Exploring Remote Interpreting

Exploring Remote Interpreting Erica Alley, MA, NIC-Advanced1 Gallaudet University Abstract This paper aims to examine the field of remote interpretation in both signed and spoken languages in order to identify important topics to address when teaching interpreters how to work in this setting and thereby improve services that are provided. It can be seen that video interpreting is here to stay despite the obstacles that continue to pose as a challenge. Remote interpreting is used throughout a range of specializations including medical, mental health, education, conference, and legal environments. Undoubtedly, to fight technology is to go against the natural paradigm shift that our field will take. I propose that, rather than resisting the expansion of technology, we teach interpreters how to use it effectively. How can we expect new interpreters to make ethically wise decisions about working in this field if we do not teach them best practices for navigating it’s constraints? After all, it is the new generation of interpreters who will feel most comfortable working with the technology used in this setting; they are the ones who are most likely to begin a career that includes video interpreting. Keywords: remote interpreting; video remote interpreting; video relay service 1 Correspondence to: Erica Alley, Gallaudet Interpreting Service, 800 Florida Ave, NE, Washington, DC 20002, [email protected]. International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 1 Exploring Remote Interpreting Introduction Remote interpretation, as it occurs between American Sign Language (ASL) and English via video, is a relatively new phenomenon consisting of both Video Relay Service (VRS) and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). Given that this method of providing interpreting service is such a recent innovation, it would be beneficial to look toward remote interpretation as it pertains to spoken language interpreting via telephone as well as signed language interpreting via video in order to gain knowledge of its purpose and current use. It is important to consider what it is that our colleagues in spoken language interpreting settings do both successfully and unsuccessfully when it comes to remote interpretation. This paper aims to examine the field of remote interpretation in both signed and spoken languages in order to identify important topics to address when teaching interpreters how to work in this setting and thereby improve services that are provided. It begins by identifying the difference between Video Relay Service and Video Remote Interpreting. This is followed by a consideration of individual settings that commonly utilize remote interpreting. Finally, this paper addresses a variety of topics for discussion in the classroom, which may benefit interpreters who work in this setting. Video Relay Service and Video Remote Interpreting: A Comparison The Video Interpreting Committee of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) describes Video Relay Service (VRS) as being a federally funded, government regulated service provided to deaf and hard of hearing individuals in order to achieve access to telecommunication that is functionally equivalent to that which is available to hearing individuals. The idea of functional equivalency originates with documentation developed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) describing the purpose of VRS. Funding for this service derives from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, which is managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and provides compensation for VRS service on a per-minute basis. In contrast to text-based relay, such as that which is mediated using a TTY, VRS allows for interpreted conversation to take place in real time using sign language. With the advent of this system deaf people are no longer limited to communication via written English where they have to wait for the other conversational participant to say, “Go ahead” in order to continue their conversation. While VRS is a highly praised technological advancement, it is limited to communicative interaction between two parties in different locations. If a video interpreter (VI) identifies that the hearing and deaf caller are in the same room, they are required to inform the callers that they are unable to continue with the call and promptly disconnect. The interpreting agency is forbidden to bill the FCC for video remote interpreting services because they do not fall under the purpose for which the Telecommunication Relay Service (TRS) funds are allotted. In contrast, video remote interpreting agencies may be privately owned and regulated without funding from TRS or regulation by the government. Video remote interpretation is provided in settings where conversational participants are present in a common location and utilize the services of an interpreter at a distant location in order to communicate. The Video Interpreting Committee of RID describes VRI as being used often in medical, legal, business, and education settings for a variety of reasons. One benefit of using VRI is that it is cost International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 2 Exploring Remote Interpreting effective if used infrequently. Another benefit is that services are available without having to wait for an interpreter to arrive at a particular location. While an on-site interpreter would often charge by the hour and may have a two-hour minimum, VRI services