Domain 2:
Human Relations
This cluster of interpersonal competencies fosters effective communication and productive collaboration with colleagues, consumers, and employers. Click a button below to jump to a different domain.
An outline of a masculine presenting person signs CONNECT.
Through engaging with Domain 2, I have developed a deeper understanding of the relational foundations that make effective interpreting possible. Interpreting is, at its core, an act of connection among languages, cultures, and people. The competencies in this domain have helped me recognize that how I show up in relationships with consumers, colleagues, and the broader Deaf community is inseparable from the quality of my work as a practitioner.
Throughout my program, I have grown in my ability to navigate cultural differences, maintain professional boundaries, and collaborate with team interpreters in ways that reflect both respect and accountability. These are not skills that exist alongside interpreting; they are the conditions that allow interpreting to happen well. Developing competence in human relations has meant learning to hold others' needs with care while remaining grounded in professional and ethical standards.
​
Domain 2 has also deepened my understanding of what connection requires of me personally. Effective practice in this domain is not simply about avoiding conflict or following protocol; it is about cultivating genuine respect for the people I serve and the colleagues I work alongside. I do not approach these competencies as finished skills, but as ongoing commitments that will deepen with every professional relationship I build. Below is a summary of the domain and artifacts that demonstrate proficiency in interpersonal skills and the various manifestations of respect in interpreters' work.​
Domain #2 Essay
Competency 2.1
Demonstrate collegiality by showing respect and courtesy to colleagues, consumers, and employers, and taking responsibility for one’s work.
To demonstrate my understanding and current skill level of this competency, I have reflected on an experience I had during an observation. Please see the essay below.
Collegiality Reflection Essay
Within Domain Two, Human Relations, Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2005) identify collegiality as a foundational competency. During an observation at a school serving a large population of Deaf and hard of hearing students, I witnessed an encounter that shaped my understanding of this competency. Interpreters at the site frequently worked in teams, and collaboration was typically valued. However, I was informed that I would not be able to observe one interpreter, whom I will call Interpreter A, because she did not permit student interpreters to observe her work. I also learned that when she was actively interpreting, she requested that her team interpreter leave the room, and she likewise exited when her partner was interpreting.
​
Immediately upon learning about Interpreter A's preferences, I felt hurt and wondered what I had done wrong or whether I had somehow offended her. As I processed the situation further, those feelings shifted into genuine concern. An interpreter who does not permit observation or team support raises questions about accountability, and I found myself worried about the quality of interpretation her students were receiving. This behavior stood in such contrast to the vast majority of interpreters I have met, who have been generous with students and committed to supporting their teams. Thinking about what it would feel like to function as Interpreter A's team interpreter, I felt anxious and overwhelmed on their behalf.
​
Examined through Dean and Pollard’s (2013) Demand-Control Schema (DC-S), significant demands emerge, particularly for Interpreter A’s team interpreter. The primary environmental demand is to manage fast-paced classroom discourse while ensuring that students’ needs, as outlined in their Individualized Education Program (IEP), are met. This requires sustained cognitive processing, rapid linguistic decision-making, and ongoing monitoring of comprehension. Under typical circumstances, interpreters might rely on preparation, strategic lag time, visual referents, and message condensation strategies (Gish, 1987) to manage cognitive load. The National Association of Interpreters in Education (NAIE) (2019) identifies team interpreting as a best practice in school settings because it allows interpreters to provide feeds, monitor accuracy, and alternate roles to reduce fatigue.
​
In this situation, however, Interpreter A’s refusal to remain in the classroom significantly restricts these control options. Without collaborative support, the remaining interpreter must independently manage the full cognitive load of the assignment, eliminating the protective function that team interpreting is designed to provide. Repeated transitions in and out of the classroom also create logistical challenges for unobtrusive interpreter switches and may distract both the Deaf or hard of hearing student and others in the classroom. What would typically be a shared environmental demand becomes an individual burden, increasing the risk of fatigue-related errors and reducing student access.
​
Interpreter A’s actions also generate interpersonal and intrapersonal demands within the broader team. Colleagues must manage teachers' confusion about interpreter roles and regulate their own frustration while maintaining professionalism. The interpreters at the site shared that this dynamic created tension, as most had intentionally cultivated norms of collaboration, trust, and shared accountability. Concerns about message accuracy and limited peer monitoring became intrapersonal demands requiring regulation to preserve collegial relationships.
​
This situation raises important questions about how collegiality, as articulated in the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC) (2005) and the NAIE Code of Ethics (2021), functions as a structural safeguard for effective service delivery. The CPC requires interpreters to demonstrate respect for consumers (Tenet 4) and maintain professional relationships with colleagues (Tenet 5). Illustrative behavior 4.4 calls on interpreters to “support the full interaction” (RID, 2005). When an interpreter exits the classroom, opportunities to monitor accuracy and ensure continuity of access diminish. Similarly, Tenet 5 emphasizes professionalism and mutual accountability among colleagues. While interpreters retain autonomy over their practice, collegial professionalism requires careful consideration of how individual preferences affect the broader team and the consumers they serve (RID, 2005).
