The DI Bibliography is a compilation of print and video material relevant to Deaf Interpreting. It  is a living document and, as such, invites the contributions of titles of any materials addressing – or making mention of – Deaf Interpreters and Deaf Interpreting. Links to articles are made possible by the kind permission of the publishers.

Bentley-Sassaman, Jessica (2010). Experiences and training needs of Deaf and hearing interpreter teams. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University, December 2010.

Deaf-hearing interpreter teams are new to the field of interpreting, and little research exists as to the issues that arise for such teams. The purposes of this qualitative phenomenological study were 3-fold and included (a) exploring the experiences of Deaf interpreters and the hearing interpreters with whom they work, (b) understanding whether Deaf and hearing interpreters felt satisfied with the training they received in regard to working as a team, and (c) discovering gaps that could be addressed through training that would lead to the establishment of more qualified teams. Findings included the need for curriculum development for Deaf interpreters and Deaf-hearing interpreter teams, understanding the roles of the team members, and for training on how to work effectively as a team. Salient themes included ethics, the effectiveness of the interpretation, and mentoring. This study contributed to positive social change by increasing the understanding of Deaf-hearing interpreter team members’ needs. Enhanced preparation and training opportunities will lead to improved interpretations and the effective services to clients of these teams.

Bienvenu, M., & B. Colonomos (1992). Relay interpreting in the 90′s. In L. Swabey (Ed.), The Challenge of the 90′s: New Standards in Interpreter Education, Proceedings of the Eighth National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 69-80). United States: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.

Bienvenu and Colonomos provide a broad overview of relay (Deaf) interpreting, including the process and skills needed to be a relay interpreter, and the skills needed to effectively teach relay interpreters. This article also includes discussion of ethical and legal considerations concerning relay interpreters, as well as discussion of the business of relay interpreting.

Boudreault, P. (2005). Deaf interpreters. In T. Janzen (Ed.) Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp. 323-355). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. To access this article online, please go to Ingenta.com where you will be asked to subscribe to the journal.

Boudreault writes from the perspective of an experienced Deaf interpreter and researcher with fluency in LSQ, ASL, French, and English. An overview of the work of Deaf interpreters, his chapter describes a number of roles and functions served by Deaf interpreters, drawing a distinction between Deaf interpreting work between two distinct languages (e.g. LSQ and ASL) and within one language (i.e. mirroring, facilitating, and using International Sign Language), and providing illustrations of seating arrangements for various functions and settings. The chapter also raises ethical concerns faced by Deaf interpreters as they reconcile professional codes of conduct with their own place in the Deaf community. Finally, Boudreault speaks to the need for professional training for Deaf interpreters that appropriately addresses the content areas Deaf interpreters and hearing interpreters might study together and those that are unique to Deaf interpreting work demands.

Brandwein, D.R. (2005). CDI training focus of Illinois RID mentoring grant. RID Views, 22 (7), 7.

Brandwein provides a summary of an experimental program to train Deaf interpreters that was administered by the Illinois chapter of RID. This program, funded by the National RID, included two information sessions that allowed people to learn about the profession of deaf interpreters, a three-day teaching workshop, a four-week test preparation course and monthly study groups.

Bronk, Alisha. (2009) Interpreters: Gatekeepers for the deaf interpreter community. RID Views. 26 (2), 27-28.

Inspired by her experiences with the RID Deaf Members in Leadership Committee, the author shares about her efforts as a Deaf interpreter to collaborate with hearing colleagues.  She discusses the benefits of DI/HI team work for interpreters and consumers and calls for all interpreters to work together as allies.

Burns, T. J. (1999). Who needs a Deaf interpreter? I do! RID Views. 16 (10), 7.

Burns provides an overview of Deaf/Hearing team interpreting, delineating the criteria that make up a successful interaction, as well as delineating the benefits to everyone involved in the interaction.

Capps Dey, L. (2009). The Role of Deaf Interpreters: Investigating What Deaf Interpreters Experienced. RID Views, 26 (1), 43.

The author provides a summary of research conducted on the experiences of Deaf interpreters, focusing on their work teaming with hearing interpreters.