often charge by the minute and may have a 15-minute minimum (RID VIC, 2008). It is also possible to set up a rate plan, on-demand service, or an ongoing assignment. This may be an economically wise choice on the part of the business; however, charging by the minute adds up rather quickly if services are used for a long period of time. One important difference between VRI and VRS is that VRI is frequently used in places of business such as doctor’s offices, legal offices, etc. Research reported by Taylor (2005) indicates that VRS, on the other hand, is most often used at home; however it is possible to use VRS from a person’s place of employment if they have the proper equipment. Taylor states that VRS calls made during the day, between the hours of 9am and 5pm, are different than those that are placed at night. Calls placed after business hours are often between family and friends. This is not true of VRI calls, which mostly pertain to business. Late night VRI calls may likely be regarding an emergency. Another difference between VRS and VRI is the amount of preparation time and material that is made available to the interpreter. In a VRS setting there is typically very little break time between calls and often a minimal amount of information from which to prepare. Any information that is received is shared seconds before the call is placed. This creates an environment in which the interpreter often does not know the subject or tone of the call until it is already being processed. Video Remote Interpreters, on the other hand, are sometimes able to receive information when the request for interpreting service is placed (this is assuming that the request is made in advance, which is not always the case in an emergency situation). There is a portion of VRI work where the interpreter has the opportunity to meet with the deaf participant prior to an interpreted event in order to assess linguistic needs and ensure that they are able to provide quality service. In fact, VRI agencies may have ongoing jobs in which an interpreter or team of interpreters are assigned and can continue to work on a regular basis. This consistency makes it easier to provide higher quality interpreting service because the interpreter will be able to build a schema in reference to the setting and participants. They will also have knowledge of jargon and regional word or sign choices, which may assist them with their interpretation. This, of course, depends on the setting and is not always the case when working with VRI. The purposes and goals of VRS and VRI are very different; however, there are many similarities in the work. Both services are in 2-D format using video technology as a medium. Keating & Mirus (2003) have investigated communication that occurs in a 2-D environment using signed languages. They have found several strategies that are used in order to ensure clear communication in a visually effective manner. These include a reduction of sign space in order to meet the spatial limitations posed by the camera, adjustment to palm orientation, slow pace, and emphasis on individual signs. This work is relevant in both VRS and VRI settings. It shows that consumers of video interpreting services may be aware of adjustments that need to be made and change their approach to communication appropriately in order to facilitate the interaction. VRS and VRI are also similar in that any time technology is added to an event there is always the possibility that technical difficulties may occur and prevent communication from occurring smoothly or at all. Research done by the Interpreting via Video Work Team of the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (2010) on VRI shows that conditions such as video quality, audio quality, stability of connection, availability of technical assistance, lack of training, and ease of using hardware/software may impact the efficacy of the interpretation. This can be applied to VRS as well. Specifically, VRS and VRI depend on the amount of available bandwidth in a particular location. The use of wireless Internet access may decrease the efficacy of the device and cause problems that limit visual access to information. Similarly, auditory access may be limited depending on the logistics of the interaction, the quality of the microphone being used, and the amount of background noise present. Furthermore, if there are several participants in the conversation, it may be difficult to see or hear all participants. Both settings require the interpreter to develop strategies for managing communication. For example, turn-taking can be complex when there is limited visual access to the individual with which a person is speaking. Consumers of VRS do not have visual access to one another and may struggle with turn-taking. In certain situations consumers of VRI can see one another because they are in the same room; however, depending on the location of the VRI device, the hearing participant may or may not have visual access to the interpreter. If there are several people involved in a communicative interaction, such as at a business meeting, and only the Deaf International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 3 Alley individual can see the interpreter on the screen, it is easy to forget that an interpreter is present and often speaker overlap occurs in natural conversation. The interpreter will have to regulate turn-taking in order to interpret effectively. Video Relay Service and Video Remote Interpreting clearly have similarities and