Responding to the European refugee crisis: A Rapid Response Module for training humanitarian

interpreters Barbara Delahayes, Josh Goldsmith, Emma Sebastiani, Jonathan Gibbs

@_InZone

Humanitarian interpreters  Work in fragile environments  Pursue the missions of humanitarian organizations in situations of human suffering  Work with beneficiaries protected under International Humanitarian Law  Have no institutionalized professional community

Source: InZone (2016)

The need for humanitarian interpreters Turkey, 6 of April 2016 46 pledged of 400 requested (11.5%) Source : Statewatch (2016)

Greece, August 2016 24 pledged of 400 requested (6.0%) Source: Alderman (2016)

The need for humanitarian interpreters

 Significant need: natural and manmade disasters  Lack of basic orientation for humanitarian interpreters (Businaro, 2010; Moser-Mercer & Bali, 2007)

 Interpreters’ work has a major impact in humanitarian settings (Shepherd-Barron, 2010)

The need for humanitarian interpreters “The lack of translation and interpreting services in the aftermath of the earthquake was a vital missing link in the relief effort and the ability to coordinate humanitarian aid effectively.” (Shepherd-Barron, 2010)

The need for humanitarian interpreters Problems during asylum interviews include distortion of content, misunderstandings, role conflicts, terminological gaps, register and stylistic shifts, zero- and non-renditions, interpreter bias, and emotional involvement. (Pöllabauer, 2015)

Characteristics of the RRM  Compact, free and on-demand  One-hour interactive course  Low bandwidth; compatible with mobile devices  Accessible even to lower levels of English proficiency  User-friendly

Target audience

Humanitarian

actors

Bilingual nationals on site

Interested parties

Timeline (urgency) Rapid response At later stages At convenience

Learning outcomes Basic understanding of roles, skillset, tools of professional

humanitarian interpreters

Basic grasp of professional expectations, cultural issues

and ethics

Increased awareness of self-care and psychosocial aspects

Language combination Language proficiency Active listening The trialogue position Use of the first person singular Note-taking Glossary making Reformulation of the message

Ethics principles (neutrality, confidentiality, accuracy, transparency, setting boundaries) Cultural differences Nonverbal communication

Interpreting-specific stress factors Warning signs of stress Coping strategies Resiliency Moral efficacy

Content development Professional resources   UNHCR’s Refworld Self-Study Module 3: Interpreting in a Refugee Context   Sphere curriculum   Humanitarian Starter Packs & Emergency Preparedness Course

(DisasterReady.org) Interviews   InZone staff members with extensive field experience   A former UNHCR education coordinator and officer in Kenya and Lebanon   An OCHA Humanitarian Affairs Officer in South Sudan, Lebanon and Nepal   I

Distribution channels  Download from Disasterready.org (open online learning platform)  Preload on electronic devices  Localize RRM into other languages most used in the humanitarian space (French, Arabic, etc.)  Adapt RRM for actors working with humanitarian interpreters

Demonstration (Live demonstration of Rapid Response Module)

Research questions  After the RRM, have participants grasped the basics of humanitarian interpreting?  Does the design of the RRM promote fast completion and scalability?

Study design  Pilot study  Pre- and post-RRM questionnaires

 Pre-course questionnaire: explore participants’ backgrounds  Post-course questionnaire: answer research questions and improve course design

 Most questions Likert scale; some free response

Ethics requirements  Informed consent  Data aggregated to maintain confidentiality  Do no harm

Participants  3 groups of participants took RRM in Greece; collaboration with Translators without Borders  31 participants in course (15 female)  Language combinations: English + Arabic, French, Greek, Farsi, Kurdish, Dari, Urdu, Dutch  10 also completed InZone’s blended Basic Course  Pre-course questionnaire: N=18  Post-course questionnaire: N = 15

Methodology and data processing

 Pilot study  Small population size  Descriptive quantitative study

 Data cleaned to remove duplicate responses  Data aggregated to ensure confidentiality

Have participants grasped the basics of hum. interpreting?

Avg. N (avg.)

Understand basic interpreting skills (7 indicators)

4.5 / 5 13.7 / 15

Understand professional expectations and ethical considerations (5 indicators)

4.7 / 5 14.6 / 15

Understand psychosocial aspects of interpreting and self-care (4 indicators)

4.4 / 5 14.8 / 15

TOTAL 4.6 / 5 14.3 / 15

Does the design of the RRM promote fast completion and scalability? (1) Course completion and timing

Does the design of the RRM promote fast completion and scalability? (2) Motivation

Avg. N

Course motivates participant to explore content (1 indicator)

4.6 / 5 15 / 15

Content is presented in a logical progression (1 indicator)

4.5 / 5 15 / 15

TOTAL 4.5 / 5 15 / 15

Does the design of the RRM promote fast completion and scalability? (3) Language of instruction

Discussion 1)  In future studies, we may wish to follow-up several

months later to explore retention of key concepts. 2)  Data can be collected for both research and design

purposes. 3)  Initial completion rates indicate high potential for

scalability among similar populations. Scalability will likely increase if the course is localized into other languages.

Conclusions 1)  After the RRM, students grasped the basics of

humanitarian interpreting. 2)  The RRM’s interactive nature supported self-study and

motivated participants to complete the module. 3)  Given this, the RRM could be considered a solid lead-

in to more advanced humanitarian interpreting courses and represents a model for future e-learning courses.

Thank you from the InZone Team! Barbara Moser-Mercer Ian Newton Emma Bonar Barbara Delahayes Carmen Delgado Luchner Josh Goldsmith Erin Hayba Manuela Motta Emma Sebastiani Tobias Wehrli

inzone.unige.ch @_InZone https://www.facebook.com/InZoneUNIGE/

References Alderman, L. (2016, August 13). Aid and Attention Dwindling, Migrant Crisis. New York Times. Businaro, R. (2012). Relief Operations across Language Barriers: The Interpreter Factor. Unpublished MSc Thesis. University College, Dublin. InZone. (2016). Humanitarian interpreting and the challenges associated with its practice. From http://inzone.unige.ch/index.php?module=content&type=user&func=view&pid=39 Moser-Mercer, B. and Bali, G. (2007). Interpreting in Zones of Crisis and War: Improving Multilingual Communication through Virtual Learning. Proceedings from the 2007 MIT LiNC conference. Cambridge, Ma: MIT. From: http://aiic.net/page/2979/interpreting-in-zones-of-crisis-and-war/lang/1 Pöllabauer, S. (2015). 'It Is a Fiction that I Am Neutral and Invisible.' Training Interpreters for Asylum Interviews. Paper presented at the InDialog: Community Interpreting in Dialogue with Technology, Berlin. Shepherd-Barron, J., 2010. Language Kills. UNICEF-APSSC. Statewatch. (2016). Statistics: Implementing the EU-Turkey deal: "boots on the ground". From http://statewatch.org/news/2016/apr/eu-turkey-implementation-statistics.htm