) के आकलन में दुभाषिया (सांकेतिक भाषा / बोली जाने वाली भाषा ) की भागीदारी, किस हद तक अनुमोदित मानसिक स्वास्थ्य पेशेवर (एएमएचपी AMHP) के अभ्यास को बाधित या सक्षम करती है?
  2. AMHP अभ्यास के भीतर दुभाषियों के बजाय भाषा संगत (language concordant) सेवाओं (जैसे भाषा/सांस्कृतिक अधिवक्ता) का उपयोग करना कब अधिक उपयुक्त हो सकता है और कैसे?
  3. AMHPs और पेशेवर दुभाषियों के लिए एक प्रभावी प्रशिक्षण मॉडल क्या है?

परियोजना की शुरुआत में हमें क्या पता था?

  • असमानताओं के आंकड़ों में, जातीयता और सांस्कृतिक विरासत के कारण परिवर्तन कैसे किए जाते हैं, इसका वर्णन किया गया है। हालांकि इसमें विभिन्न भाषा उपयोग के बारे में कोई जानकारी शामिल नहीं है।
  • सी क्यू सी (CQC) और एन एच एस (NHS) डिजिटल डेटा में, असेसमेंट किए गए लोगों के भाषा और दुभाषिया कि जानकारी प्रकाशित नहीं करते हैं ।
  • एम एच ए (MHA) सुधार दस्तावेज, भाषा की मध्यस्थता वाले एम एच ए(MHA) आकलन पर जरूरी ध्यान नहीं देते हैं।
  • अभ्यास संहिता के अनुसार, ‘साक्षात्कार उचित तरीके से’ आयोजित किया जाना चाहिए, जिसमें दुभाषियों और सांस्कृतिक अधिवक्ताओं का उचित उल्लेख होना चाहिए।
  • इंग्लैंड और वेल्स भाषाई रूप से अत्यधिक विविध देश हैं ।
  • दुभाषिया मध्यस्थता वाले एम एच ए (MHA) आकलन या उनके अंतरराष्ट्रीय समकक्षों के बारे में साक्ष्यो की कोई पिछली व्यापक समीक्षा नहीं है ।
  • ए एम एच पी(AMHP), दुभाषियों या धारा 12 डॉक्टरों के लिए कोई अच्छा अभ्यास मार्गदर्शन दस्तावेज प्रकाशित नहीं है ।
  • सेवा उपयोगकर्ताओं और देखभाल करने वालों पर दुभाषिया की मध्यस्थता वाले एम एच ए असेसमेंट का प्रभाव के बारे में कोई जानकारी नहीं हैं।
  • एम एच ए (MHA) की एन एच एस (NHS) डिजिटल वार्षिक रिपोर्टिंग अपने न्यूनतम डेटा सेट में दुभाषिया के उपयोग या असेसमेंट की भाषा के बारे में जानकारी प्रदान नहीं करती है। यह  सीक्यूसी प्रकाशन मानकों में भी उपलब्ध नहीं है।

यह दूसरा v/blogpost अब तक किए गए विश्लेषण की समीक्षा है कि हमें और क्या जानने की जरूरत है और दुभाषिया की मध्यस्थता वाले एम एच ए (MHA)  आकलन में सर्वोत्तम कार्यप्रणाली कैसे सुनिश्चित किया जाए।

आज तक हमने जो किया है:

  • मानसिक स्वास्थ्य अधिनियम के आकलन में प्रासंगिक और धूसर(Grey) साहित्य सकी, कोविडेन्स सहायत स्कोपिंग रिव्यु  का प्रोटोकॉल प्रकटन किया है। कुल मिलाकर 40 अध्ययन मिले जो पूर्ण समीक्षा का आधार बनेगा। इनमें से कोई भी हमारे अध्ययन के प्रश्नों से संबंधित नहीं है।
  • एम एच ए (MHA) आकलन पर काम करने के उनके अनुभवों के बारे में 132 एएमएचपी (AMHP) और 24 दुभाषियों के साथ सर्वे किया गया। दुभाषिए के उत्तरदाताओं में से अधिकांश बीएसएल (BSL) दुभाषिए थे, इसलिए हम दुभाषियों का सर्वे को फिर से खोलने की योजना बना रहे हैं ताकि बोली जाने वाली भाषा के दुभाषियों से अधिक प्रतिक्रियाएं प्राप्त करने का प्रयास किया जा सके।
  • 17 एएमएचपी (AMHP) और 6 दुभाषि (+4 लंबित), जिन्होंने सर्वे का जवाब दिया और इंटरव्यू के लिए सहमत थे, उनके के साथ अनुवर्ती इंटरव्यू आयोजित किया है। ताकि हम उनके अनुभवों के बारे में, उनके निर्णय लेने में सहायता करने वाले महत्वपूर्ण विचारों के बारे में, AMHP और दुभाषिया के बीच सहकारी पेशेवर अभ्यास के बारे में गहराई से जांच करे।

अब हम क्या जानते हैं?

  • उपलब्ध साहित्य में से किसी ने भी विशेष रूप से व्याख्या करने के बारे में और एमएचए (MHA) आकलन के ‘पल’ के दौरान  मानसिक स्वास्थ्य असेसमेंट को संबोधित नहीं किया है; और ना ही  ए एम एच पी (AMHP) और दुभाषियों की आवश्यकताओं को संबोधित किया है।
  • दुभाषिया की मध्यस्थता वाले एम एच ए आकलन हालांकि दुर्लभ हैं, लेकिन नियमित हैं। सर्वे में भाग लेने वाले 132 AMHP में से अधिकांश ने औसतन एक वर्ष में 5 दुभाषिया-मध्यस्थ असेसमेंट किए हैं ।
  • ए एम एच पी (AMHP) रिपोर्ट फॉर्म यह स्पष्ट नहीं करते हैं कि क्या वे आकलन की भाषा के बारे में प्रश्न पूछते हैं और यदि हां तो किस रूप में प्रश्न पूछा जाता है।
  • जब AMHP से पूछा गया कि क्या उन्होंने दुभाषिए के साथ अपना काम दर्ज किया है, तो 115 AMHP में से 100 ने ‘कभी-कभी’ कहा। और केवल 50% से अधिक ने कहा कि उन्होंने दुभाषिया के भाषा संयोजन को दर्ज किया है।
  • यदि कोई ‘समस्या’ प्रतीत होती है, तो इसे AMHP द्वारा लगातार नोट किया जाता है ।
  • 121 AMHP में से केवल 9 ही अपने योग्यता पाठ्यक्रम के दौरान दुभाषिया के साथ काम करने के किसी भी प्रशिक्षण के बारे में बताया हैं।
  • दुभाषियों के साथ काम करने के प्रशिक्षण में  केवल 28% AMHP ने अपने अप्रूवल के बाद भाग लिया था।
  • लगभग 60% ने कहा कि उनके प्रशिक्षण ने उन्हें दुभाषियों के साथ काम करने के लिए पर्याप्त रूप से तैयार नहीं किया, चाहे वह AMHP के रूप में हो या किसी अन्य भूमिका/व्यवस्था में।
  • मूल्यांकन (assessment) किए गए व्यक्ति द्वारा उपयोग की जाने वाली भाषा को समझने मे कठिनाइयों के कारण, दुभाषियों को अपने नियमित दुभाषिया अभ्यास में विशेष सुधार करने की आवश्यकता हो सकती है, उदाहरण के लिए, ‘जब भाषा पूरी तरह से समझ में नहीं आती’ तो भाषा सुधारने के बजाय एक मेटा-वर्णनात्मक (meta-descriptive) दृष्टिकोण अपनाना उपयुक्त होगा। इसके लिए AMHP की ओर से दुभाषियों पर एक मजबूत विश्वास की आवश्यकता है।
  • दुभाषियों को सहयोग और मार्गदर्शन की आवश्यकता होती है ताकि इन संवेदनशील स्वभाव वाले अनुभवों से उनकी व्यक्तिगत सेहत और पेशेवर प्रदर्शन पर नकारात्मक असर न हो।
  • दुभाषियों को न केवल भाषाई पहलू, बल्कि एम एच ए आकलन के क़ानूनी पहलू के बारे में भी व्यापक समझ होनी चाहिए, जो पार्टियों के बीच अच्छी गुणवत्ता संचार और सफलता सुनिश्चित करने में सहायक होंगे। कुछ अवधारणाओं, जैसे ‘सेक्शन 12’ ‘निकटतम रिश्तेदार’ ‘आपत्ति’ में एक मजबूत कानूनी घटक होता है, जो सामान्य भाषाई अर्थ से भिन्न होता है, जो विशेषज्ञ प्रशिक्षण के महत्व पर प्रकाश डालता है।
  • इस संदर्भ में ‘अंतर-पेशेवर गतिशीलता’ पर विचार करने की ज़रूरत हैं।

हमारे अनुसंधान द्वारा अब तक उजागर किए गए कुछ प्रमुख मुद्दे:

  • AMHP और दुभाषिए संभवतः MHA असेसमेंट के दौरान पहली बार मिले होंगे।
  • AMHP के पास सेवा उपयोगकर्ता की भाषा और असेसमेंट के बारे में बहुत कम या आमतौर पर कोई जानकारी नहीं होती है। यह मूल्यांकन किए जा रहे व्यक्ति की मानसिक स्थिति और समझने के स्तर के बारे में समग्र रूप से जानकारी लेने की उनकी (AMHP) क्षमता को प्रभावित करता है।
  • एएमएचपी (AMHP) को आमतौर पर यह पता नहीं होता है कि उनके साथ काम करने वाले दुभाषियो को एमएचए आकलन में कोई पूर्व अनुभव है या नहीं। और दुभाषिया की बुकिंग करते समय इसे एक आवश्यकता के रूप में निर्देशित करना एएमचपी के लिए कठिन है।
  • अधिकांश दुभाषियों ने कभी भी एम एच ए आकलन में भाग नहीं लिया है। कुछ लोगो को सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं की दमनकारी स्वभाव और एम एच ए के बारे में पहले से मौजूद चिंताएं हैं जो मूल्यांकन (assessment) में उनकी भूमिका में दखल दे सकती हैं।
  • इस बात की बहुत कम संभावना है कि दुभाषियों और एएमएचपी ने कभी भी एक साथ या विशेष रूप से एमएचए अस्सेस्मेंट में अंतर-पेशेवर काम करने के प्रशिक्षण में भाग लिया हो।
  • AMHP और दुभाषिए  को कानूनी प्रक्रियाओं के अनुरूप सर्वोत्तम अभ्यास करने के लिए एक दूसरे पर निर्भर होना पड़ता है

हमने और क्या किया है?