differences. It is important to recognize that within both of these settings signed language interpreters are not working in isolation but may be able to benefit from the communities of spoken language interpreters who have accumulated a great deal of experience over the years. We must consider whether the experience of using VRS and VRI is similar to or different from the experience of working with spoken language interpreters via remote interpretation. Video Interpreters may benefit from the knowledge of our spoken language interpreting colleagues. In addition to learning from the experience of spoken language interpreters, we can also learn from the experiences of non- native English speakers who have worked with spoken language remote interpreters in the past. What is their opinion regarding the effectiveness of this resource? Similarly, what are some of the concerns that interpreters have about working in these environments? A study of the remote interpretation setting as it is used globally may provide us with ideas as to how we can improve our work in order to provide effective interpretation for consumers of video interpreting services. Basic Challenges to Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) Participants in interpreted interactions (including interpreters) may prefer not to use remote interpreters because they are not familiar with working in this environment (Gracias-Garcia, 2002). Interpreters are often more comfortable with the type of interpreting that they are familiar with and uncomfortable with new approaches to interpretation. Given that there is minimal training offered to interpreters and consumers, participants are left confused as to how to proceed with an interpreted interaction. This places more stress on everyone involved. Moser-Mercer (2005) in her study of presence in remote interpreting at an international conference, says that, “interpreters have not yet been trained to work in remote settings and are thus still having to rely largely on consciously controlled processing” (p. 77). She goes on to say that having no prior knowledge of how to adapt to this setting, leads interpreters to need to invest a great deal more energy into their interpretations. Similarly, the change from interpreting in a physical space to interpreting in a technological environment consisting of an entirely mental space has led to an increase in the amount of mental energy needed in an interpretation. Mintz (1998) emphasizes the distraction that occurs when an interpreter has to pay attention to the equipment that is being used rather than the interpretation that is being conducted. This is often the case for new interpreters in remote interpreting settings. As Gile (1995) points out in his effort model, effort that is put into one area is taken from a finite pool of energy and, therefore, detracts from effort that could be invested in another area. This leads to a greater number of errors in a given interpretation due to fatigue. Mintz (1998) recommends that interpreters receive training on how to work with remote interpreting equipment. It is possible that once they become more comfortable with the technology they may come to appreciate the convenience of remote interpretation. As might be expected, working in a remote interpreting environment may have physical repercussions. Similarly to a job that requires a person to work on a computer all day, remote interpreting may cause headaches, eye strain, and other physical pain. Research done by Roziner and Shlesinger (2010) shows that there was a significant increase in the number of headaches that the interpreters complained of when working in a remote setting. They also complained of increased drowsiness, anxiety, and trouble concentrating. All of these factors may lead to difficulty interpreting and ultimately to a poor quality interpretation. It is interesting to note, however, that the authors attribute this to interpreting in a new environment that is outside the interpreter’s comfort level. They liken these indicators of stress to those felt by interpreters when they were expected to interpret simultaneously rather than consecutively. Any change from the habitual norm produces a greater degree of stress. It is possible that as interpreters become familiar with this environment, the level of stress will decrease and the quality of the interpretation will improve. This is just another reason that training is needed in this field. Training that takes place outside of live interpretations will help interpreters feel more comfortable with remote interpreting without impacting the quality of an interpretation that has actual consequences. International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 4 Exploring Remote Interpreting Video Remote Interpreting in Conference Settings Moser-Mercer (2003) studied remote interpreting by filming interpreters working in both remote and on-site environments. Interpreters worked in the conference room where the event was taking place as well as a remote location for the same event. Each of the interpreters in this study was filmed working in both environments. Results showed that the quality of the remote interpretation declined significantly after thirty minutes of interpretation; in fact, they declined more so than interpretations rendered in the conference room. Moser-Mercer conducted interviews with the interpreters and asserts that one reason for the increase in the number of errors in a remote setting is due to a lack of presence