Social (Justice) Issues Education Among American Sign Language/English Interpreters
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Hilary Mayhew, Gallaudet University
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
0 |
Project Citation:
Mayhew, Hilary. Social (Justice) Issues Education Among American Sign Language/English Interpreters. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-04-01. https://doi.org/10.3886/E100480V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Abstract
This exploratory study examined the experiences of American Sign Language interpreters in regards to social justice education (SJE). SJE is a recent trend in the ASL interpreting profession, and one that is not without controversy. This is the largest study to date on social justice in ASL interpreting, and the first specifically on social justice education in the field. For this study, a random sample of members from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) responded to an anonymous survey (n=1,207, response rate 34%) which asked about educational experiences and interpersonal discussions on social justice issues. Surprisingly, results show that a large majority of respondents (76%) have already had SJE training, and/or have studied SJE topics on their own (84%). Training formats and content varied. Results seem to support literature on SJE in other fields, showing that longer courses correlate with more positive outcomes. Most people also reported that SJE had a positive impact on their work overall. Respondents did report both strong positive and negative reactions, however. Results of this study outline where SJE in interpreting needs to improve to follow “promising practices.” Educators and leaders may use these results to consider which SJ topics most students have already studied, and which are still unfamiliar. Finally, this initial dataset is intended as a possible baseline for future studies, to measure the actual impact of SJE on interpreters and the communities they serve. The dataset is available for secondary research.
This exploratory study examined the experiences of American Sign Language interpreters in regards to social justice education (SJE). SJE is a recent trend in the ASL interpreting profession, and one that is not without controversy. This is the largest study to date on social justice in ASL interpreting, and the first specifically on social justice education in the field. For this study, a random sample of members from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) responded to an anonymous survey (n=1,207, response rate 34%) which asked about educational experiences and interpersonal discussions on social justice issues. Surprisingly, results show that a large majority of respondents (76%) have already had SJE training, and/or have studied SJE topics on their own (84%). Training formats and content varied. Results seem to support literature on SJE in other fields, showing that longer courses correlate with more positive outcomes. Most people also reported that SJE had a positive impact on their work overall. Respondents did report both strong positive and negative reactions, however. Results of this study outline where SJE in interpreting needs to improve to follow “promising practices.” Educators and leaders may use these results to consider which SJ topics most students have already studied, and which are still unfamiliar. Finally, this initial dataset is intended as a possible baseline for future studies, to measure the actual impact of SJE on interpreters and the communities they serve. The dataset is available for secondary research.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
social justice;
pedagogy;
Deaf;
deaf;
helping professionals;
American Sign Language;
interpreter;
education;
training ;
hard of hearing;
allies;
cultural competence;
sign language;
signed language;
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf;
RID;
interpreter education;
power;
privilege;
oppression;
diversity;
evidence-based practice;
intersectionality;
helping professions
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
National
Universe:
View help for Universe
Members of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2015; American Sign Language/English interpreters.
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
survey data
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
34% (partial responses included)
30% (Complete responses only).
# of RID members invited: 3,503
Total Responses: 1,207
# of partial surveys: 130
# of completed surveys: 1,042
(# of disqualified surveys): 34
# of responses analyzed and available in dataset: 1,172
30% (Complete responses only).
# of RID members invited: 3,503
Total Responses: 1,207
# of partial surveys: 130
# of completed surveys: 1,042
(# of disqualified surveys): 34
# of responses analyzed and available in dataset: 1,172
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
Random, unstratified sample.
From the entire RID membership database (11,453 individuals at the time of the survey), 3,855 people were randomly selected to receive an email invitation to participate in the survey. Demographics of the sample population are representative of the entire population.
From the entire RID membership database (11,453 individuals at the time of the survey), 3,855 people were randomly selected to receive an email invitation to participate in the survey. Demographics of the sample population are representative of the entire population.
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
Survey results, conducted using SurveyGizmo.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
web-based survey
Scales:
View help for Scales
Several Likert-type scales were used.
Weights:
View help for Weights
No weighted variables.
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Individuals
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
State
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.