Meme Team Case Analysis

By: Sophia Burke, Jason Dexter, Kaili King, and Taylor Logan

Interpreters find themselves in many situations in which conflicts can arise. In these

situations, the interpreter must make decisions about how to act. There are several things that the

interpreter should consider when deciding how best to act, and it can be helpful to identify the

values, perspectives, rights, and roles of the parties involved in the conflict. Using that

information they can identify the sources of power using the drama triangle, come up with

possible solutions, and finally settle on the solution that appears to best resolve the conflict. As

the assigned case study is reviewed, these things will be identified and applied in an attempt to

find the best possible solution.

In every case study, each perspective possess their own values which define how they act

and react setting up a paradigm that guides their thinking and decision-making. Typically, we do

not question these values or even realize we possess them, which can lead to conflict. In this case

study, we have identified values from three perspectives: ourselves, the interpreter, and the

D/deaf individual.

First, from our perspective, we noticed two distinct and obvious values which affect this

case study. The first value is good interpretation for the Deaf community. This is apparent when

we are feeding the interpreter information. Otherwise, we would’ve left it alone. The second

value we defined was support. We feel sympathy towards the interpreter, and want them to

succeed. However, we didn’t just want to sit back and watch them struggle, so we decided to

support (whether consciously or reflexively) the interpreter in their work. Both of these values

worked together to initiate the action of us feeding the interpreter information.

 Secondly, from the interpreter’s perspective, we noticed two apparent values which affect

this case study. The first value is autonomy, which is freedom from external influence. This

value can be synonymous with independence, and that value is more than obvious when the

interpreter replies to our help with a question of “Who’s interpreting, me or you?” If the

interpreter valued feedback more than autonomy, she may have accepted the feeding of

information and went along with her presentation.

Lastly, from the perspective of the D/deaf individual, we can make some assumptions,

but really there is no information from the case study about their thoughts. We decided even

though the D/deaf individual doesn’t come out and express their opinions, we feel it can be

important when coming to a conflict resolution to identify their values and thoughts about the

situation as well. Since we had nothing to go off of from the case study, we identified some

general values that stem from the Deaf community which may be beneficial to consider.

The first value of the D/deaf individual we decided is equal access. This value is apparent

as they would not have requested, or even be watching, the interpreter otherwise. This D/deaf

individual wants to follow along the presentation but is unable because it is in spoken English.

We can assume from this information that the D/deaf individual values equal access to the same

information that hearing people attending the same presentation are getting. The second value we

determined is a direct consequence of the value of equal access, which is the value of a

competent interpreter. A competent interpreter is one who has the knowledge and skill to be able

to interpret the information to encompass shared meaning. In an effort to receive equal access,

the D/deaf individual needs an interpreter who is qualified for the job, both in knowledge and in

skill.
 After identifying these values, we can then identify the source of this conflict. We

decided the source of this conflict comes from our interrupting the interpreter to feed them a sign

they were struggling to come up with. From the interpreter’s perspective, we have no right to

take over their job. They were the interpreter hired for this job, and we are simply a consumer of

the event. However, from our perspective, we know that the interpreter is not doing a good job.

We can see that they are struggling and we want to help, possibly allowing more equal access to

communication for the D/deaf consumers in the audience in doing so. Unfortunately, we don’t

have the perspective of the Deaf individuals in this scenario, so we are unable to know what they

think about the interpreter in this situation.

The Drama triangle played a major part in this scenario as well. We felt that the Deaf

consumer really had no place in the triangle. This left two people (ourselves and the interpreter)

in the triangle, rotating spots through the course of the interaction. Although the Deaf consumer

could be considered the “victim” of a poor interpretation, they didn’t seem to be taking that

position in the triangle.

At the beginning of the interaction, the interpreter takes the role of victim. They seem to

emanate a feeling of powerlessness with their first impression. She begins her first impression to

the Deaf consumers with a plea of forgiveness for what she anticipates will be a poor

performance. Starting the assignment that was gives the impression that she has no power over

her skill level right now and is resigned to the fact that her work will not be up to par.

In reaction to this, we, as an off duty interpreter, try to avoid the role of rescuer by

reminding ourselves that we are just there to hear the presentation, not to interpret. Unfortunately

the rescuer role wins out and we attempt to use our expert power to save the interpreter. We
know what sign they are looking for and instinctively try to feed it to the interpreter the way we

would have done in a team.

Interestingly, our action as the rescuer spurs the first shift in the triangle. The moment the

interpreter sees someone inserting themselves into her work she becomes the self-righteous

persecutor defending their right to autonomy. “Who’s interpreting here, me or you?” This phrase

could have been expressed in a pitiable, self-doubting manner with a metamessage of “I’m just

trying to do my job.” That would have maintained the position of victim. Instead, the scenario

clearly states that she “angrily turns to you and snaps”. That aggressive metamessage of “you are

being rude” is why we felt she had moved to the role persecutor. In that moment she is asserting

her legitimate power. She is the hired professional here and the interpreting decisions are hers to

make, me are an audience member with no authority to involve ourselves.

After identifying the drama triangle, it can be beneficial to identify what rights were in

play here and may have been just straight out of line. Kidder conveniently supplies us with four

right vs right paradigms: individual vs. community, short-term vs. long-term, justice vs. mercy,

and truth vs. loyalty. This case study really only falls into individual vs. community. The

community, or in this case the consumers attending this event, have the right to equal access and

an interpreter that is able to provide that. The interpreter, or the individual in this case, has the

right to work in their chosen field unhindered by others who believe them to be incompetent.

