Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme

(1)

Article

Reference

Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme

RUIZ ROSENDO, Lucia, BARGHOUT, Alma, MARTIN, Conor Henry

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a training programme targeted at United Nations (UN) staff interpreters who go on field missions. The UN deploys staff interpreters to ensure effective multilingual communication in field missions. Whilst being professional interpreters, however, these interpreters do not have any formal training in interpreting in the field, where they sometimes face situations for which they may not be properly equipped. Against this background, a joint training programme was organised by the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva, and the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) in January 2019. After the course, a mixed-methods study was carried out to evaluate its effectiveness. In this paper, the following aspects will be discussed: the particularities of UN field missions; the functioning and the contents of the programme; and the results of the study. Our findings show that, at the end of the programme, the participants felt better equipped to face the challenges of interpreting in the field. We conclude that training programme design must take into [...]

RUIZ ROSENDO, Lucia, BARGHOUT, Alma, MARTIN, Conor Henry. Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer , 2021, p. 18

DOI : 10.1080/1750399X.2021.1903736

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:150818

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ritt20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ritt20

Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme

Lucía Ruiz Rosendo, Alma Barghout & Conor H. Martin

To cite this article: Lucía Ruiz Rosendo, Alma Barghout & Conor H. Martin (2021): Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, DOI:

10.1080/1750399X.2021.1903736

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2021.1903736

Published online: 31 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

(3)

ARTICLE

Interpreting on UN field missions: a training programme

Lucía Ruiz Rosendo^a, Alma Barghout^band Conor H. Martin^a

aInterpreting Department, Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; ^bUnited Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG, Geneva, Switzerland

ABSTRACT

The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a training programme targeted at United Nations (UN) staff interpreters who go on field missions. The UN deploys staff interpreters to ensure effective multilingual communication in field missions. Whilst being professional interpreters, however, these interpreters do not have any formal training in interpreting in the field, where they sometimes face situations for which they may not be properly equipped.

Against this background, a joint training programme was organised by the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva, and the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) in January 2019.

After the course, a mixed-methods study was carried out to evaluate its effectiveness. In this paper, the following aspects will be discussed: the particularities of UN field missions; the functioning and the contents of the programme; and the results of the study.

Our findings show that, at the end of the programme, the participants felt better equipped to face the challenges of interpreting in the field. We conclude that training programme design must take into account the specific needs of the participants and the contexts in which they work.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 July 2019 Accepted 9 March 2021 KEYWORDS

Interpreting; field missions;

United Nations; interpreter training; curriculum

1. Introduction

Mediation between people who speak different languages and come from different cultures has historically been an inherent part of field work and a natural consequence of face-to-face communication between stakeholders who come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In the 2000s, research interest in the role of interpreters in the field began to grow at a steady pace due to the increasing visibility of and need for interpreters in international theatres. In fact, several scholars have agreed on the need to explore the different factors shaping the work of the interpreter in different regions (e.g., Inghilleri 2009; Footitt and Kelly 2012; Ruiz Rosendo and Barea Muñoz 2017).

Previous research considers different conflict-related scenarios in which interpreters work as well as the dangers, challenges and ethical dilemmas that stem from their work:

accompanying the military (Inghilleri 2009; Ruiz Rosendo 2020) or journalists on missions abroad (Palmer 2007); asylum hearings (Inghilleri 2003); interrogations at facilities set up by intelligence institutions or the military (Baker, M. 2010); peacekeeping operations (Baker, C. 2010a, 2010b; Bos and Soeters 2006; Ruiz Rosendo and Persaud 2019);

CONTACT Lucía Ruiz Rosendo [email protected].

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med- ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

(4)

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) and ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) missions (Delgado Luchner and Kherbiche 2018).

Narratives surrounding these interpreters may depict them as potential enemies, leading to distrust from other actors involved in the conflict (Baker, M. 2010). Other studies deal with security implications for interpreters, particularly the controversial topic of Western countries refusing visas for interpreters trying to escape post-conflict threats after working for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan (Fitchett 2012; Juvinall 2013). Still other studies focus on the positionality of interpreters working in humanitarian aid contexts (Delgado Luchner and Kherbiche 2018; Todorova 2017). Fewer are the studies focusing on the design of specific training programmes for interpreters who work in conflict- related situations. It is, however, worth mentioning the study carried out by Tipton (2011) on the nature of the emergent learning relationships between locally-recruited civilian interpreters and military personnel in situations of violent conflict and that by Bergunde and Pöllabauer (2019), which presents the design and development of a training curriculum and handbook for interpreting trainees and trainers in the context of asylum proceedings. These studies highlight the need to receive specific training to work as interpreters in such contexts that goes beyond training in interpreting techni- ques. Such a position is supported by Todorova’s (2016) study on the role of interpreters in conflict mediation in Kosovo and Macedonia, where most respondents mentioned that they needed training in skills other than those provided through their formal education as interpreters.