Cerney, B. (2004). Relayed interpretation from English to American Sign Language via a hearing and a deaf interpreter. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Union Graduate Institute.

Cerney reports on his research into relayed interpretations comparing several linguistic features (message equivalence, length of processing time, syntax and lexical choices, and hand dominance) that differed between the hearing and deaf interpreters’ signed productions. He also analyzed the private communicative strategies that occurred between the hearing and Deaf interpreters during the relay process.

Cobb, M. & Clark, T. (2009). RID research grant update. RID VIEWS, 26 (1), 40.

The article provides an update on a 2007-2008 RID Research Grant awarded to the Superior Court of California, Ventura County to conduct an investigation titled “An Observational Study of the Current Practices of Deaf Interpreters in Five Courtroom Locations Across the United States.” The goal of the project is to document the interpreting and communication strategies employed by Deaf/Hearing interpreting teams working in the court setting. Observations are to be conducted in 2009.

Cogen, C., E. Forestal, R. Hills, & B. Hollrah (Writers/directors). (2006). Deaf Interpreting: Team Strategies [DVD]. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Academic Technology TV & Media Production Services, Graduate School and Professional Programs.

Narrated by Deaf Interpreter and educator Eileen Forestal, this production demonstrates the dynamics between a Deaf interpreter and an ASL-English interpreter working as a team. The team is shown interacting in pre-conference discussion, interpreting a meeting between a school admissions counselor and a Deaf Russian gentleman who is not yet fluent in ASL, and debriefing in a post-conference session. The 31 minute DVD was a conjoint project of three Regional Interpreter Education Projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration from 2000-2005. Available from the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials. Closed captioned.

Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the relationship of interpreters and the deaf community. In Mark Marschark, Rico Peterson, & Elizabeth A. Winston (Eds.), Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice (pp. 3-28). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cokely makes brief mention in this chapter of a task analysis undertaken with a group of Deaf interpreters in which the participants stated that platform work for Deaf interpreters is still rare, and that the “regular” work occurs when there is a perceived “language problem.”

Cokely, D. and Winston, E. (2008). Phase I Deaf Consumer Needs Assessment Final Report. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers is charged by the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration with the task of conducting needs assessments to inform interpreting education priorities. This document reports on the first phase of consumer needs assessment conducted via an online survey in collaboration with the National Association of the Deaf. Included among the findings are respondents’ views on Deaf Interpreting.

Cokely, D. and Winston, E. (2009). Phase II Deaf Consumer Needs Assessment Final Report. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers is charged by the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration with the task of conducting needs assessments to inform interpreting education priorities. This document reports on the second phase of consumer needs assessment conducted through face-to-face interviews with consumers in ASL. Included among the findings are respondents’ views on Deaf Interpreting.

Cokely, D. and Winston, E. (2009). Comparison Report: Phase I & II Deaf Consumer Needs Assessment. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers is charged by the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration with the task of conducting needs assessments to inform interpreting education priorities. This document compares findings of the group of online respondents with those of the group that was interviewed in ASL. Use of Deaf Interpreters by respondents in the two consumer groups is discussed.

Collins, S. and H. Roth. (1992). Deaf Interpreters, TBC News, 49, 1-2.

Collins and Roth provide a brief overview of deaf interpreters, including how and where DIs work.

Egnatovitch, R. (1999). Certified Deaf Interpreter WHY. RID Views, 16 (10), pp. 1, 6.

Egantovitch’s article outlines the importance and benefits of working with a Deaf interpreter and suggests strategies for Deaf/Hearing interpreting teams. He dispels several myths often associated with working with a Deaf interpreter and encourages Hearing interpreters to be open to this kind of team situation.

Forestal, E. (2005). The emerging professionals: Deaf interpreters and their views and experiences on training. In Mark Marschark, Rico Peterson, & Elizabeth A. Winston (Eds.), Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice (pp. 235-258). New York: Oxford University Press.

The author reports findings from a series of interviews conducted with Deaf interpreters focused on the interviewees’ background, certification, length and type of interpreting work experience and their perspectives on past and needed training, qualifications, and competencies of Deaf interpreters.