  • हमने एक दुभाषिए परियोजना वेबसाइट विकसित की है, जो कि बीएसएल और अंग्रेजी में है, और जो टीम के किए गए कार्यों का विवरण सहित परियोजना और उसके सभी पहलुओं का विस्तृत जानकारी देता है।
  • हमने अपने सलाहकार समूह के साथ त्रैमासिक बैठकें की हैं, जो सभी चरणों में अनुसंधान डिजाइन और डेटा संग्रह में लगे हुए हैं और सर्वे उपकरणों, सिमुलेशन परिदृश्यों और प्रतिभागियों की भर्ती में महत्वपूर्ण रहे हैं।  हमें यह बताते हुए बहुत दुख हो रहा है कि हमारे सलाहकार समूह के सदस्यों में से एक, मार्टिन स्टीवंस, जो एनआईएचआर नीति अनुसंधान इकाई के एक वरिष्ठ शोध साथी थे, उनका अप्रत्याशित रूप से निधन हो गया। हम उनके परिवार और सहकर्मियों के प्रति अपनी संवेदना व्यक्त करना चाहते हैं, और उनकी भागीदारी के दौरान INforMHAA परियोजना में उनके बहुमूल्य योगदान की सराहना करते हैं।
  • हमारे पीपीआई समूह ने अपना प्रशिक्षण शुरू कर दिया है, जो बीएसएल और अंग्रेजी में दुभाषि स्व-शिक्षण ऑनलाइन मॉड्यूल के माध्यम से उपलब्ध है। अब तक, उन्होंने छह नियोजित सत्रों में से तीन पूरे कर लिए हैं: सत्र 1 में INForMHAA टीम, समूह कार्य, विविधता और समावेश को समझना; और सत्र 2 कवर किया गया PPIE क्या है? – PPIE को समझना, अनुसंधान में यह कैसे काम करता है, इससे परिचित होना, NIHR PPIE मानकों से अवगत होना और यह जानना कि आप PPIE में कैसे शामिल हो सकते हैं। और सत्र 3 में ‘अनुसंधान क्या है?’ – हम शोध क्यों करते हैं, गुणात्मक, मात्रात्मक और मिश्रित-विधि दृष्टिकोण और डेटा संग्रह विधियों से अवगत होना । सत्र 4 में ‘नैतिकता और सहमति’ शामिल होगी।
  • हमने दुभाषिया-मध्यस्थता वाले एमएचए(MHA) मूल्यांकन परिदृश्यों का सिमुलेटेड फिल्मांकन पूरा कर लिया है। हमने एएमएचपी और दुभाषियों से मिली जानकारी के आधार पर चार परिदृश्य बनाए है. यह जानकारी एमएचए आकलन में पहचाने गए विशिष्ट मुद्दों के सर्वे और साक्षात्कार के माध्यम से और सलाहकार समूह के परामर्श के माध्यम से एकत्र की गई थी। परिदृश्यों में चार अलग-अलग भाषा संयोजन शामिल हैं: ये भाषाएं कुर्द, डच, ब्रिटिश सांकेतिक भाषा और हिंदी है। हमने मार्च 2022 में मैनचेस्टर विश्वविद्यालय के TIPP नाटक समूह के समर्थन से फिल्मांकन पूरा किया।
  • हमने कई प्रस्तुतियां भी दी हैं और कुछ प्रकाशन भी तैयार किए हैं।

हम आगे क्या कर रहे हैं?

  • सिमुलेशन/अनुकृति परिदृश्य वीडियो अब परियोजना के अगले चरण के लिए संपादित किए जा रहे हैं। इसमें शामिल होगा: (i)GoReact एनोटेशन सॉफ्टवेयर का उपयोग करके बातचीत में महत्वपूर्ण अंकों का विश्लेषण और (ii) सिमुलेशन अवलोकन में हम दुभाषियों और AMHP को ज़ूम वेबिनार के बहुभाषी इंटरप्रेटिंग फ़ंक्शन का उपयोग करने और इन सिमुलेशन को ऑनलाइन देखने के लिए कहेंगे। उसके आलावा मेंटीमीटर ऑडियंस सर्वे के द्वारा इस बात पर चर्चा करने के लिए कहेंगे की वे सर्वोत्तम अभ्यास के रूप में क्या देखते हैं, खास मुद्दे क्या है और चीजों को कैसे सुधारा जा सकता ।
  • हम सर्वे और साक्षात्कार डेटा के आधार पर प्रकाशनों पर काम कर रहे हैं, और इस परियोजना में हमारे द्वारा उपयोग की  जाने वाली नवीन पद्धतियों पर एक लेख लिखने की भी योजना है।
  • सभी डेटा विभिन्न नियोजित परिणामों (outcomes) में फीड होंगे, जिसमें नए प्रशिक्षण संसाधनों का सह-उत्पादन, पेशेवर अभ्यास दिशानिर्देश, एएमएचपी और दुभाषियों के लिए जानकारी, और दुभाषिया-मध्यस्थता वाले एमएचए आकलन आयोजित करने के लिए प्रस्तावित नए परिवर्तन के सिद्धांत प्रतिमान (Theory of change model) शामिल हैं।

Projet INforMHAA: évaluations de la santé mentale menées en vertu de la loi sur la santé mentale par l’intermédiaire d’interprètes

Rapport d’activités – Jemina Napier

Ce v/blogpost est en disponible en BSL, anglais, espagnol, français et hindi

BSL: https://youtu.be/Q4bjGhdApfw

Dans cet article, l’équipe INforMHAA vous fournit une mise à jour des progrès accomplis jusqu’à présent.

Notre premier post a présenté une vue d’ensemble du projet : les objectifs, les phases principales du cycle de vie du projet, et l’intervention du comité consultatif et du groupe de participation des patient·es et du public.

La principale question de recherche du projet est :

Quel est l’impact de l’interprétariat sur les évaluations aux termes de la Loi de 1983 (Angleterre/Pays de Galles) sur la santé mentale, et comment ces évaluations peuvent-elles être améliorées ?

Questions complémentaires :

Dans quelle mesure et comment la participation d’un·e interprète de langue des signes / de langue parlée dans les évaluations MHA (c’est à dire les évaluations aux termes de la Loi de 1983 (Angleterre/Pays de Galles) sur la santé mentale) limite ou facilite-t-elle les bonnes pratiques des professionnel·les agréés de la santé mentale (Approved Mental Health Professionals ou AMHP) ?

Dans quelles situations, lors d’une évaluation MHA, serait-il plus approprié d’employer des services adéquates du point de vue linguistique (par exemple les professionnel·les qui parlent plus d’une langue ou un·e conseiller·ère culturel) au lieu d’un·e interprète et comment ?

Qu’est-ce qui fait l’efficacité d’un modèle de formation pour les AMHP et les interprètes ?

Que savions-nous au début du projet ?

  • Il n’est fait aucune mention des services linguistiques pouvant être nécessaire à ces évaluations, bien qu’il existe une inégalité entre groupes ethniques et de patrimoine culturel différent en matière de résultats.
  • La Commission relative à la qualité des soins (Care Quality Commission (CQC) en anglais) et NHS Digital ne publient pas d’informations sur la langue de ceux et celles qui font l’objet d’une évaluation, ni sur le recours à un·e interprète lors des évaluations.
  • L’absence de référence à l’interprétariat dans les évaluations MHA dans le cadre des documents portant sur la réforme de la loi sur la santé mentale.
  • Le code de bonnes pratiques qui s’adresse aux AMHP prévoit que les évaluations soient effectuées “de manière appropriée” et fait mention des interprètes et conseiller·ères culturels.
  • L’Angleterre et le Pays de Galles sont des pays à la diversité linguistique élevée.
  • Il n’existe pas d’évaluation globale des preuves relatives aux évaluations MHA médiatisées par les interprètes ni de leurs équivalents internationaux.
  • Il n’existe pas de guide de bonnes pratiques publié pour les AMHP, les interprètes ou les médecins “Section 12” (il s’agit des médecins spécialisés qui ont la capacité de formuler des recommandations quant aux hospitalisations sous contrainte et en conformité avec la Loi de 1983 (Angleterre/Pays de Galles) sur la santé mentale).
  • On ignore l’impact sur les utilisateurs et utilisatrices des services et sur leurs soignant·es d’une évaluation (aux termes de la Loi de 1983 (Angleterre/Pays de Galles) sur la santé mentale) médiatisée par un·e interprète.
  • La langue de l’évaluation et le recours à un·e interprète ne figurent pas dans l’ensemble minimal de données du rapport annuel (rédigé par NHS digital) sur les évaluations MHA, ni dans les normes publiées par la CQC. 

Ce deuxième post fournit une mise à jour sur ce que nous avons accompli jusqu’à présent afin d’explorer les connaissances supplémentaires dont nous pourrions avoir besoin et les moyens possibles pour garantir l’utilisation des bonnes pratiques dans les évaluations MHA médiatisées par un·e interprète.

Jusqu’à présent :

  • Nous avons publié le protocole à suivre pour une évaluation assistée par Covidence de la portée des travaux empiriques pertinents et de la littérature grise sur l’interprétariat dans les évaluations MHA. Nous avons identifié 40 études qui formeront la base de l’évaluation complète. Aucune d’entre elles n’est en rapport direct avec les questions de notre étude.
  • Nous avons mené des enquêtes auprès de 132 AHMP et 24 interprètes sur leurs expériences de travail dans les évaluations MHA. La majorité des interprètes qui ont répondu étaient des interprètes de langue des signes britannique, nous prévoyons donc d’ouvrir à nouveau l’enquête aux interprètes pour essayer d’obtenir plus de réponses des interprètes de langue parlée.
  • Nous avons réalisé des entretiens de suivi avec 17 AMHP et 6 interprètes (+ 4 en attente) qui ont répondu à l’enquête et qui ont accepté d’être interviewés afin que nous puissions approfondir notre étude de leurs expériences et trouver des exemples de points critiques de prise de décision et de pratique professionnelle coopérative pour les AMHP et les interprètes.