​
The NAIE Code of Ethics (2021) further underscores this expectation. Its fourth tenet calls on school interpreters to collaborate with the educational team to support student access. In school settings, collaboration is not optional but integral to consistent visual access for deaf and hard of hearing students. In declining to participate in team-based support, Interpreter A’s actions appear misaligned with this collaborative standard. It is possible she was responding to intrapersonal demands related to comfort, privacy, or autonomy; however, ethical decision-making within the DC-S framework requires weighing those demands against the collective responsibility to safeguard access (Dean & Pollard, 2013; NAIE, 2021).
​
If I were in Interpreter A’s position, I would seek additional mentorship to explore the underlying reasons for my resistance to observation or team support. Through reflective supervision, I could better identify what intrapersonal demands are influencing my decisions and determine how to communicate my needs in a way that still honors collaborative practice. If I were regularly assigned to work with Interpreter A, I would approach the situation through intentional dialogue. The CPC calls for interpreters to first work through interpersonal problems by going directly to the person they are having an issue with (RID, 2005). As a pre-assignment control, I would initiate a conversation to clarify expectations and ask what she needs from me to feel supported as a team interpreter. I would then respectfully and transparently share that consistent in-room collaboration strengthens my interpreting work and enhances students’ access, using “I statements,” rather than assigning blame. Framing the discussion around shared responsibility for service delivery may reduce defensiveness and create space for mutual problem-solving. If the dynamic persisted, a post-assignment control could include structured debriefing or consultation with a supervisor to ensure that student access remains protected. In this way, collegiality becomes an active practice rather than a passive expectation.
An article published by Forbes in 2024 supports the approach I would take to a difficult conversation with a coworker. Shribman (2024) recommends beginning with adequate preparation and choosing the right place and time, which sets the conversation up for success. He also emphasizes using "I statements" to avoid an accusatory tone and staying focused on collaboration and solutions rather than assigning blame. This reflects the approach I would take with an interpreter like Interpreter A. There are also many other resources available to help navigate difficult conversations at work, including content from online creators like Jefferson Fisher and Brené Brown, who speak on communication and human connection. Learning to have difficult conversations well is one way collegiality becomes more than a value; it becomes a skill.
​
In any environment, collegiality is foundational to ethical and effective interpreting practice. As this experience illustrates, individual decisions within a team dynamic can either strengthen or weaken the safeguards that protect consumer access. While I may encounter complex or challenging interpersonal situations in my future practice, I am committed to approaching them with professionalism, reflection, and a willingness to engage in dialogue. By intentionally balancing intrapersonal needs with environmental and interpersonal responsibilities, I can contribute to a collaborative practice that prioritizes both collegial respect and consumer access.
Competencies 2.2 & 2.6 (Clustered with 1.6 & 5.4)
1.6 - Discuss professional and ethical decision-making in a manner consistent with theoretical models and standard professional practice.
​
2.2 - Advocate for conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of consumers and interpreters.
​
2.6 - Demonstrate an understanding of professional boundaries by following generally accepted practices as defined by the code of ethical conduct.
​
5.4 - Demonstrate professional integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest, adhering to the code of ethical conduct, and applying standard professional business practices.
To demonstrate my understanding and current skill level in Competencies 2.2 and 2.6, I have clustered them with related competencies connected to ethical decision-making. The artifact below illustrates how my work reflects these competencies in practice. To view my analysis of 2.2, 2.6, and the related clustered competencies (1.6 & 5.4), please click below.
Competencies 2.3 & 2.4
2.3 - Demonstrate respect for ASL, English, and contact varieties of ASL by using cultural norms appropriate to each language while conversing and interpreting.
​
2.4 - Recognize and respect cultural differences among individuals by demonstrating appropriate behavioral and communicative strategies both while conversing and while interpreting.
This interpretation sample demonstrates my developing competency in C2.3 and C2.4 through intentional language choices and interactional strategies (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Throughout the exchange, I navigated contact-influenced signing, idiomatic ASL, register shifts, and environmental constraints in order to preserve meaning and relational dynamics. The following analysis outlines the specific decisions that reflect respect for linguistic variation and cultural context.
The Deaf consumer is a white-presenting male who appears to be in his 30s. His language use reflects ASL features but is influenced by English word order and consistent mouthing of English words. To respect his language use, I intentionally incorporated the English words I saw him mouthing into my interpretation. For example, at 0:22, he signs “GOOD” once while mouthing “good, good” twice. I chose to mirror that repetition in my voicing because it conveyed warmth and matched the tone of the interaction between brothers.
​
Later, he signs “JUST #BACK FROM VACATION. (shrug) MY TRIP, LAST WEEK…” while mouthing “just got back from vacation, well, my trip last week.” In another setting, I might have condensed this into a single lexical choice. However, in this context, preserving both “vacation” and “trip” maintained the nuance of his self-repair and reflected the English influence present in his signing. By aligning my interpretation with his deliberate language choices rather than standardizing them, I demonstrated competency in C2.3 through respect for his contact-influenced language use.