However, to our knowledge, virtually no studies have been carried out on the role of staff interpreters from international organisations who go on field missions, with the exception of Ruiz Rosendo and Barea Muñoz (2017), and none have explicitly focused on UN interpreters and their specific training needs. The profile of UN interpreters is unusual in this context because they do have specific training and wide experience in conference interpreting. In addition, they are employed by and represent the UN, arguably giving them a clearer mandate and understanding of their role than other interpreters operating in these theatres. However, in the field they face situations for which they are not equipped. These include unfamiliar settings, legal, psychological and ethical implications, as well as particular security matters. Interestingly, the UN does not have a standardised training approach for interpreters who go on field missions.

This paper focuses on the design and development of a joint FTI-UNOG training course for UN staff interpreters who go on field missions and outlines its implementation and effectiveness. We begin by discussing the context in which these interpreters work and then present the description of the training programme. The third part describes the methodology of a mixed methods study undertaken to evaluate the programme’s effectiveness. Subsequently, we present the findings of the study, and round up with some recommendations regarding training programme design.

2. United Nations field missions

In recent decades, the term ‘interpreting in conflict zones (ICZ)’ has emerged in Interpreting Studies literature to encompass various kinds of scenarios and interpreters’

roles. In fact, this term is sometimes used, inappropriately in our view, as a synonym for

‘interpreting in the field’. We argue that it is unsuitable to denominate UN field-mission

(5)

contexts solely as ‘conflict zones’, or even ‘conflict-related zones’ (i.e. situations which stem from a conflict but do not necessarily take place in a ‘conflict zone’ stricto sensu) since UN interpreters also accompany mandates that do not stem from armed conflicts (e.g. Discrimination against Women or Right to food, among others). Therefore, for the purposes of this training course and article, a UN field mission¹is an event where a team of interpreters accompanies a UN mission to locations outside of the four UN duty stations and which does not take place in a conference setting. It is important to note that UN interpreters normally work in simultaneous mode in conference settings at duty stations. However, work in the field is conducted in myriad locations and rarely in a booth, e.g. a meeting room, a camp, a detention centre, a private house, an office, a hospital or a tent. Field missions are generally serviced by a team of two interpreters;

however, three or more could be assigned according to the languages required and the scheduled workload.

A mission could last days or weeks, depending on several factors: the profile of the mission (very high-level missions accompanying the Secretary-General or High Commissioner for Human Rights are usually very short), the number of locations, travel within the country and the number of meetings to be held. The average duration of missions conducted in 2017 and 2018 was 8.67 days, ranging from 1 to 15 days (compila- tion of internal statistics from the UNOG Interpretation Service (IS) and the Central Planning and Coordination Service (CPCS)).

In preparation for a mission, the Chief of IS designates one interpreter as Team Leader (TL) who will take all decisions relating to interpretation. Missions are by their very nature unpredictable; the programme of work often changes, and last-minute requests have to be dealt with by the TL. Even if the Chief of the IS is only a phone call away, some decisions must be made in a split-second and contact can be complicated by time- differences between the field and headquarters. The TL, in consultation with the mission team, also decides on logistical matters such as seating arrangements. Although the Field Missions Guidelines (IS internal document) affirm that interpreters must always work in a team of at least two, the TL may, in exceptional circumstances, allow the team to split up when working in a sensitive situation, or because of gender-based or cultural reasons, e.g. in a prison cell, a field hospital, or when interviewing victims of sexual abuse.

The majority of missions are conducted by the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (HRC). Special Procedures mandate-holders include Special Rapporteurs, Working Groups and Independent Experts. There are currently 80 mandate holder positions (A/HRC/40/38) (OHCHR 2019a), held by independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. The Special Procedures system is a central element of the UN human rights system and covers all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political, and social. As of 31 December 2018, there were 56 mandates, 44 thematic mandates and 12 country- specific (A/HRC/40/38/Add.1) (OHCHR 2019b).

All mandate-holders travel on a regular basis. They are usually required to undertake two country visits per year (an example can be found in HRC resolution 36/23) (OHCHR 2017). Depending on their languages and the language of the country they visit, they may need interpretation services. Of the 174 field missions conducted by Special Procedures in 2017 and 2018, 107 were accompanied by interpreters (UNOG IS/CPCS internal statistics).

(6)

To provide an idea of the increasing number of country visits by Special Procedures, 20 visits were conducted in 1990 (Ghezraoui 2019, personal communication); in 2017 there were 86 visits to 64 states and territories (A/HRC/37/37/Add.1, chap. IV) (OHCHR 2018) and in 2018, there were 84 visits to 59 states and territories (OHCHR 2019b).²This increase reflects the rise in the number of mandates since the creation of the OHCHR in 1993. Special Procedures aim to be as close as possible to the populations concerned, vulnerable persons, and victims. They listen to testimonies, visit the places where the populations concerned live, and hold meetings with authorities and civil society. The information obtained is then analysed and included in reports that are submitted to the HRC or to the General Assembly. In 2018, 135 reports were submitted to the HRC, of which 59 were country visit reports (OHCHR 2019b).