Que savons-nous maintenant?

  • Aucune littérature n’aborde spécifiquement l’interprétariat et l’évaluation de santé mentale par rapport au “moment même” de l’évaluation MHA, ni les exigences des AMHP ou des interprètes pour répondre à ces situations. 
  • Les évaluations MHA médiatisées par un·e interprète, bien que peu fréquentes, sont une constante. Sur les 132 AMHPs de l’enquête, la plupart effectuent en moyenne 5 évaluations médiatisées par un·e interprète par an.
  • Il existe un manque de cohérence dans les formulaires de rapport de l’AMHP concernant l’inclusion d’une question sur la langue utilisée lors des évaluations et le format de cette question.
  • Interrogé·es sur le fait de savoir s’ils ou elles enregistrent le recours à un·e interprète, 100 sur 115 AMHPs ont répondu “parfois” et un peu plus de 50% disent enregistrer la combinaison linguistique de l’interprète.
  • S’il semblait y avoir un “problème”, les AMHP le notaient systématiquement.
  • Seulement 9 sur 121 des AMHP peuvent se rappeler d’une formation au travail avec un·e interprète dans le cadre de leur formation initiale.
  • Depuis l’obtention de leur diplôme d’AMHP, seulement 28% ont participé à une formation au travail avec un·e interprète.
  • Près de 60% ont déclaré que leur formation ne les avait pas préparé·es de manière adéquate à travailler avec des interprètes, que ce soit en tant qu’AMHP ou dans tout autre rôle/contexte.
  • En raison des difficultés occasionnelles de production linguistique de la personne évaluée, les interprètes doivent parfois faire certains ajustements à leur pratique habituelle, par exemple, en adoptant une approche méta-descriptive de leurs interprétations « lorsque le langage n’a pas de sens » au lieu de mettre de l’ordre dans le langage. Ceci nécessite une confiance absolue de la part de l’AMHP envers l’interprète.
  • Les interprètes ont besoin de soutien et d’une supervision afin que le caractère délicat de ces rencontres n’ait pas d’impact négatif sur leur bien-être personnel et les performances professionnelles qui s’en suivent.
  • La compréhension au sens plus large par les interprètes de l’aspect législatif des évaluations MHA, et non pas seulement de ses aspects linguistiques, est un facteur de réussite évident pour assurer une communication de bonne qualité entre les interlocuteurs. Les concepts comme “Section 12” (la qualification autorisant légalement un médecin à admettre un ou une patient·e sans son consentement), “nearest relative” (personne chargée de la protection d’une personne majeur) ou “objection” (objection à ce qu’une personne soit admise ou placée sous tutelle) ont une forte composante juridique qui diffère de la signification linguistique générale, ce qui souligne l’importance de la formation spécialisée.
  • L’importance de prendre en compte “la dynamique interprofessionnelle” dans ce contexte.

Quelques questions clés mise en évidence par notre investigation jusqu’à présent :

  • Les AMHP et les interprètes ne se sont probablement pas déjà rencontré·es au moment de commencer une évaluation MHA.
  • Les AMHP n’ont que peu ou pas d’accès à la langue de l’utilisateur·trice du service et de l’évaluation, ce qui affecte leur capacité à recueillir les informations holistiques sur l’état mental et le niveau de compréhension de la personne évaluée.
  • Les AMHP n’ont généralement aucune idée de l’expérience de l’interprète en matière d’évaluations MHA et il est difficile d’en faire une exigence lors de la réservation des services d l’interprète.
  • La plupart des interprètes n’ont jamais pris part à une évaluation MHA. Certain·es ont des préjugés concernant la nature oppressive des travailleurs sociaux et des évaluations MHA qui peuvent affecter leur performance au cours de l’évaluation.
  • Il est fortement improbable que les interprètes et AMHP aient déjà jamais participé à une formation les amenant à travailler ensemble dans un contexte professionnel ou plus particulièrement dans le cadre d’une évaluation MHA.
  • Les AMHP et les interprètes dépendent les un·es des autres pour garantir la mise en œuvre des bonnes pratiques et le respect des pratiques juridiques.

Qu’avons-nous fait d’autre?

  • Nous avons tenu des réunions trimestrielles avec notre groupe consultatif, qui a participé à la conception de la recherche et à la collecte des données à toutes les étapes, et qui a joué un rôle essentiel dans la conception des instruments d’enquête, des scénarios de simulation, et du recrutement des participant·es. Nous avons le regret d’annoncer le décès inattendu de l’un des membres de notre groupe consultatif, Martin Stevens, qui a été chargé de recherche principal pour l’unité de recherche sur les politiques de NIHR (l’Institut national pour la recherche médicale). Nous tenons à présenter nos condoléances à sa famille et à ses collègues, et à reconnaître sa précieuse contribution durant sa participation au projet INforMHAA.
  • Notre groupe PPIE a commencé sa formation, qui est disponible via des modules bilingues (en langue des signes britannique et en anglais) d’autoapprentissage en ligne. Jusqu’à présent il a complété trois des six séances prévues : la session 1 portait sur l’équipe d’INforMHAA, la compréhension du travail du groupe, la diversité et l’inclusion ; la session 2 portait sur “qu’est-ce que le PPIE ?”, comprendre le PPIE, se familiariser avec son fonctionnement dans la recherche, connaître les normes PPIE et savoir comment s’impliquer dans le PPIE NIHR. La session 3 portait sur “qu’est-ce que la recherche ?”, pourquoi faisons-nous de la recherche, les approches qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes, et les méthodes de collecte de données. La session 4 portera sur l’éthique et le consentement.
  • Nous avons terminé le tournage des scénarios simulés d’évaluation MHA médiatisés par un·e interprète. Nous avons créé quatre scénarios basés d’une part sur les rapports des AMHP et des interprètes, obtenus au cours d’enquêtes et d’entretiens, sur les problèmes typiques qu’ils ont rencontrés lors des évaluations MHA, et d’autre part sur les échanges avec le groupe consultatif. Les scénarios présentaient quatre combinaisons linguistiques différentes : kurde, néerlandais, hindi et langue des signes britannique. Nous avons terminé le tournage en Mars 2022 avec le soutien du groupe de théâtre TIPP de l’Université de Manchester.

Quelles sont les étapes suivantes ?

  • Nous sommes en train d’éditer les vidéos pour la prochaine phase du projet pendant laquelle nous allons (1) analyser les points critiques dans les interactions par le biais du logiciel d’annotation GoReact et (2) mettre en place des sessions d’observation des scénarios simulés pour les AMHP et les interprètes – où on leur demandera d’observer les scénarios simulés en ligne en utilisant la fonction multilingue d’interprétation en webinaire Zoom ainsi que la fonction sondage dans le logiciel Mentimeter pour discuter de ce qu’ils et elles identifient comme étant les bonnes pratiques et les enjeux, et comment améliorer l’évaluation MHA médiatisée par un·e interprète.
  • Nous travaillons à la rédaction d’articles portant sur l’analyse des données de l’enquête et des entretiens. Nous avons aussi l’intention de rédiger un article sur les méthodologies innovatrices que nous avons utilisées dans ce projet.
  • Toutes les données serviront de base aux divers résultats du projet, qui incluent la co-production de nouvelles ressources de formation et de lignes directrices aux bonnes pratiques, des informations pour les AMHP et les interprètes, et un nouveau modèle de la théorie de changement pour les évaluations MHA médiatisées par un·e interprète.

Proyecto INForMHAA: evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la Ley de Salud Mental mediadas por intérpretes

Informe de actividad – Jemina Napier

Esta v/blogpost está disponible en BSL, inglés, español, francés e hindi

BSL: https://youtu.be/Q4bjGhdApfw

En esta entrada del (video-)blog, las integrantes del grupo de investigación INForMHAA compartimos algunos de los últimos avances de nuestro trabajo.

En la primera entrada del (video-)blog del proyecto INForMHAA, ofrecimos una descripción general del proyecto y de sus objetivos, así como de las etapas en las que consistiría e información sobre cuál sería la contribución del comité asesor (Advisory Board) y del Grupo de Participación de Pacientes y del Público General (Patient & Public Engagement Group, PPIE) que brindan apoyo al proyecto.

Como recordatorio, las evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo conforme a la Ley de Salud Mental (LSM) en Inglaterra y Gales (1983) tienen como objetivo determinar si es necesario el internamiento psiquiátrico de una persona tanto de forma voluntaria como involuntaria por razón de trastorno psíquico. Cuando la persona evaluada habla un idioma diferente al empleado por los profesionales del sistema de salud, es necesario emplear los servicios de mediación lingüística de un intérprete profesional.

Las preguntas principales que guían el planteamiento y el desarrollo del proyecto INForMHAA son las siguientes: ¿Qué influencia ejerce la figura del intérprete al mediar en evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM? Y ¿cómo pueden mejorarse las dinámicas en este tipo de encuentros, por ejemplo, de carácter lingüístico o interaccional?

Aparte de indagar sobre estas dos cuestiones principales, el proyecto INForMHAA también busca dar respuesta a las siguientes preguntas:

1) ¿Hasta qué punto y de qué manera se ve facilitada o limitada la implementación de una conducta profesional óptima por parte de los Profesionales de Salud Mental Autorizados (AMHPs, por sus siglas en inglés) en las evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM, cuando estas cuentan con la participación de intérpretes de lenguas habladas o de signos?

2) ¿Bajo qué circunstancias y de qué forma sería más conveniente para los AMHPs emplear servicios de concordancia lingüística (por ejemplo, mediadores lingüísticos y culturales) en lugar de intérpretes?

3) ¿Cómo podríamos diseñar un modelo de formación que ayude a mejorar la preparación de los AMHPs y los intérpretes para trabajar de forma eficaz en este tipo de encuentros?

¿De qué información disponíamos cuando comenzó el proyecto?