​
The hearing consumer is the Deaf consumer’s brother and is not visible in the video, but his English use is typical for an informal phone conversation between siblings. When interpreting his discourse into ASL, my goal was to match his affect and relational tone through facial expression, pacing, and vocabulary choice. Rather than transferring his English phrasing directly, I selected ASL expressions that conveyed equivalent meaning and pragmatic force within ASL discourse norms. For example, at 6:30, I used “SERIOUS, TRUE-BIZ LUCKY” to render the English phrase “Wow, you got really lucky.” At 7:03, I used “BY-A-HAIR” for the English phrase “just made it.” These choices demonstrate C2.3 by respecting ASL’s idiomatic structure and natural discourse patterns while preserving the intent and tone of the English source message.
​
Throughout the interaction, both consumers use a casual register consistent with a close sibling relationship. I matched this register by adjusting tone, affect, pacing, and vocabulary in both directions of interpretation. Maintaining an informal style was important to preserve the relational dynamic rather than unintentionally formalizing the exchange.
Storytelling was a central feature of the Deaf consumer’s discourse. To render this accurately into English, I used vocal tone, pacing, and cohesion strategies to reflect the buildup of tension and emotional shifts within the narrative. By preserving the narrative structure and affect rather than summarizing or flattening the message, I maintained fidelity to the genre of the discourse while ensuring the hearing consumer experienced the story as intended.
​
The phone setting created a distinct demand in managing turn-taking. Because the consumers were not in the same physical space, I had to navigate auditory backchanneling from the hearing consumer while preserving the visual flow of the Deaf consumer’s storytelling. Throughout the interaction (5:19, 6:03, 6:24, and 7:00), the hearing consumer interjected affirmations and reaction statements typical of phone conversations. These backchanneling behaviors functioned to signal engagement rather than to shift the floor.
​
To manage these moments, I aimed to preserve the cohesion of the Deaf consumer’s narrative while incorporating the hearing consumer’s interjections in a way that maintained their relational tone. Because the Deaf consumer did not pause for these affirmations, I adjusted timing and delivery so that the pacing of the story remained intact while still reflecting the hearing consumer’s engagement. While this balancing act was not always seamless, it required ongoing decision-making about turn-taking and modality differences. This reflects C2.4 through intentional management of interaction across spoken and signed discourse.
​
The phone environment also created a demand when the Deaf consumer used constructed action to describe events. Because the hearing consumer could not see these visual depictions, I incorporated brief narration to convey what was happening. For example, at 5:12, the Deaf consumer described telling an airport worker that he was Deaf by pointing to his ears. In a shared physical space, that gesture might have been visually accessible without additional explanation. However, in the phone setting, I explicitly narrated the action so that the hearing consumer could fully understand the interaction. This reflects C2.4 through adaptation to environmental constraints and modality differences.
​
An additional cultural layer emerged when the Deaf consumer described his experience traveling in Turkey. During earlier portions of the narrative, when he referenced money more generally (e.g., “COIN”), I rendered this in English as “Turkish dollars” to indicate that he was discussing local currency. However, at 2:54, he specified that he had “30 TL,” and I shifted to voicing “TL” to align with his increased specificity. I also provided a brief expansion, stating that TL is the coin used in Turkey. In reviewing the interpretation, I recognize that “Turkish lira” would have been the more accurate spoken rendering and that TL refers to the broader currency rather than exclusively to coins. While I did not fully land the precise terminology, the moment reflects an intentional effort to engage in cultural mediation. My choice demonstrates an awareness that culturally specific references may require clarification, even if the lexical execution was not perfect. This highlights both growth and continued development in precise cross-cultural representation, consistent with the reflective and strategic awareness described in C2.4.
​
Overall, this interpretation required attention to language variation, register, modality, and cultural context. Across both directions, I worked to align my choices with each consumer’s discourse style rather than impose standardized language patterns. While not every lexical decision was perfectly executed, the interaction reflects intentional engagement with linguistic and cultural mediation. These decisions and reflections demonstrate developing competency in both C2.3 and C2.4.
References
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice profession (1st ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
​
Gish, S. (1987). I understood all of the words, but I missed the point: A goal-to-detail/detail-to-goal strategy for text analysis. In M. L. McIntire (Ed.), New
dimensions in interpreter education, curriculum, and instruction (pp. 125–137). RID Publications.
National Association of Interpreters in Education [NAIE]. (2021). Educational interpreter code of ethics. www.naiedu.org/codeofethics/
National Association of Interpreters in Education [NAIE]. (2019). Professional guidelines for interpreting in educational settings (1st ed.). www.naiedu.org/guidelines
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2005). NAD-RID code of professional conduct. https://rid.org/programs/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/
Witter‑Merithew, A., & Johnson, L. J. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
​
Note: AI was used to check grammar and clarity, but the ideas and writing are my own.