Other missions include UN Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions and Investigations. They are established by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the HRC, its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. They are increasingly being used to respond to situations of serious violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, and to promote accountability for such violations and to counter impunity (OHCHR n.d.). An example of such mechanisms is the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela established in 2019 (a full list can be found on the OHCHR website) (OHCHR 2019b).

Special or Ad Hoc Committees also require missions, such as the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. This Committee was established by the General Assembly and conducts annual field missions. Missions can also be very high-level, such as accompanying the Secretary-General’s Special Envoys and Special Representatives as well as country visits by the Secretary-General himself or by the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The vast majority of missions are serviced by the IS at UNOG, given that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is located in Geneva. Nevertheless, considering the principle of geographical proximity applied by the UN, interpreters are sometimes deployed from other duty stations. Moreover, the UN often resorts to recruiting freelance interpreters, whether internationally, regionally or locally. This depends on workload at duty stations and the language requirements of the mission.

Freelance interpreters are either recruited directly by UNOG or locally, usually through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) office in the country concerned, and are always vetted by the IS. They are, in general, professional conference interpreters, with a preference given to members of the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC). However, at the local level, the UN sometimes has to recruit interpreters for the first time based solely on their CVs, possibly due to rare local languages in remote locations or unavailability of professional interpreters. It is important to underline that missions are sometimes deployed rapidly, especially in cases of grave violations of human rights that necessitate the UN’s immediate attention. This could even occur during armed conflict if a mission is cleared by the UN Department of Safety and Security. Tensions between ethnic groups are a reality in the field. At times, interviews take place with victims or witnesses who, because they belong to a given ethnic group, may display a lack of confidence in, or even animosity towards, individuals from

(7)

certain other ethnic groups (e.g. the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda). In such cases, and depending on the sensitivity of the mission, the interpreter’s nationality or ethnic origin could become a selection criterion. Similarly, when two countries are in conflict and one mistrusts the nationals of the other, regional recruitment from within the language community may be a better choice. Freelance interpreters, just like UN staff interpreters, do not receive any specific training for field missions: they learn on the job. The UN therefore prefers to recruit those with prior UN field experience. When a mission is very high-profile, politically sensitive, or has specific security considerations, the OHCHR specifically requests that only staff interpreters be assigned. For example, only UN personnel are allowed on board UN armoured vehicles going through the Eretz Crossing from Israel into Gaza.

Table 1 shows the number of field missions conducted in 2017 and 2018, detailing the number of missions accompanied by interpreters and the category of interpreters servicing the missions.

In the field, mandate-holders hold meetings in a multitude of locations, as mentioned above, and with a variety of interlocutors, including national authorities, UN and other international entities, NGOs, civil society, local populations, victims and witnesses. The nature of the meeting, the number of participants and the location all determine the method of interpreting used.

The use of portable interpretation equipment, referred to as the bidule, remains one of UN staff interpreters’ preferred working methods for missions. This device is composed of a wireless microphone and headsets for listeners, allowing for simultaneous interpretation without a booth. It usually includes 15 headsets but cannot be used in large settings. Ambient noise also constitutes a major inconvenience and the interpreter sometimes has to move around to hear the speaker correctly. The bidule is an expensive piece of equipment that interpreters must transport themselves from the duty station and is often unavailable to freelance interpreters. Nevertheless, even when available, it might not be used, either for security reasons or to make the interviewee feel as comfortable as possible. Interviewees are sometimes victims of traumatic events, they might be afraid for their lives or wish to remain anonymous, and can be mistrustful of any form of equipment. In such circumstances, it is preferable to use another method of interpreting.

Voice-over, where the interpreter works in simultaneous over the voice of the speaker without any equipment, is common in meetings with witnesses and victims. This allows for the closest method to standard simultaneous in order to convey emotionally charged interviews. It also allows the expert to better decipher body language. Chuchotage, when the interpreter whispers the interpretation into the ear of one or two experts, allows for a discrete form of interpretation whereby only the target interlocutor hears the interpreter. It cannot be used when interpreting for more than two people. In large meeting rooms with numerous participants, e.g. for a press conference, the consecutive mode is often used. One or more of the above methods could be used in the same day, or even in

Table 1. Number of field missions in 2017 and 2018^3.

Total missions Missions with interpretation UN interpreters UNOG recruited FLs Locally recruited FLs

2017 134 96 27 21 154

2018 119 90 22 34 129

Total 253 186 49 55 283

(8)

the same meeting. For example, when a Special Rapporteur is meeting with a large group of individuals or NGOs, chuchotage is used to interpret into English for the Special Rapporteur and his/her assistant and then consecutive is used to interpret into the foreign language.