  • Cuando nació el proyecto INForMHAA, ya había constancia de que hay grupos de población que están en desventaja por su origen étnico y/o herencia cultural, cuando se enfrentan a un examen que determinará la necesidad del internamiento psiquiátrico del paciente.
  • Los organismos oficiales que publican estadísticas demográficas tales como la Comisión de Calidad de Servicios destinados a los Cuidados (Care Quality Commission) y el Servicio Digital del Sistema Nacional de Salud británico (NHS Digital) no proporcionan información sobre los idiomas empleados por las personas que se enfrentan a este tipo de exámenes de salud mental.
  • En ninguno de los documentos oficiales relacionados con la reciente reforma de la LSM se hace referencia a los servicios de mediación lingüística que se puedan llevar a cabo en este tipo de evaluaciones de salud mental, aun cuando sí que se reconocen las desigualdades en los resultados de estos exámenes por motivos de diferencia étnica.
  • El código de buenas prácticas profesionales de los AMHPs determina que ellos deben garantizar que este tipo de exámenes se lleven a cabo de una manera «adecuada» (incluyendo la garantía de una comunicación eficaz) sin hacer mención al papel que puedan desempeñar los intérpretes o mediadores culturales en encuentros en los que exista una diferencia lingüística.
  • Existen tasas muy altas de diversidad lingüística entre la ciudadanía de los territorios de Inglaterra y Gales.
  • Hasta ahora, no se ha llevado a cabo un estudio coherente y metódico que determine el alcance de la información disponible sobre la mediación lingüística en este tipo de encuentros, tanto en los territorios de Inglaterra y Gales como en otros países que tengan un equivalente jurídico a la LSM.
  • No existen publicaciones oficiales que incluyan recomendaciones de práctica profesional dirigidas a los AMHPs, intérpretes o médicos habilitados para participar en este tipo de evaluaciones (de acuerdo con la sección 12 de la LSM) cuando estas cuentan con la participación de intérpretes.
  • No se tiene constancia de la repercusión que pueden tener este tipo de encuentros para los pacientes y sus familias.
  • Los organismos oficiales como La Comisión de Calidad de Servicios de Cuidados (Care Quality Commission) y el Servicio Digital del Sistema Nacional de Salud británico (NHS Digital) no prescriben la obligatoriedad de un registro formal del idioma empleado por los pacientes en este tipo de evaluaciones de salud mental, por lo que no hay datos disponibles en este área.

Tomando toda esta información como punto de partida, las investigadoras del proyecto INForMHAA queremos compartir en esta segunda entrada del blog algunas tareas que hemos llevado a cabo para entender mejor cómo funcionan este tipo de exámenes de salud mental y qué medidas se pueden adoptar para mejorarlas, si esto fuese necesario. Queremos destacar las siguientes tareas:

  • Hemos publicado el protocolo de nuestra revisión sistemática exploratoria (Scoping Review), llevada a cabo con ayuda del programa informático Covidence, una herramienta de revisión y extracción de datos para los autores de revisiones bibliográficas. En nuestra búsqueda de estudios empíricos y de literatura gris sobre evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM mediadas por intérpretes, hemos seleccionado 40 fuentes que mencionan este tipo de exámenes, aunque de forma tangencial y que no abordan de forma directa e íntegra las preguntas que han impulsado el desarrollo del proyecto INForMHAA.
  • Hemos distribuido dos encuestas en línea, una destinada a AMHPs (hemos recibido 132 respuestas) y otra dirigida a intérpretes con experiencia directa en este tipo de contextos (habiendo recibido 24 respuestas). La mayoría de los intérpretes que completaron la encuesta son intérpretes de lengua de signos, por lo que estamos planteando la posibilidad de volver a habilitar la encuesta para obtener más respuestas de intérpretes de lenguas habladas y así compensar esta diferencia.
  • Hemos llevado a cabo entrevistas de seguimiento a 17 AMHPs y 8 intérpretes (con dos más programadas próximamente), que respondieron a las encuestas y proporcionaron sus datos de contacto para explorar algunos de los temas recogidos en la encuesta con más profundidad. En estas entrevistas, prestamos especial atención a las opiniones de los participantes así como sus experiencias, y les animamos a aportar ejemplos de algunos puntos clave relacionados con la toma de decisiones y las prácticas de colaboración inter-profesional llevadas a cabo de forma conjunta entre los AMHPs y los intérpretes.

¿Qué información nueva tenemos ahora?

  • Ahora tenemos constancia de que en la literatura científica disponible hasta el momento no se ha abordado de forma específica el desarrollo de las evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM mediadas por intérpretes, ni los requisitos que necesitan tener en cuenta los profesionales para garantizar que estos encuentros se realizan de forma adecuada.
  • Las evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM mediadas por intérpretes, aunque se realizan de forma poco frecuente, sí que se llevan a cabo de forma regular o constante a lo largo del tiempo. La mayoría de los 132 AMHPs que contestaron a la encuesta respondieron que llevan a cabo este tipo de exámenes contando con la participación de intérpretes al menos cinco veces al año.
  • Los modelos de informes de los AMHPs para estos exámenes no incluyen una sección que permita registrar el idioma empleado por el paciente, por tanto, no se tienen datos sobre ello.
  • De los 132 AMHPs que contestaron a la encuesta, 115 AMHPs afirmaron que trabajan con intérpretes «a veces» y poco más del 50% de los encuestados afirmaron registrar el idioma empleado por el paciente.
  • Los AMHPs reconocen que existen algunos problemas recurrentes que pueden surgir en este tipo de evaluaciones.
  • Tan solo 9 de los AMHPs encuestados afirmaron haber tenido algún tipo de formación sobre cómo trabajar con intérpretes y tan solo un 28% de los encuestados afirmaron haber contado con formación para trabajar de forma eficaz en este contexto.
  • Casi el 60% de los AMHPs encuestados afirmaron que la formación recibida no les prepara para trabajar con intérpretes de forma eficaz, ni en su papel como AMHP ni en ningún otro papel en un sentido más amplio en su trabajo como trabajadores sociales.
  • Cuando los intérpretes trabajan en este tipo de exámenes de salud mental, deben adoptar medidas extraordinarias para tratar con el tipo de lenguaje adoptado por el paciente que puede verse gravemente afectado por el trastorno psíquico que sufra. Algunas medidas mencionadas por los interpretes encuestados incluyen adoptar un enfoque meta-comunicativo por el cual los intérpretes describen en lugar de interpretar o traducir directamente el uso del lenguaje por parte del paciente, cuando este «no tiene sentido» o no es coherente. Esta medida permite ofrecer una representación más fiel del original, en lugar de ordenar la versión original, ya que esto puede causar que el AMHP no perciba la distorsión presente en la producción lingüística del paciente, teniendo como posible consecuencia un diagnóstico inadecuado (infra-diagnóstico) de la severidad del trastorno psíquico. Emplear este tipo de medidas requiere que se establezca un vínculo de confianza profesional muy sólido entre el AMHP y el intérprete.
  • Los intérpretes necesitan apoyo y supervisión para que su participación en este tipo de contextos no les afecte de forma negativa, debido a la gran carga emocional que conllevan este tipo de encuentros. Contar con el apoyo y supervisión adecuados permite que no esté en peligro el bienestar personal de los intérpretes y que, por tanto, no se vea comprometido su rendimiento profesional.
  • Los intérpretes pueden trabajar de forma más eficaz en estos contextos si tienen un conocimiento no solo lingüístico y de traducción sino también un entendimiento amplio del contexto de estos exámenes, incluyendo aspectos legislativos básicos relacionados con la LSM. Al tener un conocimiento general de en qué consisten este tipo de encuentros y cómo están ubicados dentro del marco jurídico, los intérpretes son más capaces de garantizar una comunicación adecuada a nivel global. Esto es porque hay términos que pueden no tener un equivalente lingüístico o jurídico en diferentes idiomas; por ejemplo, qué implica la sección 12 de la LSM, el papel del tutor legal del paciente o qué significa oponerse legalmente al internamiento psiquiátrico. Todos estos términos tienen un significado altamente vinculado a su carácter legal, lo que pone de manifiesto la necesidad de que los intérpretes tengan formación especializada.
  • Es de vital importancia que se consideren las dinámicas de carácter inter-profesional entre el AMHP y los intérpretes en este tipo de evaluaciones.

Nuestra investigación ha puesto de manifiesto los siguientes aspectos a destacar:

  • En la mayoría de los casos, el AMHP y el intérprete no se conocen ni han trabajado nunca juntos, antes de llevar a cabo una evaluación de LSM de forma conjunta.
  • Los AMHPs no tienen acceso directo a las características del lenguaje de un paciente que hable otra lengua, y esto limita su capacidad para que puedan tener una idea precisa del estado mental en que se encuentren los pacientes así como la capacidad de estos para entender y procesar información.
  • Los AMHPs normalmente no tienen constancia de la experiencia previa de los intérpretes en este tipo de contextos ya que esto no se tiene en cuenta a la hora de contratarles para un encargo a través de agencias.
  • La mayoría de los intérpretes no tienen experiencia en este tipo de contextos. Algunos intérpretes pueden percibir que el rol de los trabajadores sociales que lleven a cabo estas evaluaciones puede ser opresivo y esto puede interferir con el desarrollo de sus funciones como intérpretes durante la evaluación.
  • Es muy probable que los intérpretes y los AMHPs no tengan formación especializada donde se les hayan proporcionado pautas para trabajar de forma eficaz, particularmente en este tipo de contextos.
  • Existe una relación de dependencia profesional entre el AMHP y el intérprete para garantizar que la evaluación se desarrolla de forma adecuada y de conformidad con la ley.

¿Qué otras tareas hemos llevado a cabo?

