Phillipps, Smith, Thomsen, & Dennison 1

Samantha Phillipps, Nisha Smith, Danielle Thomsen, & Shaunie Dennison

Connie Spanton-Jex
INTR 1300
09 November 2016
Case Analysis
The scenario given to our group was explained as follows: You are interpreting in a
veterinary class, and students are going to be working on a cow cadaver today. The professor
comes over and tells you that he feels its very important for you to recognize each of the organs
because the students comprehension is dependent upon your ability to understand information.
Both he and the deaf student insist that you literally get a feel for the material. They slept gloves,
a gown, and a mask on you and point you toward the cow.
Looking at the Code of Professional Conduct tenets, we have found three tenets that
specifically apply to this case study:
3.3 - Avoid performing dual or conflicting roles in interdisciplinary (e.g.
educational or mental health teams) or other settings. The interpreter can either be an
interpreter or a student in this situation. As a student they will be learning along with the
deaf student and working on the cow. Interpreting would be much more difficult with
gloves and gooey substance on their hands; so itd be better not to interpret since the
student wouldnt understand. But as the interpreter, they simply interpret so that the deaf
student can follow along with the class. The interpreter cannot be both at the same time.
3.7 - Disclose to parties involved any actual or perceived conflicts of interests.
Since there is a Conflict of Interest between the interpreter and the student and teacher;
rather than just smiling and nodding, it would be good for the interpreter to voice the
conflict they are facing so the 3 participants can come to a solution/agreement.

Phillipps, Smith, Thomsen, & Dennison 2

6.3 - Promote conditions that are conducive to effective communication, inform
the parties involved if such conditions do not exist, and seek appropriate remedies.
Because of the request made by the professor and student asking the interpreter to, in a
sense, become a student and be hands on, effective communication becomes less of a
possibility. With the gown, mask, gloves, and other environmental factors, the
interpreters ability to effectively interpret becomes jeopardized. We felt that this specific
tenet applied due to the fact that the interpreter is being faced with the choice to inform
them of these conditions and seek the appropriate remedies.
As we discussed the influencing values in our scenario, we broke it down into the
interpreter, teacher, and students perspective. From the interpreters perspective, we felt that the
interpreter may value their responsibility/role there. They would see their primary responsibility
of interpreting as the most important task at hand. For both the teacher and the student, we felt
that their values reflect knowledge and understanding. Both the interpreter and teacher felt that
the hands-on experience will increase comprehension, resulting in a more conceptually
accurate message relayed to the student.
Upon reading pages 72-77 in The Dimensions of Ethical Decision-Making: A Guided
Exploration for Interpreting, we found there to be two different specific types of conflict within
this scenario: value and interest conflicts. First, we saw the value conflict, because the interpreter
values being an effective interpreter. On the other hand, the interpreter also values doing right by
the teacher and student. We felt that an interest conflict was also apparent in this scenario,
because the interpreter wants to do what is best for the interpreting situation by not participating
in conflicting roles, but the interpreter also wants to please the student and teacher.

Phillipps, Smith, Thomsen, & Dennison 3

The conflict of the two differing points of view is what makes the situation difficult - the
interpreter is wondering if they should literally be hands-on to please the student and professor or
if they should reject the offer and just be the interpreter. The interpreter may be feeling that they
should simply do what they were assigned to do - interpret. They may feel that it isnt a necessity
to get a feel for the organs and that it may only interfere with having free hands to interpret
with. On the other hand, the student and professor genuinely feel that it will greatly impact the
quality of the interpreters ability to fully portray the concepts.
Applying the Drama Triangle to our scenario is simple, because it is clear from
the description who the victim is: the interpreter. The interpreter has been forced into gloves, a
gown and mask and pointed in the cows direction without their consent. We see the professor as
the main persecutor and the Deaf student as the rescuer. The professor is seen as the persecuted
because he suggested the idea in the first place. The Deaf student quickly responded and
supported the professors suggestion, however, they can always change their opinion and
rescue the interpreter.
The most prevalent Right vs. Right paradigm we saw was short term vs. long term. We
felt that the interpreter is faced with this thought, I could just simply keep the gloves on and
continue with the lab, but if I give in to this right now, this could cause a chain reaction. In the
future, I may feel incredibly pressured by them and they may set up the expectation that I need to
comply to their request every time, no matter how strange it may seem. The right from a short
term perspective is that they would comply and please the student and teacher, and the right
from a long term perspective is the fact that it may have negative effects that may not be worth it.
As far as possible stereotypes apply, we found that there were mainly two that were likely
to take place:

Phillipps, Smith, Thomsen, & Dennison 4

From the professors perspective, they be unaware of the full role of the
interpreter. They may not know what is acceptable and what is not. They may see the
interpreter as there to help the Deaf student; if that means getting hands-on, there is no
reason they should feel they can reject their request to do so. They should participate in
the class to become aware of what is being taught.
The professor may also see deafness as a disability, therefore, they are adamant on
giving them more assistance so they can understand what is going on.
Despite all of the conflicts and information mentioned above, the interpreter has to
implement a solution to the issue. We found there to be three possible solutions and
consequences that will follow with each one:
1. The interpreter can reject the offer and explain why they feel they should not

participate in this hands-on experience.

a. If the interpreter chooses to do this and is able to explain their role,
it may result in a better understanding from all points of view, and the teacher and
student could be very understanding.
b. The interpreter may explain their role, but instead of the teacher
and student being understanding, they may be offended or upset. They may feel
that the interpreter is either rude or just not willing to do what they feel is best for
the student.
c. By not participating in the actual lab, the interpreted message

would more than likely become more clear as far as not having gloves and mask
on. The interpreter could be standing right by the Deaf student and still be able to
explain everything clearly without the hands-on experience.
2. The interpreter can do both interpreting and participating in class, but they can
explain the the student and professor that this is a one-time exception.

Phillipps, Smith, Thomsen, & Dennison 5

a. Due to the gown, mask and gloves as well as their extensive

involvement in the actual coursework, the interpreted message would lose its
effectiveness.
b. Because the interpreter accepts their request, the teacher and

student will be pleased that they are willing to comply.

c. Throughout the lab, the student may become frustrated because
they dont understand as much and arent getting all of the information.
3. The interpreter can ask the teacher if they will allow time before the rest of the

class starts for them to get a quick feel for things, and then have the class join in
without your participation with the cadaver.
a. The teacher may be completely bothered that the interpreter would
even ask if that would be allowed since class time is so precious.
b. The class time is so limited that this option would make it nearly
impossible for the students to finish the lab themselves.
c. The students may feel irritated that the interpreter is taking up their
class time. This may also cause contention between the students and the Deaf
student.