Who is Checking That the Interpreting is Working?
It is a remarkably common story. A church or company or government sets up interpreting and then just leaves it. As long as someone is providing the service, we kind of just assume that it is working. But how do we know that it is actually working?
Fancy systems not required
I am not about to do into a long-winded discussion about the need for ornate and complicated Quality Assurance systems. Honestly, they rarely work and tend not to be worthwhile investments.
But we do need to know if the interpreting is doing its job and, if not, how to fix it. It’s a lot like setting up a sound system for a concert. Sure, the sound technician can grab a meter and check every cable but they are far more likely to turn the whole system on and check each mic and then each instrument. They will have a set routine to check chunks of the system at a time in enough detail to be able to trace and fix faults.
Anyone offering interpreting needs a similar approach. So how do we run a fast check that the interpreting is working?
Look for useful proxies
There are several useful indicators. First and foremost, we need to know if the interpreting is actually allowing people to participate. When the interpreting is there, do people seem engaged? Do they ask questions? Do they seem interested in what is happening? What does their body language look like?
If there is no engagement, that can often mean that the interpreting is not effective or worse, that there has been an equipment breakdown. One way or another, we need to start looking at parts of the system to see what might be broken.
After that, we should look at the interpreters themselves. Are they happy in their work? Do they seem engaged or bored? Are they reporting burnout? Do they routinely ask for materials and engage with those speaking?
Disengaged interpreting is bad interpreting. If the interpreters seem consistently stressed or tired or out of sorts, that is a major warning sign that something is wrong.
Finally, how well is interpreting embedded in the organisation? Do people know it exists and use it? Do people know how to work effectively with interpreters? Do they interact with them outside of just listening or watching them? Are interpreters valued in the organisation?
Interpreting that is simply wheeled in like a High School TV or interpreting that is booked alongside the coffee and cakes is hardly likely to offer the best results of the best value for money.
Where do we go with this?
The upshot of this is simple: it pays to periodically check that the interpreting we are providing is doing its job. Most often, the most important checks won’t be the laborious checks of terminology or accuracy but the indirect checks of whether people are able to participate and how happy everyone is with their lot.