  • Hemos desarrollado y publicado la página web del proyecto en lengua de signos y en inglés, que proporciona una visión general del proyecto y aspectos específicos como la declaración de posicionamiento de las integrantes del proyecto.
  • Tenemos reuniones trimestrales con los miembros de nuestro comité asesor (Advisory group), que han participado en el diseño de investigación y en tareas relacionadas con la recogida de datos. Los integrantes de nuestro comité asesor han sido clave a la hora de diseñar nuestras herramientas de recogida de datos tales como las encuestas, los escenarios destinados a las simulaciones grabadas y también a la hora de encontrar participantes para el proyecto. Aprovechamos la mención al comité asesor para comunicar que nos entristece enormemente informar sobre la defunción repentina e inesperada de uno de los miembros del comité asesor: Martin Stevens, investigador honorario en la sección de investigación en materia de políticas del Instituto Nacional de Investigación Sanitaria británico (NIHR, por sus siglas en ingles). Las integrantes del proyecto queremos expresar nuestro más sincero pésame a la familia y allegados del señor Stevens, y queremos reconocer el gran valor de su contribución para el proyecto INforMHAA durante su participación.
  • Nuestro grupo de Participación de Pacientes y del Público General (Patient & Public Engagement Group, PPIE) ha comenzado su periodo de formación. Este curso consiste en un modelo de autoaprendizaje dividido en una serie de módulos en inglés y lengua de signos. Hasta ahora, hemos completado tres de las seis sesiones planeadas en su inicio. La sesión 1 aborda aspectos generales sobre el equipo de INForMHAA, la naturaleza del trabajo grupal, diversidad e inclusión social. La sesión 2 tiene como objetivo entender en qué consiste el trabajo del grupo PPIE, qué contribución puede aportar un grupo de PPIE a un trabajo de investigación, los estándares que marca el NIHR para los grupos de PPIE así como las diferentes formas en que los miembros pueden contribuir en esta tarea. La sesión 3 aborda conceptos relacionados con la investigación, tales como en qué consiste la investigación cualitativa, cuantitativa, y los enfoques con métodos mixtos, así como una variedad de métodos para recabar datos. La sesión 4 incluye información sobre ética y consentimiento informado.
  • Hemos terminado de grabar cuatro escenarios inspirados en casos reales obtenidos a través de información que hemos recogido a través de las encuestas y en las entrevistas, en las cuales los participantes compartieron situaciones que se pueden encontrar en evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo de conformidad con la LSM mediadas por intérpretes. Los miembros del comité asesor también aportaron información útil para diseñar los escenarios.  En los escenarios se muestran varias combinaciones de idiomas: Inglés junto con Kurdo, Neerlandés, Lengua de signos británica y Hindi. Terminamos de grabar los escenarios en Marzo de 2022 con el apoyo del grupo TIPP, un grupo de teatro de la Universidad de Manchester.
  • También hemos dado varias ponencias y produjo algunas publicaciones iniciales.

¿Y ahora qué?

  • Estamos editando los videos de las simulaciones grabadas, ya que este material se va a usar como parte de nuestra recogida de datos durante la siguiente etapa del proyecto. Esta tarea conllevará (i) analizar puntos clave de las interacciones utilizando el software de anotación GoReact y (ii) organizar y llevar a cabo las observaciones de las simulaciones en las que pediremos a un conjunto de intérpretes y AMHPs que observen con atención estas situaciones utilizando la función de interpretación en Zoom y la herramienta de encuestas Mentimeter para que los participantes puedan comentar qué aspectos pueden definir buenas prácticas y qué aspectos de la interacción podrían mejorarse.
  • Estamos trabajando para publicar los resultados de las encuestas y de las entrevistas. También estamos planeando escribir un artículo sobre metodologías innovadoras para investigar que hemos empleado en este proyecto.
  • Todos los datos recogidos hasta ahora van a informar el diseño de las aplicaciones prácticas del proyecto tales como la producción de recursos de formación, recomendaciones para la implementación de buena conducta profesional, información para AMHPs e intérpretes y nuestra propuesta de un modelo de «Teoría para el Cambio» para llevar a cabo evaluaciones de salud mental llevadas a cabo en conformidad con la LSM mediadas por intérpretes de forma eficaz.

Interpreters for Mental Health Act Assessments (INForMHAA)

Project progress update no. 2 – Jemina Napier

This v/blogpost is available in BSL, English, Spanish, French and Hindi

BSL: https://youtu.be/Q4bjGhdApfw

This v/blogpost is an update from the INforMHAA project team on our progress on the project to date.

The first v/blogpost gave an overview of the project and our goals, the planned key phases of the project, and the involvement of our Advisory Group and Patient & Public Engagement (PPIE) Group.

As a reminder, mental health assessments carried out under the Mental Health Act in England and Wales (1983) are intended to determine whether a person’s voluntary or involuntary psychiatric commitment is necessary for reasons of psychic disorder. When the person evaluated speaks a language other than the one used by health system professionals, it is necessary to use the linguistic mediation services of a professional interpreter.

The overall research question for the project is: How does interpreter mediation impact on Mental Health Act Assessments and how can interpreter-mediated Mental Health Act Assessments be improved?

With the following sub-questions:

  1. To what extent and how does the involvement of a spoken/signed language interpreter in Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments constrain or enable best Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) practice?
  2. When might it be more appropriate to use language concordant services (e.g. language/cultural advocates) rather than interpreters within AMHP practice and how?
  3. What constitutes an effective training model for AMHPs and professional interpreters?

What did we know at the start of the project?

  • Evidence of disparities in disposal by ethnicity and cultural heritage did not encompass language use
  • CQC and NHS Digital do not publish data on language use of those assessed nor whether interpreter was used
  • No attention given to language mediated MHA assessments in MHA reform documentations
  • Code of practice requires ‘interview in suitable manner’ with some mention of interpreters and cultural advocates
  • England and Wales are highly linguistically diverse countries
  • There is no previous comprehensive review of evidence about interpreter mediated MHA assessments or their international equivalents
  • There is no published good practice guidance for AMHPs, interpreters or Section 12 doctors
  • The impact on service users and carers of interpreter mediated MHA assessment is unknown
  • Language of the assessment and whether an interpreter was used is not in the minimal data set for NHS digital annual reporting of MHA nor in CQC publications of standards

This second v/blogpost gives an update of what we have done so far in order to interrogate what more we need to know and how to ensure best practice in interpreter-mediated MHA assessments.

To date we have:

  • Published the protocol for a  Covidence-assisted scoping review of relevant empirical work and grey literature on interpreting in Mental Health Act assessments and identified  40 studies which will form the basis of the full review. None are of direct relevance to the questions of our study.
  • Conducted surveys with 132 AMHPs and 48 Interpreters about their experiences of working in MHA assessments.
  • Conducted follow-up interviews with 17 AMHPs and 6 interpreters (+ 4 pending) who responded to the survey and agreed to be interviewed to delve deeper into their experiences and source examples of critical points of decision-making and co-operative professional practice for AMHPs and interpreters.

What do we know now?

  • No literature has specifically addressed interpreting and mental health assessment during the ‘in the moment’ of MHA assessments nor the requirements of AMHPs and interpreters to meet those situations
  • Interpreter-mediated MHA assessments although infrequent are a constant. Of the 132 AMHPs in the survey most averaged 5 interpreter-mediated assessments a year
  • AMHP report forms are not consistent in whether they ask questions about the language of the assessments and in what form them ask the question
  • Asked about whether they recorded when they worked with an interpreter 100/115 AMHPs said ‘sometimes’ and just over 50% said they recorded the language combination of the interpreter
  • If there seemed to be a ‘problem’ this was consistently noted by AMHPs
  • Only 9/121 AMHPs could recall any training about working with interpreter as part of their qualifying course
  • Since approval only 28% had participated in any training on working with interpreters
  • Nearly 60% said their training had not adequately prepared them to work with interpreters whether as an AMHP or in any other role/setting.
  • Due to the occasional difficulties of language output by person assessed, interpreters might need to implement special adjustments to their regular interpreting practice, for example, adopting a meta-descriptive approach to their interpreting renditions ‘when language does not make sense’ instead of ‘tidying up’ language. This requires a strong sense of trust in the interpreter on the part of the AMHP.
  • Interpreters need support and supervision so that the sensitive nature of these encounters does not negatively impact in their personal wellbeing and resulting professional performance.
  • Interpreters’ wider understanding of the legislative aspect of MHA assessments, not just linguistic aspects, is a clear success factor to ensure good quality communication between the parties. Concepts like ‘section 12’ ‘nearest relative’ ‘objection’ have a strong legal component that differs from general linguistic meaning, which highlights the importance of specialist training.
  • Importance of considering ‘inter-professional dynamics’ in this context.

A few key issues highlighted by our research so far:

  • AMHPs and interpreters have probably never met before when they first enter an MHA assessment
  • AMHPs have little or usually no access to the language of the service user and assessment and this affects their ability to pick up holistically information about the mental state and level of understanding of the person being assessed
  • AMHPs usually have no idea whether the interpreter has any background experience in MHA assessments and it is hard to specify this as a requirement when booking an interpreter
  • Most interpreters have never taken part in an MHA assessment.  Some have pre-existing concerns about the oppressive nature of social workers and of the MHA which can interfere with their role in the assessment
  • Highly unlikely that interpreters and AMHPs have ever taken part in training in inter-professional working together or specifically in an MHA assessment
  • AMHPs and interpreters are dependent on each other to ensure that best practice and conformation to legal practice are carried out

What else have we done?

  • We have developed a bilingual project website in BSL and English, which gives a detailed overview of the project and all its aspects, including a team positionality statement.
  • We have held quarterly meetings with our Advisory Group, who have engaged with the research design and data collection at all stages and have been critical in shaping the survey instruments, the simulation scenarios and recruiting participants. We are very sad to report that one of our advisory group members, Martin Stevens who was a senior research fellow for the NIHR policy research unit, passed away unexpectedly. We would like to extend our condolences to his family and colleagues, and acknowledge his valuable contribution to the INforMHAA project during his involvement.
  • Our PPIE Group have begun their training, which is available through bilingual self-learning online modules  in BSL and English. So far, they have completed three out of six planned sessions: Session 1 covered the INForMHAA team, understanding group work, diversity and inclusion; and Session 2 covered What is PPIE? – understanding PPIE, being familiar with how it works in research, being aware of NIHR PPIE standards and knowing how you can get involved in PPIE. And Session 3 covered ‘What is Research?’ – why we research, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches and data collection methods. Session 4 will cover ‘Ethics and Consent’.
  • We have completed filming of the simulated interpreter-mediated MHA assessment scenarios. We created four scenarios based on reporting from AMHPs and interpreters in the surveys and interviews of typical issues that they had come across in MHA assessments, and through consultation with the Advisory Group. The scenarios featured four different language combinations: Kurdish, Dutch, British Sign Language and Hindi. We completed filming in March 2022 with the support of the TIPP drama group from the University of Manchester.
  • We have also given several presentations and produced some initial publications.

What is next?