Frishberg, N. (1990). Introduction to interpreting, 2nd ed. (pp. 22, 97, 114, 149ff., 153ff., 160-7, 168ff.) Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.

The author describes Deaf interpreters’ (RSC) roles working with individuals who are deafblind and individuals who have minimal language skills in a variety of settings.

Gonzales, L. M. (2005). Deaf interpreters become pivotal part of bridging cultures conference. RID Views, 24 (8), 24.

Gonzales provides an overview of her experience at the 2005 RID conference in San Antonio, TX, reviewing several sessions she attended, summarizing several topics of discussion pertinent to Deaf interpreters, and suggesting topics for future DI training. Included, as well, is information regarding the re-activated Deaf Caucus.

Guidelines for proceedings that involve deaf persons who do not communicate competently in American Sign Language. Language Services Section, Special Programs Unit, Programs and Procedures Division, Office of Trial Court Services, Administrative Office of the Courts, Trenton, NJ. May 2000, Revised April 2004.

The New Jersey Judiciary developed guidelines to assist judges, lawyers, and others involved in the legal system to (1) understand the unique communication needs of Deaf people who use a sign language other than ASL and (2) provide guidance for improving successful accommodations for such persons.

Langholtz, D. (2004). Deaf interpreters today: a growing profession. WFD News, 17 (1), 17.

The author seeks to bring information about Deaf Interpreting to potential DIs, fellow interpreters, Deaf and hearing consumers. He provides a brief history and overview of DI practice and addresses issues of resistance to or acceptance of Deaf Interpreters among hearing interpreters and the Deaf community. Having more proficient DIs will enhance high standards of the interpreting profession.

Johnston, E. (2005). The field of certified deaf interpreting. CIT News, 25 (2) 8-9.

The author presents the idea that the term Deaf interpreter is a misnomer which leads to confusion both in and out of the interpreting profession, recommending instead that they be called transliterators, ASL transliterators. Discussed, as well, are the issues surrounding the role of Deaf interpreters, likening their tasks to those of a mediator (as described in France), and surrounding certification of Deaf interpreters. The author fully supports the use of Deaf interpreters and would like to see the confusion lessened.

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts (2010). Recommended guidelines for the use of Deaf intermediary interpreters. Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, CA.

This document promulgates California state guidelines concerning the utilization of Deaf interpreters including situations in which a Deaf interpreter is needed, qualifications and hiring, and advanced planning.

Mathers, C.M. (2009). The Deaf interpreter in court: An accommodation that is more than reasonable. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

The author provides an in-depth legal analysis of case law and state statute demonstrating the critical role of the Deaf Interpreters in court settings.

Merkin, L. (2004). Deaf Members in Leadership (DML): Representing the Deaf perspective in RID. RID Views, 21 (7), 6.

The author provides an overview of the Deaf Members in Leadership (DML) Committee of the RID, including statements about the Committee’s purpose and objectives, and how the Committee works with various branches of RID. Included are examples of how the DML Committee has been the catalyst for change within RID.

Merkin, L. (2009). Bringing the “deaf heart” to RID. RID Views, 26 (2), 28.

RID’s Deaf Members in Leadership Committee seeks collaborative ways to reintroduce “Deaf Heart” concepts of ASL, visual accessibility, collectivism, culture, history, and Deaf and CODA input into the organization’s policies and initiatives.

Moose, C. (2008). RID and NAD working together: special president’s report. RID VIEWS, Fall 2008, 10-13.

RID President Cheryl Moose provides the history of the Certified Deaf Interpreter test and speaks to RID’s commitment to address the high failure rate among CDI test takers.

Napier, J., R. McKee, & D. Goswell (2006). Sign Language Interpreting: Theory and practice in Australia and New Zealand (pp.144-147). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press.

In the greater context of their book about interpreting, the authors provide an overview of the role and function of Deaf interpreters, and how Deaf and hearing interpreters work as a team. They also discuss how the use of a Deaf interpreter can be beneficial when working with clients who have limited language skills due to a variety of reasons.