The case study states that the Deaf consumer is a friend of ours, so we can assume we

know one another. The case study also states that the interpreter was hired by the organization

running the presentation, not that we know them. So we can assume that we do not know the

interpreter and the interpreter doesn’t know us. This is one of the main reasons we felt that there

were really no stereotypes in play. We don’t know any of the interpreters credentials, so
stereotypes about new, old, or CODA interpreters can’t be applied. The same goes for the

interpreters view of us. Yes, we signed at them, but that doesn’t mean we are a certified

interpreter. Lastly, as far as we know, the interpreter hasn’t acted on any stereotypes they may

have about Deaf people, so it doesn’t seem to be a factor in their decision making either.

After looking over stereotypes, understanding the types of conflict and the sources of

each type can aid in being able to resolve and manage it. In this particular case study, our conflict

is between two people, ourselves and the interpreter. On a professional level, we are not there to

interpret, the interpreter is. On a personal level, there are strong emotions from the interpreter

when we attempt insert ourselves in their work. Out of the five types of conflict types;

relationship, data, interest, structural, and values, we decided this case study was a relationship

conflict. Relationship conflicts often lead to unnecessary escalating spiral of destructive conflict,

which can be seen when the interpreter snaps at us and asks, “who’s interpreting, me or you?”

There are also strong negative emotions coming from the interpreter, and misperceptions from us

that she wants/needs help. Clearly we are operating with different frames of what our

relationship and thus how our footing in this situation is set.

When looking at the CPC, we focused on the tenets that apply to us as off duty

interpreters. This is an interesting perspective because, generally, any code of conduct we have

been subject to has been for the workplace only and had no application in the “real world”. At

the same time we are not doctors or nurses who, under their code of ethics, are obligated to

provide assistance in an emergency even if they are off duty. Therefore, at first, we felt that

because we instinctually and quietly fed the interpreter the sign, we probably had the tenet 5.4 in

mind. This tenet states to, “Assist and encourage colleagues by sharing information and serving
as mentors when appropriate.” Feeding a struggling colleague a sign looks like “serving as

mentors” even though we misunderstood or ignored the “when appropriate” part.

The tenets that would have been better to use in this situation are 3.3 and 5.3. Tenet 5.4 is

focused on providing support for colleagues. 5.3 identifies the most professional way to

approach a colleague and give said support. It states to, “Approach colleagues privately to

discuss and resolve breaches of ethical or professional conduct through standard conflict

resolution methods; file a formal grievance only after such attempts have been unsuccessful or

the breaches are harmful or habitual.” If we really feel that they have crossed a line taking this

job when unprepared, that is something we should approach them about privately rather than in

the middle of the job.

Tenet 3.3 reads, “Avoid performing dual or conflicting roles in interdisciplinary (e.g.

educational or mental health teams) or other settings.”. We feel like this is the tenet that should

have been used to determine overall behavior. We are at the event as a consumer, not as a

mentor. In most situations, these are conflicting roles because, if we are there as a consumer and

act like a mentor, we are not able to focus on the presentation itself, thus negating our role as

consumer. If we are there as a mentor and focus only on the presentation, we are not able to

provide the support needed, thus not fulfilling the title of mentor. Much like simultaneous

communication, one can try to do both at the same time but undoubtedly one of the two things

will suffer and end up looking more like a mockery of its original form.

Given all the information we have gleaned from this scenario, there are different

solutions we could used that would have varying consequences for everyone involved.. Our first

solution is to stop trying to feed the interpreter after she snaps at us. This solution would be a

win/lose where the interpreter would win because they are able to maintain their independence
and a lose for us because we are not fulling our intrapersonal needs. Another solution would be

to stop feeding her signs and to talk to her afterwards. In this case, it could be a win/win because

we would let the interpreter be autonomous in the moment and we would also get to voice our

concerns and be there for support. However this solution has a risky element because we can not

predict the interpreters reaction to our approaching her again. Posing the question is it really

worth it.

A middle ground solution that would have minimal consequences would be to stop

feeding signs and ask our D/deaf friend what they thought of the interpreter at the end of the

presentation. This solution would not be the best to choose because unfortunately we don’t know

the D/deaf person’s thoughts and feelings of the interpreter so we don’t know if it would be and

win or lose to who ever the D/deaf person is referring to.

As a group, we decided to stop feeding the interpreter information after she snaps and let

it go. We are not there for the job. As off duty interpreters, it is our responsibility to shut our

mouths and hands and be at the presentation as a consumer. We feel this is the best decision

because if we chose what looks like a win/win solution, we would be going against the the Code

of Professional Conduct. It is not our responsibility to talk to the interpreter and give advise as if

we were their team, especially since they haven’t asked for it. It is hard to take a loss and ignore

an intrapersonal demand once in while. However, it will be worth it in the long term to respect

our own and others values by letting go of responsibilities we never had in the first place.

After analyzing the values, perspectives, rights, and the roles of the parties involved in

the conflict, using that to identified the sources of power and positions in drama triangle, coming

up with possible solutions, and finally settle on a solution that appears best it is clear that a lot

goes into making ethical decisions. All written out it looks like it takes hours find the best choice
but when on the job we do not have that kind of time. We can make this process easier by

identifying some of these things before a conflict arises. For example our own values, or the

rights of the people in the interaction. This is also why reflection and discussions with other

interpreters is so important. We have the time after the job to really analyze the situation and can

use what we learn then in future conflicts. As interpreters we will encounter many situations

where conflicts will arise but if we just take a minute a review these steps we can make ethically

wise decisions.
 Works Cited

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. Alexandria,

Virginia: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2005. www.rid.org. Web.

Steward, Kellie Mills, and Anna Witter-Merithew. The Dimensions of Ethical Decision-Making:

A Guided Exploration for Interpreters. Sign Media Inc., 2006.