As a Deaf parent, before my son’s doctor appointment I requested an interpreter ahead of time. I had done this before, so I expected the usual in-person interpreter would be there to help the process go smoothly. But, that day, the rhythm of our routine was jolted by an unexpected surprise. An iPad was gently placed before me and I was given my first introduction to Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). The staff seemed excited to test the new technology, and though I had doubts about its effectiveness, I embraced the new approach.
However, as the appointment progressed, I quickly found the iPad to be less than ideal. The doctor swiveled the iPad back and forth between the two of us and I consistently missed parts of the conversation the interpreter interpreted. It only got worse when my son received his shots and proceeded to cry (shots are not fun obviously!) and the interpreter could no longer hear the conversation. Instead of the smooth experience we usually had, the switch from onsite interpreting to VRI interpreting left us both confused and stressed.
VRI and onsite interpreting stand as two contrasting pillars within the wide spectrum of communication tools designed to cater to the deaf community. Each holds its own advantages and potential drawbacks. And though VRI technology is often novel, it isn’t always the best tool for some situations. The essence of effectively utilizing these tools isn’t just about choosing one over the other, but about appreciating their differences and understanding the appropriate context for their use.
Understanding the Differences
Onsite interpreting offers a human touch, a physical presence that can pick up on subtle body language cues and adapt to the dynamics of the situation in real-time. It’s about more than just language; it’s about equality, empathy, and the nuanced understanding that can sometimes be missed in technological interactions.
On the other hand, VRI introduces a degree of flexibility and accessibility that onsite interpreting may not always provide. VRI uses a remote interpreter, facilitated through a video link. It bridges geographical gaps, allows for immediate connection with an interpreter, and offers a level of convenience that can be vital in certain situations.
Yet, as I discovered during that doctor’s appointment, it VRI with its own set of challenges. The dependency on technology, the potential for technical glitches, and the lack of physical presence creates barriers in conversation. Just like in that doctor’s office, with my son crying his heart out and the doctor trying to explain post-vaccination care, the VRI was more disruptive than helpful.
Understanding these differences and knowing when to utilize VRI versus onsite interpreting is critical. Every situation, every conversation, and every person is unique—and our approach to communication should reflect this diversity. As we navigate the world of evolving communication, the options you offer should work to enhance your ability to connect with the person you’re interacting with, not complicate it.
The Importance of Having Both Available
Just as no two conversations are identical, no two interpreting situations are exactly alike. The setting, the participants, the dynamics—they all influence which form of interpreting would serve best. It’s akin to having a toolbox and knowing exactly which tool to pull out depending on the task at hand.
Take, for example, a bustling work meeting in a spacious conference interpreting solutions where multiple deaf employees are eager to contribute. In such a situation, an onsite interpreter becomes the unsung hero, adeptly navigating the room’s energy and facilitating seamless interaction among all team members. The interpreter’s physical presence, their ability to tap into the room’s vibe, and their skill in reflecting the tone and mood of the speakers are invaluable in this setting.
However, in a one-on-one meeting, the need shifts dramatically. It’s an intimate and focused conversation. Suddenly, the use of VRI might feel like the perfect fit. It’s just you, the other person, and the interpreter, connected by a thread of technology. The physical distance melts away as the conversation flows, facilitated by an interpreter you may not have access to see physically, but can see virtually.
The point is, having both VRI and onsite interpreting at your disposal is essential. It’s about recognizing that different situations have unique demands, and the mode of interpreting should be chosen accordingly. I’ve noticed a concerning trend, particularly among medical groups, where they are shifting towards VRI-only solutions. While I understand the appeal (it’s cost-effective and easy to manage) it’s not always the best fit. The goal shouldn’t be to find what is easier and cheaper for the organization. Instead, the goal should be what serves the community so they feel heard, understood, and respected.
Prioritizing the Deaf Individual’s Preference
We all have our likes and dislikes, our comfort zones. It’s what makes us uniquely human. And the communities you serve are no different. Not every deaf individual has the same preference when it comes to interpreting services. For some, the technological bridge that VRI provides is a welcome convenience. For others, the familiar presence of an onsite interpreter brings an unmatched sense of comfort and understanding.
When it comes to providing language services, we should never lose sight of the person at the heart of it all—the deaf individual. The choice between VRI and onsite interpreting isn’t just a logistical consideration or a checkbox to tick off for accessibility. It’s a vital decision that can make the difference between merely providing access and genuinely ensuring equal participation in a conversation. We have to move away from the frustrating sighs and eye-rolls (believe me it happens) that sometimes greet a deaf person’s request for an interpreter. Instead, we should celebrate the beauty of diversity in language and communication.
At the end of the day, aren’t we all just trying to connect, and be understood? It should be left to the deaf individual to decide which they prefer between VRI and onsite interpretation. Catering to their preferences is one of the most important keys to becoming a truly accessible provider.
Here at Hands Up Communications, we get it. We recognize the nuances, the subtleties, and the importance of choice. We offer both VRI and onsite interpreting services, and are dedicated to providing equal access by meeting the needs of the deaf. We understand that scheduling an interpreter shouldn’t be a daunting task, but rather a straightforward process that respects the individual’s preferences. And we don’t just respond to requests, we engage them. We listen. We adapt. We strive to provide the best possible solution for each unique scenario. Because we know that behind every request is a person wanting to be heard.
So whether you prefer VRI or onsite interpreting, or even if you’re unsure and would like guidance, we’re here for you. Because at Hands Up Communications, your voice matters, your preference matters, and you matter.
Author: Joseph Featherstone