at the interpreted event. She states that, “it seems that the lack of proximity to clients and staff produces a feeling of alienation that ultimately results in lack of motivation and hence produces a decrease in interpreting quality” (Moser-Mercer, 2003). Being situated at a distance from the event creates a feeling of having little control over the work as well as an inability to identify with the audience who is relying on the interpreter. Interpreters in the study mention feeling as if they cannot ask for clarification if necessary. Without the ability to ask for clarification or repetition, interpreters are unable to repair an inaccurate interpretation, which leads to a decrease in the quality of that target language output. It should not come as a surprise that distance from the interpreted event would produce a feeling of isolation that would ultimately impact the quality of the interpreters’ work since interpreting involves communication between people. An inability to see the people with whom you are communicating leads to a feeling that you are talking to yourself. Research conducted by Roziner and Schlesinger (2010) notes that there are a number of additional constraints when working in a remote setting. One such example is the interpreters’ need for feedback from the audience in order to feel as if they are interpreting effectively. Without a visible audience, remote interpreters often feel as though no one is paying attention to their interpretation. This leads to a decrease in motivation. In addition to this, the interpreter does not have control over the visual input that they receive. They are limited to the camera’s scope of view and cannot change the picture that they see. This also leads to a feeling of helplessness and an inability to get the visual information that they need in order to interpret effectively. Roziner and Shlesinger identify another constraint that exists in this type of interpreting as being the environment that the interpreter is working in (i.e. the booth), which may increase the stress felt by the interpreter. Long hours of sitting in a confined location increases the level of stress that the interpreter experiences. The authors note that the dark background and the booth partitions compound this feeling of stress. These features serve a purpose; the dark background assists with the clarity of the picture and the partitions protect the confidentiality of the participants and reduce distractions during the interpretation. While these features are functional, they nevertheless increase the isolation felt by the interpreter. Video Remote Interpreting in Medical Settings While there are a number of challenges that are present when working with a remote interpreter in a medical setting, there are also a number of advantages to this method of interpreting. Gracia-Garcia (2002) studies the pros and cons of telephone interpreting and categorizes the pros into four areas – advantages for doctors and healthcare providers; advantages for administrators and customer institutions; advantages for interpreters; advantages for patients. Many of these points can be more widely applied to incorporate remote interpreting in general. The author recognizes benefits to working with telephone interpreters such as the fact that they are more readily available than on-site interpreters in situations that require immediate action, such as in emergency hospital settings that require immediate decisions to be made. This reduces the risk of lawsuits since immediate communication is an option. It is also noted that it is more cost effective to work with a telephone interpreter given that there is no charge for travel time or two hour minimum. Furthermore, on a busy day, on-site interpreters may not be available; however a telephone interpreter is just a call away. These are just a few of the reasons that healthcare personnel prefer to work with a remote interpreter. Interpreters may prefer to work in remote medical settings rather than on-site in a hospital as well because it provides them with the ability to remain detached from traumatic events and, therefore, remain focused on the interpretation since there are no visual distractions. In the aforementioned article, Gracia-Garcia notes that often the interpreter is left in the room with a patient when the doctor is not there. Interpreters may find this uncomfortable or awkward. Telephone interpreting allows the interpreter to maintain strict boundaries. It also International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 5 Alley allows the interpreter to work with more people, since there is no travel time that needs to be accounted for in this setting. The interpreter can work with one person after another; therefore, more interpreting requests will be fulfilled in a timely manner. It is also noteworthy that it is possible to work with an on-site as well as a remote interpreter for the same interpretation. In situations where an on-site interpreter is needed, it is possible to work with a remote interpreter until an on-site interpreter arrives; therefore, the patient will not have to sit and wait for interpreting services in order to begin communicating with medical personnel. In a study of patient satisfaction with different interpreting methods, Gany et al. (2007) compare proximate and remote interpretations that occur in a New York City municipal hospital where more than half of the patients prefer to communicate in a language other than English. Remote interpretations in