  • The simulation scenario videos are now being edited together for the next stage of the project. This will involve: (i) analysis of the critical points in the interactions using GoReact annotation software and (ii) simulation observations where we will ask interpreters and AMHPs to observe these simulations online using the multilingual interpreting function in Zoom webinar and the Mentimeter audience survey tool to discuss what they see as best practice, what they see are the issues and how things can be improved.
  • We are working on publications from the survey and interview data, and also plan to write an article on the innovative methodologies we have used in this project.
  • All of the data will feed into various planned outcomes, including the co-production of new training resources and professional best practice guidelines, information for AMHPs and interpreters, and a proposed new Theory of Change model for conducting interpreter-mediated MHA assessments.

JUSTISIGNS 2 project

Supporting deaf female victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence

By Jemina Napier & Lucy Clark

See link to this blogpost in British Sign Language (BSL):

Following on from our last v/blogpost, in this v/blogpost Jemina Napier and Lucy Clark from the SIGNS@HWU team in the Centre of Translation & Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS) at Heriot-Watt University provide an update on what they have been doing as part of the Justisigns 2 project.

The wider project focuses on how to support victims and survivors from deaf and migrant communities with their experiences of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence (DSGBV), with a view to understanding best practices for key professionals (i.e., police, health and social) and interpreters working together to ensure access to support. The Heriot-Watt University team are focusing on support for deaf women specifically.

Below is a translation of the blogpost presented in BSL.

JEMINA:          We’re back! It’s been some time since our last blogpost, which we did in 2021 when Lucy first started work on the project. So we’re here to give you an update of what we’ve been doing with the Justisigns 2 project.

Firstly, we administered two surveys – one to service providers who provide support to women that have reported incidents of DSGBV, and one to interpreters (of all languages) about their experiences of working in this context. We have analysed those results, and they will be published later. The results are interesting because it seems that both service providers and interpreters feel they need more training about how to work together. So, the service providers want to know how best to work with interpreters, for example, how to identify if they’re qualified and if they’ve had any specialist training around DSGBV situations; and the interpreters said that they felt they didn’t understand the terminology, the jargon…

LUCY:               Yes, that is right, how to sign things or how to explain certain things and that perhaps one word could have different definitions in the DSGBV context.

JEMINA:          So, the interpreters said that they also would like training. Fortunately, one of the goals of the Justisigns 2 project is develop training resources for interpreters and support service providers, and we’re working on that at the moment. I will hand back to Lucy to tell you about other things we’ve done.

LUCY:               We held an event back in March 2022 for International Women’s Day. It was so nice, a very successful event that was well attended by many older deaf women. This was interesting as it helped us to think about what the younger generation think about DSGBV issues too. We provided small workshops, for example, training on safety and well-being, how to look after your health, for people have experienced abuse how to report it and how to engage in self-care has part of your recovery. We also had presentations from the police, who gave information about how to report incidences of DSGBV and everyone seemed to really get a lot out of it. It was a very relaxed environment which made it conducive to talking about this specific sensitive issue, and serveral people asked us for more events. We delivered a webinar. Unfortunately I was sick and couldn’t attend, so over to Jemina to tell you how that went.

JEMINA:          The webinar was aimed at interpreters to share the survey results and the training needs identified through the survey. I think there were about 70 interpreters that attended from all over the UK and internationally. A lot of the discussion was about how much interpreters would really like to get access to specialist training on this topic.

We will also be doing some other presentations coming up for Police Scotland and for the Policing Domestic Abuse Research Network about the survey results and be the deaf perspective on this topic.

Last year (in 2021), we also had a roundtable with deaf Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) and interpreters to talk about their roles, what is important to include in training, what they need in their respective roles and how best to work together, which was very useful. From all of these different events, we identified that we need to develop some kind of glossary in BSL. So, Lucy went about researching key terms…

LUCY:               Yes, it was important to identify key terminology as we realised that perhaps people might think it means one thing but there could be other meanings and especially in relation to the DSGBV context. We used our networks to get support to identify important terminology and did some research into what these terms mean. By developing a BSL glossary of these terms, it will support many deaf people that might not be familiar with these terms.

JEMINA:          Also, this glossary will be helpful for interpreters if they find themselves working in this situation, then they will be able to do some research and preparation using the BSL glossary.

At the end of last year (2021), we held an initial workshop on Zoom between deaf and hearing interpreters and support service professionals who have experience of working in DSGBV contexts to begin to discuss these glossary terms. But we agreed that it would be more productive to proceed with a face-to-face workshop. So, we are hosting approximately 15 people in Edinburgh in May 2022, including representatives from Police Scotland, to discuss about these terms, whether there are established signs or the best ways to sign them. And then we will re-film and make the BSL glossary freely available through our website for both deaf people and for interpreters.

LUCY:               It is really nice to see the involvement from Police Scotland because obviously the police are often the first point of contact so we can work with them to identify gaps in knowledge, for example, if deaf people want to report incidences, so we can try and make sure that the process is as smooth as possible: for interpreters so they know how to interpret the jargon, that the police understand about deaf culture and that deaf women know how to ask for help from the police. It feels good to know our project will make this difference.

We have also interviewed several deaf women and we are in the process of summarising and identifying the key themes that have emerged from those interviews. The interviews did not focus on DSGBV incidents themselves, but on what happened once they had reported an incident of violence, for example: Did they get the right kind of support? Could they find an interpreter? Were they directed to the right services? How did they communicate? And so on. We really wanted to tap into those experiences, and from that data we will be able to create some recommendations for the police and other support services about the best way to support deaf women in these contexts and to understand from the beginning to the end of the process, what information needs to be given.

JEMINA:          In addition to creating a summary and writing up the data, we are also planning to make a mini-documentary to illustrate the experiences of deaf women. We will bring in actors so that we can keep our interviewees anonymous and protect their identities. But we think it’s important that the deaf community are able to see this information in BSL and hopefully, this documentary could also make an impact on hearing organisations about the experiences of deaf women.

So, we’ve been busy!

LUCY:               We have been really enjoying the work. If any of you have any questions or if any of you want to know more, please do contact us (Email: L.Clark@hw.ac.uk/ Twittter: @JUSTISIGNS2) so it can feed into our research on this topic.

JEMINA:          And we will be back with another update later on in the project. Thank you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

INterpreter-mediated Mental Health Act Assessments (INForMHAA)

Project update

Celia Hulme & Jemina Napier

Click here for the blog post in BSL

Introduction

I am Jemina Napier, from Heriot-Watt University, and I am Celia Hulme, from the University of Manchester, and here we provide an overview of a project that we are both involved in as part of a research team.

The aim of the project is to explore mental health and interpreting but very specifically how AMHPs (Approved Mental Health Professionals) work alongside spoken language interpreters or sign language interpreters, particularly if an individual needs assessing under the Mental Health Act (in England). The person may be unable to access English written or spoken, for whatever reason, so the interpreter and the professional need to work together. Very little research has been done in this area, so it’s a very important and novel project.

The INForMHAA project has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), under the School of Social Care Research and it is funded for 18-months. It is an interdisciplinary project bringing together professionals from various backgrounds. 

We have a team of six people on the core research team, all from different backgrounds bringing different expertise and experiences. Firstly, we have Alys Young, Principal Investigator on the project. She is at the University of Manchester, a Professor of Social Work and brings a social work perspective, and also a Deaf Studies perspective. Then, we have, Jemina Napier, Co-investigator on the project, who is from Heriot-Watt University, a Professor and Chair of Intercultural Communication and the Director of Research for the School of Social Sciences, bringing perspective as a sign language interpreter and someone that trains interpreters and also uses BSL. Next, we have Dr Rebecca Tipton, another Co-investigator on the project. She is also from the University of Manchester and she lectures in Translation and Interpreting Studies, and speaks French. Next, we have Dr Sarah Vicary, who is also a Co-investigator on the project. She is from the Open University and is the Associate Head of School of Nations. She is also a registered qualified social worker and has been for 30 years, and she brings a social work perspective. We also have Dr Natalia Rodriguez Vicente from the University of Essex. She lectures in Modern Languages, Interpreting and Translation, and she is also a Spanish speaker and works as a postdoctoral research associate on the project. And Celia Hulme who is from the University of Manchester and is a final year PhD student in health research and I am involved in the INForMHAA project as a research assistant bringing a deaf perspective, but also a PPIE perspective. Jackie Wan Brown has recently joined the project as an intern as part of her NIHR funded pre-doctoral programme.

Project Advisory Group

With respect to the Project Advisory Group, it’s really important as a research team to have an advisory group as we have knowledge about the research process but we also need people to advise whether they are AMHPs, social workers and also interpreters; they are experts in their field. We set up an advisory group so that throughout the process of doing the research, we make sure that their personal and professional experiences are included. We also want to include key stakeholders, interpreters, both for spoken and sign languages, but also people that work as AMHPs and even teach AMHPs and go through that process.

The aim of the advisory group is to meet once every three months. So, we get together on a regular basis to talk about the research, we update them as to what we’ve been doing and how things are going. We ask them to contribute any ideas, resources that we could use such as academic literature, policies, and legislation. Also, anything that they would like to recommend that they know about, for example key contacts if we are trying to recruit people, so we also use their network alongside ours. When we produce our preliminary results, we will ask them for feedback in the results and methods. We will work alongside them to promote the research through their networks and contacts; hopefully recruit people and make sure that this research has a real strong impact. It is a really important group to have involved in the project. Hopefully at the end of the research when it’s all been completed, they will help with dissemination as well through their networks. It is an ongoing process, not only for a limited time. We are hoping that they will support in the long term as well.

Patient and Public involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group

The PPIE group is for people that are not on the Advisory Group. These are a different group; they may be service users themselves or have direct experience of being assessed under the Mental Health Act. Their inclusion in the project is of real importance so

that is why we have a PPIE group. Our aim is to recruit eight members, all from different backgrounds, because the project is focused on Interpreter-Mediated Mental Health Act Assessments, we need to get people who have direct experience of working with interpreters and being assessed by an AHMP. So, we need to reflect their background.

We are trying to make sure we have diverse representation, so, we may have different language speakers on the panel, but also people with different skills and experiences.

When we recruit individuals, we don’t get going straight away, we will train the panel members to enable them to be effective panel members.  We give them information as to

what PPIE means, the research process, and then we will get them involved in the research project. They are involved in different tasks such as project design, where we will ask their opinions. They can get involved in data collection also in dissemination of the research, be potential authors, attend conferences, present findings from the study to difference audiences and pass on information on our behalf. So, they are going to be very busy in the project.