In the field, the workload of interpreters is very different from that at headquarters, where staff interpreters service seven (exceptionally eight) meetings per week, with meetings lasting for a maximum of three hours. In the field, however, workdays are unpredictable: a day usually starts at breakfast with the team and could easily extend into the night; a meeting could end in five minutes or go on for hours. There can also be a lot of local travel time by plane, car or bus. Rest time for the interpreters, however, is crucial and must be taken into consideration by the mission team.

Despite the fact that UN missions present a number of particularities, no targeted training programmes are available to UN interpreters. Their needs are different to those of untrained, locally-recruited interpreters, in that the former are already fully-fledged professional interpreters. Aware of the psychological implications of these missions on its staff interpreters, UNOG has, in the past, organised several tailored in-house psychological self-care workshops. The request to organise the tailored course described in this article is a further step undertaken by the UN to better equip its staff interpreters to deal with the numerous challenges particular to field missions. The course was designed on the basis of the needs identified in a previous study carried out with interpreters working for international organisations (Ruiz Rosendo and Barea Muñoz 2017) who believed that training currently provided by interpreting schools does not qualify interpreters to work in conflict situations and note that schools should provide specific modules. The challenges were identified by one of the authors of the present study, who has more than twenty years’ experience in interpreting in the field.

3. A description of the training course

This course forms part of a growing repertoire of training courses for interpreters working in challenging interpreting contexts and aligns itself with those developed by Bergunde and Pöllabauer (2019), Delgado Luchner (2019), and Gez and Schuster (2018).

These courses are designed to attend to the needs of interpreters and employers in highly contextualised environments. Crucially, they are characterised by a focus on ethics and contextual awareness.

A natural consequence of bespoke courses is that, whilst they respond to stakeholders’

needs, they create little material that can be used as a basis for subsequent courses.

Consequently, whilst this course shares similarities with those mentioned above, it was developed from scratch with the aim of providing basic training in dealing with the specificities of UN field missions for UN staff interpreters. Specific learning outcomes were identified in a Collaboration Protocol that was signed between the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting of the University of Geneva (FTI) and UNOG, and the course built to achieve those outcomes.

The general objective of the course was to provide training for permanent staff from all UNOG language sections on the different practical matters and ethical, psychological, legal, administrative and security implications when assigned to field missions. The

(9)

course consisted of a minimal theoretical and a comprehensive practical component. The course was delivered face-to-face and taught in English.

The pedagogical approach was fundamentally informed by situated learning. In the field of Interpreting in Conflict Zones, the traditional approach to learning as a process by which a learner internalises knowledge is insufficient. This focus on internalisation does not just leave the nature of the learner, the world, and their relations unexplored; it can only reflect far-reaching assumptions concerning the issues at stake (Lave and Wenger 1991). Learning as internalisation should be complemented by a conception of learning that considers the student as a participant, participation being based on a situated negotiation and renegotiation of meaning. In situated learning, it is not always possible for trainees to become ‘legitimate peripheral participants’, a term coined by these authors to describe the integration of apprentices into real-world communities of practice. However, it is possible to transform the classroom for it to include the analysis of real-life scenarios. The main difference between learning as internalisation and situated learning stems from the fact that there is a difference between talking about a practice from outside and from within it.

A way to transform the classroom to reflect actual needs is to include case-based learning (CBL), a method that allows for situated reflection, reflection representing the foundation of professional practice and the skill of questioning one’s own practice. In CBL, real case scenarios – drafted as problems that provide a background and supporting information – are used to integrate related concepts of professional practice, social behaviour and ethics and to underpin and stimulate the acquisition of skills, knowledge and attitudes through collaborative learning. Along these lines, the course combined interactive lectures with case-based learning.

The course was divided into five components, each of them with specific expected outcomes:

C1. Interpreting in the field: to develop an understanding of what characterises the work of interpreters going on field missions as well as the organisation, structure and mechanics of such missions.

C2. Ethics and ethical situation management: to acquire an understanding of different communication scenarios and their implications for the interpreter, as well as the ethical issues pertaining to the work of the interpreter; to develop communication strategies to enhance collaboration with UN mandate-holders and their teams; and to be better able to analyse situations from an ethical perspective, recognise conflicts relating to the interpreter’s role and develop solutions which are appropriate for the needs of the situation in collaboration with the different interlocutors.

C3. Psychological implications: to acquire an understanding of the psychological implications of interpreting in the field and be better able to analyse different situations; and to develop self-protection strategies before, during and after the mission.

C4. Legal and administrative implications: to develop an understanding of the UN legal framework, including the UN Staff Rules and Regulations, internal guidelines and relevant Administrative Instructions that govern the interpreters’ work and to be aware of the legal implications of duties and rights when working in the field.