this setting occur via telephone. The study showed that remote interpretation allows the patient to maintain privacy since the interpreter is unable to see the patient. Patients reported that they liked remote interpretations for this reason. Gracias-Garcia (2002) points out that patients are more comfortable asking personal questions about their health when the interpreter is not in the room. They were also satisfied with remote interpretation because there was a decrease in the amount of time that they had to wait for an interpreter. In contrast to this, patients were dissatisfied with remote interpretation when there were technical glitches that hindered communication. Locatis et al (2009) studied remote medical interpretations by comparing interpretations that occurred via video, telephone, or on-site at the Medical University of South Carolina. They used a likert scale completed by patients, interpreters, and medical staff to assess satisfaction with the interpreting services that were provided. Results showed that most participants preferred on-site interpretations to remote interpretation. Patients claimed to prefer on-site interpretation because it is more personal, which leads to a better understanding of the information communicated. They go on to say that video interpreting is preferable to telephone interpreting because there is visual access to the interpreter. Some providers preferred telephone interpreting because it required less time than an on-site interpretation; however, technical problems such as poor audio quality were recognized. As far as video interpreting is concerned, most technical problems were attributed to poor signal strength due to the distance that the device was in relation to the router. These issues detracted from the ability to have a smooth conversation and ultimately led people to dislike remote interpretation in most cases. Research into the types of technological difficulty that is experienced in these situations may assist with the improvement of interpretations that occur in this environment. Furthermore, training of interpreters and conversational participants on how to work within the identified limitations may decrease the number of technological issues that occur. For example, if hospital personnel are aware that certain examination rooms closer to the router are optimal for working with these patients, they may be able to avoid technical problems by adhering to these standards. This may decrease the amount of frustration felt by all people involved in an interaction. Video Remote Interpreting in a Courtroom Setting The use of remote interpreters in a courtroom setting has very serious repercussions. The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) created a position paper in regards to telephone interpreting in legal settings, which states, “Telephone interpreting should only be used when no certified, qualified or language skilled interpreter (particularly in less common languages) is available in person at the location where the service is needed.” (NAJIT, 2009). The organization does not go into further detail in this document regarding the meaning of qualified or language skilled in respect to the interpreter. Some of the issues that are raised are similar to those that are seen in VRI, including problems with the technology, the importance of training, lack of local knowledge such as accents/terminology, and lack of visual access to the environment. NAJIT also points out benefits that stem from the use of remote interpreting such as interpreter anonymity and the financial advantage of using telephone interpreting since travel and contract costs are no longer necessary. While the financial advantage is apparent, Vidal (1999) says that Clearly, given a choice between spending more and spending less, a responsible administrator should not automatically approve the costlier option. But this is a false dichotomy. For the question here is not one of choosing between two equally good alternatives, one of which costs more. The question is one of the inherent unreliability of the telephone for meaningful communication of important legal matters (p. 2) International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 6 Exploring Remote Interpreting If the purpose of including remote interpreting in the courtroom is to improve upon the system that we currently employ, then we must take into account more than the financial benefit of utilizing remote interpreters. One cannot avoid acknowledging the importance of accurate interpretations in legal settings. Research into the effectiveness of remote interpreting in this setting is of the utmost importance. Decisions made in the courtroom have lasting consequences on the lives of those who work within the system. Swaney (1997) says that if we are improving our legal system through the use of remote interpreters, “Why don’t we ‘improve’ the jury system by letting jurors go home to deliberate the facts of the trial via telephone or computer? Because there is no immediate substitute for human dynamics…” (p. 1). It must be recognized that financial benefit is not synonymous with equal access. Napier and Leneham (2010) investigated the effectiveness of video remote interpreting in a courtroom setting and found that VRI is a feasible option in certain situations; however they maintain that there are technical, logistical, linguistic, and environmental issues that need to be considered in order to ensure that an accurate and quality interpretation can be