Scoping review

The scoping review is an important part of the project. What we need to do is try to understand what research has been done in this area and how our research can fill a gap in knowledge. It’ really important for us to identify this gap. People talk about literature reviews, that is one way of doing it, but our project is different because its social care research. We will be doing something different and it is referred to as a scoping review. So, this helps us identify what’s been published, and what research has been done in the area, but not only academic research. It could be things that have been published such as policies, legislation, any information pertaining particularly to the Mental Health Act assessments.  We have a strict inclusion and exclusion criteria that we must follow. For example, we are interested in research to do with mental health and interpreting but would not be interested in health interpreting generally. We try to narrow it down and understand particular research about mental health. We try to identify the gaps to make sure our project aims are covering a gap and giving new knowledge. It is a long process, and we are currently in the process of filtering the research, checking, agreeing what we will and will not include. We are going through that process at the moment and that’s just one of our methods. 

Mixed-methods research

There are two phases to the project, and each phase is different. This is a mixed-methods study, so we are not only using one method but several. One method, is the scoping review, which is taking place in Phase 1. But we also want to find out the experience of the AHMPs and the interpreters, and we are getting that information through a survey questionnaire, also in Phase 1. There are two surveys because the questions are different for interpreters and AHMPs. In the survey, there is an option for them to agree to be involved in an interview so they can talk in more detail about their experiences.

Phase two involves what we call ‘simulated practice’ and what we envision will happen is

people will observe a Mental Health Act assessment taking place, so there will be

an AHMP with an interpreter, in BSL or a spoken language, doing an assessment with other

individuals (from the advisory and/or PPIE groups) observing this happening.  We will then discuss what has worked well and if there were any issues that we need to think about. This will help us develop training materials. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided that everything has to take place online.

We are lucky that Zoom has different options and a special function that we can turn on that allows you to provide different language interpretations, so different spoken languages can be used simultaneously. Our aim is to adopt a multilingual approach.  So that means AHMPs could speak English, and the individual being assessed could use BSL or a different spoken language and people can listen to different language options or watch BSL interpreters. And then after the simulation is finished we will gather their thoughts and opinions on the process and what that felt like. We want to ask them different questions using a poll. We have trialled several different options to see what works well so that people to contribute their views. We’re still in midst of that. We are currently piloting what works well. Then, we will work out the situation and what that is going to look like. We will start developing that soon, so it’s very exciting.

Data analysis

In terms of the analysis, we will use various different methods. For example, for the survey, we will be using descriptive analysis and may use statistical analysis. For the interviews, we will use something called the phenomenological approach which allows us to examine the individuals and their experiences. For the simulated practice, we will using different approaches. We will be analysing the interaction between the interpreter, the assessor, the service user, or the carer. We will be using software tools GoReact and ELAN. So, we will use both to analyse the information.

So, that’s the overall project.

Knowledge Exchange and Information Exchange (KEIE)

We also have a responsibility to share our findings. We have to make sure that research is accessible and has an impact and will benefit those people concerned. For example, service users, AMHPs and interpreters, so we do this through KEIE. We will publish papers but the main foundation and principle behind our project is accessibility, making sure information is accessible. So, we will disseminate information in English, in sign language like we’re doing today with this vlog. But also, we want to try to make it available in different spoken languages. We will have a website where these different language options are available and everything will be available in sign language. We will post regular updates as we go along that will be on the website, so that people can engage and see the information we are putting out there. We will also host workshops, deliver presentations at academic conferences and for professional organisations and communities, making sure that people are aware of what is going on with the project. For example, we delivered a workshop to NIHR SSCR, who funded the project and we talked about accessibility, what that means and how we designed our project with accessibility in mind using a multilingual approach and how we have embedded the principle of accessibility in the whole research design that will hopefully continue long after the lifespan of the project.

Website & Resources

A website is currently being developed for the project. There will be information and guidance available on the website at the end of the project. We hope to create some training materials, guidelines for interpreters working with AMHPs and guidelines for AMHPs working with interpreters plus, these resources will be free and available online, so anybody interested in the topic can download these materials, whether they teach AMHPs or are interpreters, they will have access to these materials as well.

The Translating the Deaf Self project: Where are we now?

By Zoë McWhinney and Jemina Napier

On behalf of the whole Translating the Deaf Self project team

Click here to see a BSL version of the blog presented by Zoë.

As you may have seen in the earlier blogpost in March 2016, members of the Centre for Translation & Interpreting Studies Scotland at Heriot-Watt University (Jemina Napier and Robert Skinner) are working in collaboration with researchers from the Social Research with Deaf People (SORD) group at the University of Manchester (Alys Young and Rosemary Oram) on an 18-month interdisciplinary project funded through the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Translating Cultures Research Innovation Grant. Information about the project can be found here, and a summary of the project presented in BSL by Jemina Napier and Rosemary Oram as part of the EdSign lecture series can be seen here.

 Research intern

As mentioned in the March blogpost, the AHRC is keen to support the capacity building of young researchers, so Zoë McWhinney began her 20 day research internship with Heriot-Watt University at the beginning of June 2016 – spending two weeks on campus at Heriot-Watt University and then will be carrying out the rest of her internship by distance until the end of the project in October 2016. Zoë was involved in supporting the final Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in June 2016, and is involved in various tasks for the remainder of the project (including drafting and translating this blogpost!).

Data collection

Our research focuses on what it is like for Deaf sign language users to be known largely through translation. The Deaf experience of being constantly interpreted is markedly in contrast to the general hearing population’s experience, even that of other linguistic and ethnic minorities.  This experience often leads to an asymmetry of the ‘power dynamics’ and consequently the opportunities available to Deaf person in non-signing, hearing- dominated spaces. Some Deaf people’s well being may be adversely affected by the stresses created in such a situation – an area of exploration in this research project.

During the project, we have completed the following data collection:

  • 3 parents of Deaf children participated in telephone interviews in spoken English
  • 2 x focus groups were held with qualified sign language interpreters (7 interpreters in total) in spoken English
  • 8 hearing colleagues of Deaf BSL users participated in face-to-face interviews in spoken English
  • 3 Deaf BSL users who choose to speak sometimes in their professional work contexts participated in face-to-face interviews in BSL. We have coined the term ‘Deaf Contextual Speakers’ to explain how these Deaf BSL users sometimes use speech, even though they identify as BSL users.
  • 2 x Community Participatory Groups were held in BSL with Deaf community members (7 in total). Each of the 2 sessions lasted for 2.5 to 3 hours and also had some activities to allow space for open discussions. The participants in this group were most responsive when watching and commenting on clips of scenarios with examples of Deaf and hearing people’s communication being interpreted by an interpreter.
  • 5 x simulated recall interviews were held with Deaf professionals in BSL after one of the research team had filmed them in a real situation with interpreters. Originally we had planned to test the use of Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP) as a methodology (where people comment on what they are seeing while they are doing a task), but due to the complex circumstances and the reality of the participants being BSL users accompanied by interpreters in person, we adapted the approach to a ‘simulated recall (SR) interview’. The SR interviews involved participants being shown a video of themselves interacting with hearing persons via an interpreter and asking them questions about their experience of being interpreted based on what they could see in the video.

All the focus groups and interviews were semi-structured, with the participants given example questions and/ or topic outline beforehand. Time length for focus groups took from 1.5 to 3 hours, whilst the individual interviews took from 30 minutes to 1 hour each.

The research study gained full ethical approval from the Universities of Manchester and Heriot Watt.

Presentations of results

Presently, the team is conducting an in-depth qualitative analysis using both a thematic analysis approach and a critical inquiry methodology.  The findings will be published in a range of academic journals related to social research, deaf studies and interpreting studies, as well as present at different conferences and community events. BSL access to the main findings will be made available online as well.  For example, we presented some preliminary findings in a poster session at the 8th Critical Link International Conference on Community Interpreting between 29th June to 1st July 2016 at Heriot-Watt university; and will also be presenting a more detailed overview of results at the Association of Sign Language Interpreters UK Conference in Newcastle in September 2016.

Final Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting

On 7th June we had our third and final meeting with the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) in Edinburgh, Scotland, with representatives from the British Deaf Association (Scotland), the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI) and Action on Hearing Loss (Scotland), where we presented the preliminary results from our analysis of the data. The role of the SAG has been to give the research team guidance on the research methods, data collection, recruitment of participants, interpretation of the results, and also about potential implications of the research, and we would like to thank all the people who have attended meetings throughout the project, including other representatives from Deaf Action in Edinburgh and Deaf Connections in Glasgow. One of the final recommendations from the last SAG meeting was for the project team to hold a roadshow to present the results of the project to members of the Deaf community in BSL. We will look for funding to enable us to do that.

What’s next?

The research team are now working with AC2.Com Productions and Mutt & Jeff Pictures to develop scripts for 3 short video dramas in BSL in order to illustrate some of the key findings from the research project. We plan to disseminate the videos through various platforms, including social media.

 

As well as working on the video production, Zoë will be assisting the research team to organise a dissemination event in September, where the whole team will present final results from the project and launch the videos. The event will be hosted in collaboration with our partner Action Deafness at their new venue at the Royal School for the Deaf in Derby – so look out for future announcements!

 

Heriot-Watt University BSL interpreting and community placements

By Jemina Napier

 <Click here to see this blog post in BSL>

 

As many people in the Scottish Deaf community and BSL/English interpreting profession will know, this year is the first time that we have a group BSL/English interpreting students completing their final year of studying in a 4-year undergraduate programme. This is the only university in Scotland that offers a training programme that is approved by the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI) and the National Registers of Communication Professionals with working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD) as a route to professional qualification and registration to practice as a sign language interpreter. The first group of students will graduate in June 2016.

Students heading out on interpreting work placement for the first time

From January – May 2016 it is the current 4th year students’ final semester and one of the compulsory requirements is for students to complete an interpreting work placement. During this placement students will be shadowing professional interpreters in real interpreting assignments.

The aim of the interpreting work placement is to:

  1. To give students the opportunity to access authentic ‘real-world’ interpreting situations
  2. To provide students with the opportunity to observe the professional practice of qualified interpreters at work
  3. To facilitate the opportunity for students to try interpreting in ‘real-world’ interpreting situations, in a safe and supported environment, where appropriate and with the agreement of all parties
  4. To enable students to discuss, critique and reflect on their observations of other interpreters and their own professional practice

 

The interpreting work placement will take place in two 1-week blocks (22-26 February and 4-8 April).