(10)

C5. Security implications: to acquire an understanding of the security implications of interpreting in the field; to assess the security aspects of an environment and possible implications of actions; and to understand and develop strategies to deal with safety and security implications when on mission.

The course took place from 8–11 January 2019, at the premises of the University of Geneva. Participants were selected on a first-come, first-served basis from amongst UNOG permanent staff interpreters. In total, 17 interpreters (8 male, 9 female) took part, representing the English, French, Russian, Arabic and Chinese language sections.

Participants hailed from radically different backgrounds and had similarly varying degrees of field experience. The deliberate decision not to separate the group according to experience often led to lively and constructive debate, and created a mutual learning space; indeed, existing literature suggests that diverse groups are more conducive learning environments than more homogenous groupings (Curşeu and Pluut 2013).

The eleven trainers formed an equally diverse group, which can be classed in four main subgroups: expert interpreting researcher-educators (who are also practising interpreters), senior interpreters, users of interpreting in the field (military users, UN Investigative Mission leaders, UN Mission staff), and subject matter experts (UN Administrative staff, UN Security staff, experts in Psychological health). Most trainers had worked with interpreters before, and several were interpreters themselves. Trainers were also affiliated with different organisations, mainly the UN, and with academic institutions. All were experts in their field and provided key insight on the expectations and impressions that they and other users had of interpreters, leading to at times complementary, at times divergent perspectives on the interpreter’s role. The course was co-coordinated and moderated by the first and second authors.

Days were divided into four sessions of between one and two hours, each involving a different topic and kind of activity. The distribution of the course components across the four days, as well as the kinds of activities used in each section, is described in Table 2.

At all times, participants were free to ask questions of session leaders, express their opinions and share personal anecdotes. A key element of the course structure, related to

Table 2. Distribution of course components across the four days.

Day one Component Activity Type

Session 1 C1 Lecture-type presentation

Session 2 C1 User experiences (discussion)

Session 4 C2 Interactive (Case Scenarios)

DAY TWO

Session 2 C1 Colleague experiences (interactive discussion)

Session 3 C4 Presentation w/Q&A

DAY THREE

Session 1 C2 Lecture-type presentation

Session 2 C2 Interactive (role-plays)

DAY FOUR

Session 1 C2 Interactive (Case Scenarios)

Session 2 Assessment Participant feedback

Session 3 Assessment Focus groups & Questionnaires

(11)

situated learning and CBL, was the recurrent discussion about a set of eight case scenarios, presented to participants on the first day. These case scenarios consisted of situations inspired by the senior interpreters’ mission experience, and participants were asked to discuss what the most appropriate course of action was in the given situation.

After this initial discussion, the scenarios were reconsidered two days later, as part of the presentation on Ethical Implications, and were presented once again in the last session of the course, with participants being asked if they would recommend a different course of action after the week of training. In this final session, participants also produced a list of recommendations for the drafting of a ‘field guidebook.’

The course included two academic presentations. The first (and indeed the first session of the course) fell under component one and dealt with ‘Interpreting in the Field’ in a general sense, updating participants on current and earlier research, grounding practice in a theoretical background, for example the kinds of interpreters who work in the stages of a conflict, problematised roles, or the impact of exposure to trauma on interpreters. The second presentation, part of component two, dealt with theories of ethics and their application to interpreting in sensitive contexts, for example the strengths and weaknesses of deontological and teleological ethical approaches, sources of ethical guidance for interpreters in the field, and how to reason through the most ethical response to a situation (Delgado Luchner 2019). This presentation aimed to arm participants with the relevant knowledge to help them in difficult decision-making situations, including how to deal with ethical grey areas.

The four interactive activities obliged participants to get involved in deciding where the session would lead. The contributions provided by the senior interpreters were crucial to these sessions; their extensive experience on mission allowed them to guide the conversation and reveal nuances which might have been missed. Apart from the case scenarios, participants also engaged in group discussions on the practical aspects of going on mission and took part in a role-play session on ethical elements. The role plays obliged participants to act on otherwise hypothetical conversations and demonstrated that the theoretical ideal rarely corresponds to reality, even in such an artificial setting.

User experience sessions were originally planned as a series of presentations from different users of interpretation; however, they became mutual learning spaces, with session leaders learning as much from the participants as the participants from them. The key element of these sessions was for participants to discover the expectations that users have of them and the users’ understanding of the interpreter’s role, whilst the users learned about things previously unknown to them, e.g. an interpreter’s professional responsibility to ensure all voices are heard. The varied background of the session leaders in these activities testified to the different requirements of interpreters in different field situations, with the takeaway message that each situation encountered in the field must be considered individually.

Throughout these sessions, participants learnt about issues which they might not have previously considered, such as the psychological implications of missions and the importance of maintaining good mental health, as well as the implications of decisions taken on mission, and interpreters’ rights and responsibilities as UN Staff members.