successfully rendered. Issues included the size of television screens, speed of bandwidth, visibility of interpreters, background noise and visual distractions, lighting, set-up time, difficulty getting the attention of individuals who are not situated in the same location, turn-taking, knowledge of the physical layout of the space, and an inability to see people in certain places in the courtroom due to the fixed placement of cameras. Even when all of these issues are addressed, the authors suggest that the use of VRI not be over generalized as to become the immediate and sole consideration when the services of an interpreter are needed. Napier and Leneham conducted a series of interviews with the Deaf participants in their study. Results of these interviews show complaints such as an inability to request clarification from the interpreter, an inability for Deaf family/friends in the courtroom to access the interpretation, difficulty focusing on the interpreter on the screen, additional stress due to the method of interpretation (being understood in a 2D environment), and a feeling of being disconnected from the interpreter. The interpreters reported feeling isolated and unsure of the effectiveness of their interpretation. They also assert that they struggled with identifying who was speaking because they did not know where the individual was located in the room. Some of the hearing participants reported feeling as if they had to speak more slowly and be standing in specific areas in order to be seen; however most of the hearing participants thought that the interpretation was effective. Video Remote Interpreting in Mental Health Settings There are several reasons why remote interpretation in mental health settings is not considered best practice. Interpretations in this environment call for a high degree of trust between the interpreter and patient. Trust is more easily acquired in face-to-face encounters. Mental health settings can also be quite emotionally charged. It is easier to understand the patient’s emotions when there is clear visual access between the interpreter and the patient, which may not be the case with the use of remote interpretation. Furthermore, technical difficulties would prove to be frustrating in this environment when clear communication is so important. This is not to say that remote interpretation should not ever be used in mental health settings. Of course, as several of the aforementioned authors suggest, in small communities with few interpreters the patient may prefer to work with an interpreter from outside of the area in order to maintain anonymity. An individual may prefer to use remote interpretation in order to ensure confidentiality; however, once again, remote interpreting should not be used without clearly weighing the pros and cons of its use as well as allowing the non-English speaking participant to have a voice in the decision making process. It is also important that interpreters are trained in how to effectively work in remote mental health interpreting settings in order to ensure quality of service. Video Remote Interpreting in Educational Settings There are a number of challenges that occur when interpreting in a classroom environment that may lead to an ineffective interpretation. Some of these problems are due to technical difficulties. Often laptops and webcams are used, which leads to visual constraints. It can be troublesome for the interpreter if they cannot see the entire classroom (blackboard, teacher, materials on the walls, other students, etc.). The lack of access to visual information makes it difficult to accurately interpret information. For example, in a classroom the teacher may International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 7 Alley use graphs or visual displays; if the interpreter cannot see this information, they may not be able to interpret it in a way that is consistent with how it is presented. Technical challenges in this setting may also include poor lighting, background noise, and insufficient bandwidth. Remote interpreting in an educational setting may also be challenging due to the interactive nature of many classrooms. There may be instances of overlapping dialogue that the interpreter may need to address. It is also possible that the student who relies on VRI is unable to fully participate in group work or role-playing scenarios in which they need to be away from the computer. VRI may be considered cumbersome for these reasons. What Does This Mean for Remote ASL-English Interpreters? Given the potential advantages it can offer, it appears that video remote interpreting is here to stay despite the obstacles that continue to pose as a challenge. Remote interpreting is used throughout a range of specializations including medical, mental health, education, conference, and legal environments. Undoubtedly, to fight technology is to go against the natural paradigm shift that our field will take. I propose that, rather than resisting the expansion of technology, we teach interpreters how to use it effectively. How can we expect new interpreters to make ethically wise decisions about working in this field if we do not teach them best practices for navigating it’s constraints? After all, it is the new generation of interpreters who will feel most comfortable working with the technology used in this setting; they are the ones who are most likely to begin a career that includes video interpreting. Several of the aforementioned studies recommend that both interpreters