National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers, Beldon, Jr., J., Boudreault, P., Cogen, C., et. al. (2008). Laying the foundation for Deaf Interpreter education: Deaf Interpreting as a career choice within the realm of the deaf studies curriculum. In Deaf Studies! Today 2008 Conference Proceedings (in preparation).

The paper recapitulates the Deaf Studies! Today 2008 Conference presentation by NCIEC Deaf Interpreting Work Team members Jimmy Beldon and Patrick Boudreault. Included are select NCIEC National Deaf Interpreter Survey findings, a review of the team’s other work to date, and discussion of Deaf Studies program as a foundation for training as a Deaf Interpreter.

NCIEC Deaf Interpreter Work Team. (2009). Analysis of Deaf Interpreter focus group discussions conducted April-July 2007. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

This report presents the findings of six focus groups conducted by the NCIEC Deaf Interpreter Work Team to gather the perspectives of certified and non-certified working Deaf Interpreters from across the United States on current issues and future directions in the field of Deaf Interpreting. Several themes emerged from the analysis of the discussions: Formative Experiences of Deaf Interpreters, Professional Standards and Expectations, Formal Preparation of Deaf Interpreters, and Employment Issues. The report synthesizes the focus group discussions around these themes and recommends areas for further study and future action.

NCIEC Deaf Interpreter Work Team (2009). Findings of Deaf Interpreter educator focus groups conducted December 2007. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

This report contains the findings of a research project undertaken by the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC) Deaf Interpreter Work Team in December 2007. The scope of the project was to invite a group of Deaf Interpreter Educators to respond to an on-line survey and to participate in a focus group about some of the issues related to Deaf Interpreting.  In total, twelve Deaf interpreting educators participated in the process. The research is but one of the many activities undertaken by the Deaf Interpreter Initiative of the NCIEC to engage processes that would provide current evidence about Deaf interpreting practice in the United States.

NCIEC Deaf Interpreter Work Team (2009). Findings of a national survey of Deaf Interpreters conducted spring 2007. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

An analysis of data collected through an online national survey of certified and non-certified Deaf Interpreters during the spring of 2007. The report offers an analysis of demographics, work environments, consumers, language demands, and professional development needs and aspirations. A profile of the Deaf Interpreter is offered based on the findings and recommendations are made for further study and action.

NCIEC Deaf Interpreter Work Team (2010). Toward Effective Practice: Competencies of the Deaf Interpreter. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

This document delineates the competencies required of the Deaf Interpreter based upon studies conducted by the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC).  The delineation refers broadly to generic and specialty area competencies required of all interpreters, and then delves more deeply into the unique aptitudes, formative experiences, and competencies that differentiate Deaf Interpreters from their hearing counterparts.

NCIEC DI Work-Team. (2009). NCIEC Deaf Interpreting work-team to present at the RID Deaf caucus meeting. RID VIEWS, 26 (3), 43.

Article gives notice of an upcoming presentation by the NCIEC DI Work-Team on findings of the team’s focus group and survey studies, progress of the newly established CDI Task Force, and the launch of a new website, Deaf Interpreting Institute.

NCIEC DI Work-Team (2009). News from the NCIEC DI Interpreting Work Team: Deaf Interpreting Institute, Proposed Domains and Competencies and CDI Task Force. RID VIEWS, 26 (4), 43.

NCIEC Deaf Interpreting Work Team talks about the Deaf Interpreting Institute, proposed domains and competencies and the contributions of the CDI Task Force.

NCIEC Legal Interpreting Workgroup. (2009). State of our art: a discussion of changing trends in the field of legal interpreting. In Handouts Book: 21st National Conference of Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Philadelphia, PA. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.

Published handout from a panel discussion presented at the 2009 RID Biennial Conference. Provides summary of four research-based publications of the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers work team on legal interpreting: Observational Tool for Deaf-Hearing Interpreting Teams; the Deaf Interpreter in Court: An Accommodation that is More than Reasonable; Best Practices: American Sign Language and English Interpreting within Court and Legal Settings; and Competencies of Interpreters working in Court and Legal Settings: Distinguishing Generalist versus Specialist Practice.