Participants engaged in detailed Q&A sessions with the expert session leaders, who stressed that taking part in a field mission starts long before getting on the plane

(12)

(preparation, psychological readiness), and does not end until long afterwards (psychological aftercare and support).

One of the underlying principles of the course was the blend of the academic and the practice-oriented elements of interpreting in this context. This blend began with the cooperation between FTI and the UN, and was maintained throughout the course, in terms of the trainers (from various academic and field-based backgrounds), content (theoretical grounding combined with practical advice) and structure (presentations combined with interactive activities). The academic strands of the course both elevated and grounded the practical information, showing that the practical advice comes from a solid theoretical background and forms part of a larger academic discussion, whilst the practice-oriented strands kept the academic information relevant, avoiding an overly idealistic and out-of-touch approach. This allowed this course to bring something new to the table, and provide worthwhile information to all who took part, be they participants or trainers.

4. Course evaluation 4.1. Data collection

Just after the completion of the course, the participants were asked to evaluate its effectiveness. A mixed-methods design was used, including questionnaires and focus groups. Both methods complemented each other: the questionnaire helped us to obtain specific information about the participants’ background and the scores they attached to each of the modules (see Appendix A). The focus groups allowed us to obtain qualitative information about the course (see Table 3). We decided to randomly divide the participants into two groups (8 and 9 participants) in order to meet the focus group size recommended in the relevant literature (Guest, Namey, and McKenna 2017). The participants were anonymised and allocated a numerical code (from 1 to 17). Since the evaluation of the course took place just after its completion, we wanted to avoid having one group waiting while the other was participating in the focus group. Consequently, in order to make the most of the time available, we ran the focus group and questionnaire simultaneously: while one group (Group A, 9 participants) stayed in the regular classroom to complete the questionnaires individually, the other group (Group B, 8 participants) went to another classroom to be part of a focus group. In the second stage, the groups switched activities. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through the questionnaires, including Likert-type and forced-choice items, and open questions. For the closed questions, a scale from 1 (not good at all) and 5 (very good) was used.

The questionnaires were divided into three sections: introduction, general questions and specific questions. In the introduction, the information about the confidentiality and anonymity of the data, as well as the voluntary nature of participation in the activity were explained in the form of a statement. In the second section the participants were asked to provide some personal and professional information. In the third section the specific questions focused on each of the course sessions separately. The pattern was the same: an initial Likert-type question about the evaluation of the session and an open question about the comments they had about the session (see Appendix A).

(13)

The focus group sessions lasted, on average, 30 minutes (20.18 minutes for the first session and 35.34 for the second). The instrument contained 11 open-ended questions split into 5 sections: opening question, introductory questions, transition questions, key questions and ending question (see Table 3).

The first author, who is unaffiliated to the UN, facilitated the two focus group discussions. She followed the instrument structure consistently and probed responses to the questions but did not introduce any information learned in the previous focus group. This method aimed to treat each group as a unique event to facilitate the methods and objectives of the analysis. The two group discussions were audio recorded, tran- scribed verbatim using the automated transcription software Sonix and post-edited.

4.2. Data analysis

The responses to the closed questions of the questionnaire were analysed with SPSS. For the open questions of the questionnaire and the focus groups, a directed content analysis distinction was carried out according to Hsieh and Shannon (2005) and salient topics were identified separately for each transcript. Formulated meanings were created from the significant statements, arranged into clusters of themes and then collapsed into emergent themes. For the focus groups, the procedure described by Guest, Namey, and McKenna (2017) was followed. Sixteen content-driven codes were developed, and the codebook remained stable during analysis. All codes were generated from the first focus group.

4.3. Results and discussion

The average age of the participants was 47.12 (from 35 to 58 years) and the average years working for the UN was 11.31 (SD = 5.4). Of those who responded, most (10) have an MA level qualification in different fields, three have a PhD and two a BA level diploma.

Before joining the UN, most of them (10) were already practising conference interpreters, three were translators and interpreter trainers, two were freelance translators and interpreters, one worked for the ICRC and another was a student. Five participants indicated that they had no previous experience in the field. Those who did have experience gave Table 3. Questions for focus groups.

Opening question What has been your experience of the course?

Introductory questions

Have you received a previous training on interpreting in the field?

What is the added value of the FTI-UN course on interpreting inUN field missions?

Transition questions

What did you like about the course?

What did you not like about the course?

Key questions Do you think the course was well organised?

What do you think about the duration of the course?

What are the aspects that were most relevant for you?

What were the aspects that were less relevant for you?

What would you change about the course?

Ending question Finally, is there anything connected with the course which has not been discussed that you feel strongly about and would like to bring up now?