and consumers of interpreting service receive training in how best to work with remote interpretation. Through offering a variety of workshops as well as incorporating technology into the interpretation classroom, we can prepare interpreters for video interpreting environments. It can be predicted that if students do not begin to learn how to navigate this setting in a practice environment, they will learn in an on-the-job setting, which may have very real consequences for those individuals who are obtaining access to communication via the interpretation. In the interpreter education classroom, while students are learning about best practices in individual specializations, it would be wise to incorporate mock interpreting scenarios that pertain to remote interpreting. This will help students prepare for remote interpretations in various contexts. Students will begin to acquire strategies for asking for clarification, managing turn-taking, and working within a two dimensional environment. After each practice session interpreters should be given the opportunity to discuss their experience. This promotes the sharing of effective and ineffective strategies. Those strategies that are deemed effective can be utilized when working in an actual remote interpreting environment. Aside from classroom interactions, workshops pertaining to remote interpreting are another great way to share techniques for effectively navigating the field. These may be in the form of intensive trainings spanning several days/weeks or in the form of shorter courses that focus on individual topics. This will ensure that not only new interpreters but those who are already working in the field have access to training material. Topics for discussion in a workshop may include a variety of subjects such as managing turn-taking; preparation techniques for a video interpreted event; working with remote interpreting in individual settings; presence and transparency in video interpreting; minimizing eye strain; trouble-shooting and technology; acceptable vs. unacceptable situations for video interpreting; and problem solving strategies. These are just a few of the possible topics that may be broached. Each of these workshops may include mock video interpreting situations in order to provide interpreters with realistic experiences. As research is conducted and new information is acquired interpreters should be made aware of important themes. New information may lead to the creation of best practices in particular settings. Sharing information will assist with the development of strategies for effectively working in remote environments. This will ultimately result in the provision of quality interpreting services. Without standardization of norms and provision of training, participants in these interactions will continue to fumble their way through communication. It is crucial that we provide remote interpreters with the foundation of knowledge that they need in order to work effectively International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 8 Exploring Remote Interpreting 1. References Gany, F., Leng, J., Shapiro, E., Abramson, D., Motola, I., Shield, D., Changrani, J. (2007). Patient satisfaction with different interpreting methods: a randomized controlled trial. General Internal Medicine, 22(2), 312- 318. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Gracia-Garcia, R. (2002). Telephone interpreting: A review of pros and cons. Available at: http://www.a2hc.org/articles/Telepone_Interpreting-pos_and_cons.pdf Keating, E., & Mirus, G. (2003). American sign language in virtual space: interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society, 32, 693-714. Locatis, C., Williamson, D., Gould-Kabler, C., Zone-Smith, L., & Detzler, I., Roberson, J., Maisiak, R. Ackerman, M. (2009). Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. General Internal Medicine, 25(4), 345-350. Mintz, D. (1998). Hold the phone: Telephone interpreting scrutinized. NAJIT. Proteus. Vol VII. No. 1. Winter 1998. Moser-Mercer, B. (2003, Summer). Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and performance parameters. Available at: http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page1125.htm Moser-Mercer, B. (2005). Remote Interpreting: The Crucial Role of Presence. Bulletin VALS-ASLA #81 National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (2009). NAJIT position paper: Telephone interpreting in legal settings. Available at: http://najit.org/publications/positions.php. NCIEC Interpreting via Video Work Team. Simon, J., Hollrah, B., Lightfoot, M., Laurion, R., & Johnson, L. (2010). Steps toward identifying effective practices in video remote interpreting. Available at: http://www.nciec.org/projects/vr.html RID Video Interpreting Committee. (2008). Video relay service and video remote interpreting: what’s the difference?. VIEWS, June, 2008, 7-8. International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 9 Alley Roziner, I., & Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting, 12(2), 214-247 Swaney, L. 1997. "Thoughts on Live bs Telephone and Video Interpretation" Najit. Proteus. Vol. VI, No. 2 Spring 1997. Taylor, M. (2005). Video relay service interpreting task analysis report. Distance Opportunities for Interpreter Training Center (DO IT Center). Vidal, M. 1999. "Telephone Interpreting: Technological Advance or Due Process Impediment?" NAJIT. PRoteus. Vol. VII, No. 3 - Summer 1999 International Journal of Interpreter Education, XX (X) 2009, pp. X-XX © CIT 10