The organisation of the interpreting work placement would not be possible without the support of the key organisations SASLI and NRCPD who have endorsed that interpreters can received Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for acting as mentors.

But even more importantly, it could not take place without the collaboration and support of professional sign language interpreters in Scotland, who are giving their time, energy and commitment to supporting these students. We would like to specifically thank the list of interpreters below who have agreed to take on students this year:

  1. Paul Belmonte (Edinburgh)
  2. Andy Carmichael (Edinburgh)
  3. Lesley Crerar (Aberdeen)
  4. Andrew Dewey (Ayr)
  5. Linda Duncan (Fife)
  6. Marion Fletcher (Edinburgh)
  7. Rebecca Goodall (Inverness)
  8. Donna Jewell (Falkirk)
  9. Brenda Mackay (Fife)
  10. Paula Marshall (Denny)
  11. Robert McCourt (Glasgow)
  12. Mary McDevitt (Falkirk)
  13. Drena O’Malley (Glasgow)
  14. Mark Sherwin (Edinburgh)
  15. Linda Thomson (Glasgow)
  16. Helen Dunipace
  17. Yvonne Waddell

 

We know that there are many more interpreters all over Scotland that might be interested in becoming a student mentor, and in future years we will be looking for more mentors as student numbers increase, so if you are interested please contact Jemina Napier as the interpreting placement coordinator by email.

We would also like to thank Deaf BSL users in Scotland in advance for their support of our students, and hope that you will encourage them in their efforts to develop their skills to become professional interpreters. The students to look out for are:

  1. Rachel Amey
  2. Jude Caldwell
  3. Greg Colquhoun
  4. Niamh Cochrane
  5. Virginia Dugo
  6. Scott Ellerington
  7. Rachel Evans
  8. Jill Gallacher
  9. Nadia Krupova
  10. Helena Laverty
  11. Lisa Li
  12. Grace McNeill
  13. Samuel Rojas
  14. Marie Elliott

Community placement

We would also like to acknowledge the support of all the organisations throughout the UK that are providing community work placement experiences for our 3rd year students. The 3rd year placement is different from the 4th year placement as it takes place over a whole year, and students are required to work in two different organisations where BSL is used every day so that they can have immersion in the language and culture of Deaf people every day. While on placement, the students do project work or other tasks (but not interpreting) and participate in general organizational activities.

This year is the second year that organisations have hosted students on community work placements, and we are appreciative of the efforts that the organisations go to in order to support our students to develop their BSL skills and Deaf community and cultural awareness.

It has been a steep learning curve for us at Heriot-Watt University and also for our community organisation partners, as this is a new approach to sign language interpreter training and as far as we know Heriot-Watt University is the first programme in the world to require students to take a 1-year language immersion community placement. We could not make this happen without the close collaboration with Deaf BSL users and Deaf community organisations.

Graham H. Turner, Coordinator of the BSL Community Work Placements notes that:

“Heriot-Watt’s BSL team members have many years’ experience of interpreter education. We were very conscious of the widespread feeling that university-educated interpreters tend to know what to do in the classroom, but do not have the kind of profound appreciation of Deaf lives that comes from being close to the ‘beating heart’ of the community. Our partners are working with us to change that. We simply couldn’t create on our campus the kind of learning experience that they can offer. If our programme fully achieves its aims, it will be in no small part because of the contribution partner organisations are making to developing the interpreters that they wish to work with in the future.”

So we would like to thank all of the organisations listed below who have so far hosted students on community work placement:

Action on Deafness (Leicester)
Birmingham Institute of the Deaf (BID)
British Deaf Association (BDA Scotland & Northern Ireland)
Deaf Action (Edinburgh)
Deaf Connections (Glasgow)
Deaf Direct (Worcester)
Deafness Support Network (Northwich)
DeafPlus (London)
Deafway (Preston)
Deaf Links (Dundee)
Donaldsons School (Linlithgow)
Hampshire Deaf Association – Sonus (Southampton)
Manchester Deaf Centre (Manchester)
National Deaf Services/National Deaf CAMHS (London)
Nottinghamshire Deaf Society (Nottingham)
Royal Association for Deaf People (RAD) (London, Kent & Colchester)
Ericsson Access Services (formerly RedBee Media) (London)
Remark! (London)
Scottish Council on Deafness (Glasgow)
SignVideo (London & Glasgow)
Solar Bear (Glasgow)

 

We are always looking for new community partners, so any interested organisations can contact Graham H. Turner by email.

Finally, Gary Quinn, the Head of the BSL section at Heriot-Watt University says:

“As programme coordinator, I would like to thank all the interpreters and staff in the community organisations that are supporting the degree at Heriot-Watt University by giving our students the opportunity to develop more ‘real-life’ awareness of the Deaf and Interpreting communities in the UK. I know the students have appreciated your efforts to support their learning and each of you has contributed a vital part to our students’ development, which will undoubtedly make our graduates better prepared for the professional world of BSL/English Interpreting.”

In sum, we would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who has direct involvement in supporting students studying BSL/English interpreting at Heriot-Watt University and we wish our 4th year students who are about to go out on interpreting placement the best of luck and hope that they have a positive experience.

 

Sign Language in Action

by Jemina Napier

Click here to see this blog in International Sign, British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language

Jemina book

Sign Language in Action is a new book just published by Palgrave as part of the Research & Practice in Applied Linguistics series.

The book is co-authored by Jemina Napier and Lorraine Leeson, who both have extensive experience as sign language researchers, educators and interpreter practitioners – Jemina in the UK and Australia, and Lorraine in Ireland, with briefer stints in Belgium, the UK and the USA.

We have both conducted research and written extensively on various topics which can be considered under the umbrella of applied linguistics, including sign linguistics, sign language discourse, sign language and identity, sign language learning and teaching, and sign language interpreting and translation.

After many conversations on our mutual research interests, we decided to collaborate on writing this book to draw together all the threads from our research into one overview.

So the book defines the notion of applied sign linguistics by drawing on data from projects that have explored sign language in action in various domains. The data sources have been drawn from various studies have been conducted by us both.

As well as defining key concepts and giving an overview of existing research, the book provides clear guidance on conducting applied sign linguistics research, with suggestions for new research topics.

The book is targeted at sign language and sign language interpreting students, sign language teachers, researchers, interpreter practitioners and educators, Deaf Studies teachers and students, educators working with deaf children, and policy makers.

It will also be of interest to other people working with minority language communities and to scholars and practitioners in applied linguistics research more generally.

Following on from an earlier blog post by Jemina that discussed the ethics of conducting sign language interpreting research without deaf people involved, we feel it necessary to position ourselves in relation to the focus of this book, as neither of us are deaf.

So here, we discuss our role as hearing people doing sign language research, and our goals in writing this book.

The involvement of non-deaf people in the deaf community has been an on-going and vexatious issue. There has been long recognition of the value that ‘hearing’ people bring to the deaf community if they embrace the values of the community and can sign fluently enough to engage with deaf people.

There have been attempts to separate the identity of hearing people that are involved in the deaf community from those ‘other’ non-deaf people who do not use sign language and who are considered as ‘outsiders’ (see Napier, 2002; Ladd, 2003).

In the USA, there is currently much debate about the notion of interpreters having ‘Deaf-HEART’.

Others have suggested that there should be no reference to audiological status, and instead we should refer to a community of ‘sign language users’ (Bahan, 1997), ‘sign language persons’ (Jokinen, 2001) or ‘sign language peoples’ (Batterbury, 2012; Batterbury, Ladd & Gulliver, 2007).

Whichever convention you prefer, we identify ourselves as hearing people; we align ourselves with deaf people and their values based on our long involvement in the community, and we bring that subjectivity to our research and our writing.

There is also much debate in the deaf community and among researchers about the potential oppression that deaf people face in having non-deaf people conduct research on their community, with emphasis on the need for research to be with deaf sign language users (Sutherland & Young, 2014; Turner & Harrington, 2000) and to adopt a ‘community participatory approach’ (Emery, 2011; Napier & Sabolcec, et al, 2013; Young & Temple, 2014).

Consequently there is an emerging body of work that explores the need for ethical approaches to conducting sign language research in order to ensure that there is involvement from deaf sign language users in conducting the research; that deaf people’s views are taken into consideration; and that the research is ‘deaf-led’ (see Harris, Holmes & Mertens, 2009; Hochgesang , Villanueva, Mathur, Lillo-Martin, 2010; Mertens, 2010; Singleton, Jones & Hanumantha, 2012; Singleton, Martin & Morgan, 2015)

We do not see ourselves as positioned only in Deaf Studies. As linguists and interpreting studies researchers we see our work within a broader context of applied linguistics and intercultural communication, and the languages that we work with happen to include signed languages.

Thus our focus in our book is on sign language use, and not deafness.

We acknowledge though that although we are allies of the deaf community, we are not deaf, and therefore do not have shared life experience with deaf people. We are guests in the deaf community (as suggested by O’Brien & Emery, 2013), but we do have a strong philosophy of collaboration with the deaf community collectively and individually in all our research and practice.

We believe that it is important for deaf and hearing researchers to work together for the best interests of the worldwide deaf community, but we recognise the power we have as hearing people in the community and the historical backdrop of hearing researchers dominating the field.

We have ‘hearing privilege’, but privilege does not always have to occupy a negative position. We would assert that we accept the responsibility of having hearing privilege (Storme, 2014), and we use our hearing privilege positively to broker engagement and educate inside and outside the community.

 Because of our hearing privilege we get invited to do things like write a book, but we believe that we act in a way that is congruent with deaf cultural norms and values, and one of those values is reciprocity.

Adam (2015) talks about the importance of disseminating information about sign language research in sign language, and you will notice that the majority of blog posts about sign language research on the LifeinLINCS page have links to signed versions (including this one).

We would like to take this one step further – all the royalties from this book will be donated to the World Federation of the Deaf to support their on-going work with deaf sign language users throughout the world. So we are using our hearing privilege to give back to the deaf community.

This book focuses on sign language in action; where and how it is used, who by, and how we can research sign language in action in order to better understand the relationship between sign language use, culture and identity. For us, we have deliberately focussed our discussion on how deaf and hearing people use sign language, and the implications for learning and teaching and professional practice, in the hope that the information in the book will benefit all sign language users and the values of the deaf community worldwide.