(14)

very heterogeneous responses, ranging from one mission (2) to more than 15 (2) and even 50 (1), however, most participants had an intermediate experience of seven to ten missions (5). Those who had more experience had mainly gone to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The main challenges identified by participants when working in the field were: fatigue and lack of rest, linked to extended working hours; unpredict- ability; emotional load and psychological implications; the lack of prior information about the goal of the visit, the area and the distribution of roles; the lack of understanding of the role of the interpreter displayed by some users; and security issues. None of the participants had received previous training on interpreting in UN field missions. All had taken a mandatory course on security in the field, but this was targeted at all UN staff, not only interpreters. All respondents believed that a course on interpreting in the field is essential to be prepared for this kind of missions and should be developed further. When asked if such courses are necessary, one participant answered:

[P6] Of course. Field missions are completely different than our comfortable venues.

Probably less mentally exhausting in terms of interpreting, though it can sometimes be draining both mentally, physically, and psychologically. Field missions also entail very challenging decision-making sometimes.

All participants saw added value of the course due to the exchange of information between practitioners and academia. All of them also responded that the course met their expectations because it was well-structured, well-rounded and answered their questions about field missions. The course helped them be aware of the different implications of interpreting in the field (‘I wouldn’t have thought of all these topics before, very useful’ [P17]). The strengths of a joint course lay in a combination of academic and hands-on practical experiences and drawing on a broad spectrum of expertise involved in the various aspects of field missions. Some participants said that this format should be kept:

[P9] This scheme of cooperation needs to be maintained, developed and expanded.

Involvement of other organisations will bring a new perspective and allows for lesson learning and experience sharing.

Most respondents (12) considered the course length appropriate and five thought that the course could have been one day shorter. Subsequently, participants were asked to score elements of the course on a 1–5 scale. The average score for the usefulness of the course (4.41, SD = 0.79) was the same as for the overall evaluation (4.41, SD = 0.61). Sixteen respondents would recommend the course to their colleagues. The sessions deemed most relevant and satisfactory were the practical sessions (case scenarios, practical aspects of going to the field and take-away recommendations) with an average of 4.82, 4.71 and 4.62 respectively. Other more theoretical sessions, such as ethical implications (4.59), the keynote on interpreting in the field (4.53), legal and administrative aspects (4.35) and user perspectives on working with interpreters in UN field missions (4.35) also received high scores. The other sessions were considered relevant as well, with averages from 4.18 to 3.65. The sessions that obtained lower, but still positive, scores were those where the experience of the trainer and the information delivered did not match the participants’

expectations. Correspondingly, the sessions facilitated by UN staff and researchers who

(15)

were also interpreters and knew about the work carried out by UN interpreters scored better.

We believe that the practical aspects were the best received because participants could directly relate to them; calls for more sessions of this kind are likely to stem from a need to share experiences. In addition, even though participants had been far from theoretical concepts for varying lengths of time, they welcomed the presentations on academic research and the state of the art.

The results of the focus groups confirm those of the questionnaires. The added value of the combined theoretical-practical format was that participants could take a step back and analyse all the elements involved. The theoretical sessions helped them to put names to familiar concepts and to inform their decisions; the practical activities helped them apply the concepts learned. Participants welcomed the fresh approach to their work offered by this format:

[P3] Coming from the UN we’re likely to make the same assumptions and do the same mental leaps, overlooking some of the reasoning process. So it’s useful to have the outside input.

The aspects focus group participants liked the most were: the selection of the venue, in that holding the course outside the Palais des Nations (UNOG headquarters) helped them concentrate better on the course; the variety of relevant topics; the fact that trainers came from different backgrounds; the length of the course; the format of the course, with lunches and breakfasts in situ, fostering concentration on the course and discussions among participants and trainers; the combination of theory and practice and the fact that the course included interpreters with different degrees of experience in field missions.

The participants would have preferred: a greater number of practical sessions with case scenarios and role plays in smaller groups (2–3 people) and clearer instructions for the latter; the inclusion of users (including Special Procedures mandate holders) with more experience in working with UN staff interpreters as opposed to locally-recruited ones; the adjustment of the content of the presentations given by speakers from outside the UN to the specificities of the work carried out in the UN; the adaptation of the presentations to the interpreters’ specific needs and expectations; and longer breaks in order to assimilate the information.

The theoretical presentations and the analysis of practical scenarios were considered very relevant aspects; less relevant content included elements not directly related to the interpreter’s work. Aspects that were not included in the course but which participants believe should be considered include: an explanation of how to interpret side- conversations; the possibility for more experienced participants to propose additional case scenarios; greater geographical diversity in case scenarios; and the inclusion of recap sessions at the end of every day, rather than only at the end of the course. Participants would have liked the course to be video-recorded and provided as online training to UN staff interpreters.