Peterson, D. (2004). Who monitors Deaf interpreters? RID VIEWS, 21 (10), 17.

The author raises several questions regarding Deaf interpreters, particularly regarding who monitors Deaf interpreters to ensure that they uphold and maintain high standards, both professionally and personally.

Policy and procedure manual for requesting agencies. Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, Communication Access Services, Concord, NH. February, 2005.

This documents provides an example of established policy mandating the use of Deaf interpreters in particular settings.

 

Potterveld, T. (2008). Deaf suspects and constitutional rights. RID VIEWS, Fall 2008, 16-18.

The article focuses on a particular court case as a vehicle to explore issues of interpretation in law enforcement settings. It looks at issues surrounding communication of the Miranda warning, qualifications of interpreters, determining when a CDI is required, interpreter roles and accountability, and the benefits of preserving a visual record of police, deaf suspect, and interpreter interactions.

Quigley, S. P., & J. P. Youngs (1965). Interpreting for Deaf People (pp. 41). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

This work contains a reference to Deaf individuals serving in the intermediary interpreting role.

Reed, S. (2003). Development of training for Deaf Interpreters to work with deaf visually impaired people. In 13th DbI World Conference on Deafblindness Conference Proceedings, August 5-10, 2003, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Deafblind and Rubella Association: 2003, 7.

This workshop presentation given at the 13th DbI World Conference on Deaf-Blindness described the use of Deaf interpreters to work with individuals who are Deaf-Blind.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Professional Standards Committee. (1997). Standard practice paper: Use of a Certified Deaf Interpreter. Retrieved January 14, 2005.

This position paper provides an overview of the role and responsibilities of certified Deaf interpreters.

Ressler, C. (1999). A comparative analysis of a direct interpretation and an intermediary interpretation in American Sign Language. In D. Watson (Ed.). Journal of Interpretation. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.

The author discusses her research examining the difference between direct interpretation, where the hearing interpreter was working directly from the source into the target language, and intermediary interpretation, where the source message was “fed” to a deaf interpreter. Discussion focuses on the differences in eye-gaze, pausing, head nodding, the number of signs per minute, usage of fingerspelling versus signs, and in how clarifications were made.

Sandefur, R. (1994). Team interpreting: Deaf and hearing interpreters as allies. RID Views, 11 (8), pp. 1, 15.

This short article talks about the importance of hearing and Deaf interpreters working together as a team, highlights the benefits of such teams, with emphasis on trust and respect within these teams. The author provides an overview of the use of Deaf interpreters during the 1993 NAD conference in Knoxville, TN, during which Deaf interpreters served as monitors to ensure accurate representation of the proceedings.

Shepard-Kegl, J., F. McKinley, & D. Reynold. (2005). The role of Deaf interpreters: Lessons from the past and a vision for the future. Interpres, 18 (4), 16-18.

The authors provide an overview of the history of deaf interpreting, including factors that served as catalyst for change in the perception and work of Deaf interpreters. Additional information is provided on the interpreting program at the University of Southern Maine which provides full integration of deaf students in the program.

Smith, T. (2002). Guidelines: Practical Tips for Working and Socializing with Deaf-Blind People (pp. 95, 148, 159, 161, 169, 199, 239, 240, 244, 245, 250, 259). Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media Inc.

The author recognizes the effectiveness of Deaf individuals in interpreting roles within the Deafblind community.

Solow, S.N. (1988). Interpreting for minimally linguistically competent individuals. The Court Manager, 3 (2), 18-21.

This article provides an overview of working with consumers who have limited ASL skills due to a variety of reason, particularly when working in legal settings. When working with such consumers, it is often beneficial to employ the services of a Deaf interpreter to work as a team with the hearing interpreter. Discussed, as well, is how the use of a Deaf interpreter in legal settings can be beneficial to all participants.

Solow, S.N. (2000). Sign Language Interpreting: A Basic Resource Book (Revised ed.) (p. 99). Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.

The author makes reference to the role of Deaf interpreters in the Deafblind community.

Stewart, K., Witter-Merithew, A., Cobb, M. (2009). Best Practices: American Sign Language and English Interpreting within Court and Legal Settings (pp. 10, 19-21, 27-28, 33, 34, 35, 37). National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.

Researched and written by members of the Legal Interpreting work team of the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers, this paper elucidates best practices – i.e. “the most efficient (least amount of effort) and effective (best results)” – for interpreting in legal proceedings. Many passages advocate the use of Deaf Interpreters as a best practice.

Stone, C. (2007). Deaf translators/interpreters’ rendering processes: the translation of oral languages. In Turner, G. (Ed.) Sign language translator
and interpreter. Manchester, England: St. Jerome Publishing. 1(1), 53-72.

 

Publisher’s abstract: The rendering of English to BSL within television settings provides an opportunity to identify ways in which written languages are translated into oral languages (Ong 1982, Furniss 2004). This research explores the process that Deaf and hearing translators/ interpreters (T/Is) follow when rendering English television broadcast news into British Sign Language (BSL). The distribution of blinks is compared in Deaf and hearing translators/interpreters to illuminate the role of preparation and rehearsal. Think-aloud-protocols are used to explore whether differences between the two groups point to a contrast between translation and interpretation processes. The exploration of similarities and differences between Deaf and hearing T/Is enables the identification of a Deaf translation norm, which in turn can provide guidance to hearing T/Is in approaches to translation tasks. To purchase the article, visit: http://www.stjerome.co.uk/periodicals/journal.php?j=154&v=159&i=164&a=176.

 

Tuck, B. M. (2010). Preserving facts, form, and function when a deaf witness with minimal language skills testifies in court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158 (3), 905-956.

Many courts lack the ability to fully accommodate deaf witnesses who are semi-lingual, non-lingual, or otherwise possess minimal language skills.  Courtroom participants use language in precise ways to exert control and power.  Monitor interpreters, deaf interpreters, and other best practices do not always protect against inadvertent adjustments in facts, form, or function.  The contemporaneous objection requirement bars parties from fully analyzing complex linguistic interactions before they enter the court?s official record.  As an alternative, parties can borrow procedural tools from the document translation evidentiary model.  Parties can apply additional resources to particular contested portions of the interpretation, and the court and jury can have additional information to help them settle the dispute.

Wilcox, P. (1995). Dual interpretation and discourse effectiveness in legal settings. In Graham Turner & Judy Kegl (Eds.), Special Issue: The Bilingual/Bimodal Courtroom. Journal of Interpretation, 7 (1). 89-98.

The author looks at the history of linguistic and cultural oppression within the court system, its impact on Deaf people, and the role interpreters have played in this setting. Also provided is an overview of the concept and development of Deaf interpreters and how various states and agencies have provided advocacy for interpreters and for Deaf clients who are involved in legal settings.

 

Witter-Merithew, A. (2010). Conceptualizing a framework for specialization in ASL-English interpreting: a report of project findings and recommendations. Mid-America Regional Interpreter Education Center (MARIE).

Specialization exists in the field of interpreting and interpreter education through both de facto and de jure processes.  The de facto status exists because many practitioners self-designate as having specialized competence for working 1) in a particular setting—such as legal or healthcare, 2) with certain populations—such as Deaf-Blind individuals, or 3) within unique functions—such as Deaf Interpreters or interpreting via technology.  Evidence of de jure processes includes advanced educational programming for interpreters, as well as standardized testing and certification procedures for designated specialty areas.  There are pros and cons to both approaches. This report offers a conceptual framework for specialization that includes a discussion of the downside to specialization that occurs without established standards, assumptions about specialization, guiding principles to the development of specialization, terms and definitions, and case studies that provide illustration of successful and less-than-successful efforts to create specialization.

 

Contributors: Brittany Allen, Patrick Boudreault, Cathy Cogen, Dennis Cokely, Diana Doucette, Patty Farlow, Eileen Forestal, Lillian M. Garcia, Priscilla Moyers, Andy Prior, Julie Simon, Sharon Neumann Solow, Brandon M. Tuck, Anna Witter-Merithew.