5. Conclusion

The present study details the first tailored training programme that has focused on the needs of UN staff interpreters. This group presents different characteristics and

(16)

faces different challenges compared to other categories of interpreters more present in the literature. The evaluation of the course has allowed us to confirm that specific training and extensive experience in conference interpreting does not, therefore, mean that the interpreter is well equipped to work in the field. There is a need to design specific training courses to prepare interpreters because of the particularities of the settings and challenges they will encounter. These challenges are related to complex aspects that have myriad implications, including: how to protect oneself, both emotionally and physically; what decisions to take in each situation and the ethical implications of these decisions. Consequently, applying a pre-established code of ethics, given the diverse situations that the interpreter will encounter, is extremely difficult. We posit that a deontological approach be applied in routine situations and a teleological one in challenging situations, in line with Delgado Luchner and Kherbiche (2019) proposals for interpreting in humanitarian contexts.

The use of case-based learning (CBL) as a method involving guided inquiry whereby learners apply their knowledge to real-life scenarios and negotiate meaning through case studies and stories is a useful way to develop decision-making skills and facilitate the transition to the real world.

tpdelInterestingly, the participants thought that the most relevant sessions were those given by experts who had experience as interpreters themselves or in working with UN interpreters. This leads us to believe that practical experience as an interpreter or as a user of interpretation in this specific setting is essential in order to design and plan relevant materials and lessons. This ultimately highlights the need to organise tailored training programmes focussing on specific groups.

Consequently, the terminology used in the literature must be fine-tuned to avoid general terms that are not representative of the work carried out in a specific setting.

We, therefore, suggest moving away from the generic terms ‘interpreting in conflict zones’ or ‘interpreting in the field’ towards more specific terms, such as ‘interpreting for the military’, ‘humanitarian interpreting’ or, as is the case in the present study,

‘interpreting on UN field missions’. Even if one may argue that interpreting is, after all, interpreting, the setting conditions the needs of the interpreters and involves specific challenges.

The success of this course has confirmed the need for training for UN staff interpreters servicing field missions. Other categories of interpreters, such as internationally or locally recruited freelancers, are also recruited to work on UN field missions. Consequently, it may be judicial to reach out to both staff and freelance interpreters; an online course could be an optimal platform for this purpose. Context-respondent training of this kind should be clear in its objectives and informed by a thorough survey of the needs of interpreters on the ground. The course described in this article could serve as an example of such an approach.

Notes

1. This article deals uniquely with such UN missions; consequently, any subsequent mentions of missions refer to those described in this paragraph.

(17)

2. The total number of Special Procedures missions is thus 170 for 2017 and 2018. The discrepancy between this number and 174 above could be due to postponed missions from previous years.

3. These statistics were compiled from different internal UN sources and are used here for indicative purposes only.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ms. Gabriella Pertile, IS, and Ms. Riin Koppel, CPCS, at UNOG for the invaluable assistance provided in compiling the statistics used in this article.

Disclaimer

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Baker, C. 2010a. “The Care and Feeding of Linguists: The Working Environment of Interpreters, Translators, and Linguists during Peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” War & Society 29 (2):

154–175. doi:10.1179/204243410X12674422128993.

Baker, C. 2010b. “It’s Not Their Job to Soldier: Distinguishing Civilian and Military in Soldiers’

and Interpreters’ Accounts of Peacekeeping in 1990s Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Journal of War and Culture Studies 3 (1): 137–150. doi:10.1386/jwcs.3.1.137_1.

Baker, M. 2010. “Interpreters and Translators in the War Zone.” The Translator 16 (2): 197–222.

doi:10.1080/13556509.2010.10799469.

Bergunde, A., and S. Pöllabauer. 2019. “Curricular Design and Implementation of a Training Course for Interpreters in an Asylum Context.” Translation & Interpreting 11 (1): 1–21.

doi:10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a01.

Bos, G., and J. Soeters. 2006. “Interpreters at Work: Experiences from Dutch and Belgian Peace Operations.” International Peacekeeping 13 (2): 261–268. doi:10.1080/13533310500437662.

Curşeu, P., and H. Pluut. 2013. “Student Groups as Learning Entities: The Effect of Group Diversity and Teamwork Quality on Groups’ Cognitive Complexity.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (1): 87–103. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.565122.

Delgado Luchner, C. 2019. The Ethics of Interpreting in UN Field Missions [Powerpoint Slides, Delivered in the Course]

Fitchett, L. 2012. “The AIIC Project to Help Interpreters in Conflict Areas.” In Languages and the Military. Alliances, Occupation and Peace Building, edited by H. Footitt and M. Kelly, 175–185.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Footitt, H., and M. Kelly, ed.. 2012. Palgrave Studies in Languages at War. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gez, Y., and M. Schuster. 2018. “Borders and Boundaries: Eritrean Graduates Reflect on Their Medical Interpreting Training.” The European Legacy 23 (7–8): 821–836. doi:10.1080/

10848770.2018.1492810.

Ghezraoui, K. 2019. “Working for the OHCHR.” Personal communication.

Guest, G., E. Namey, and K. McKenna. 2017. “How Many Focus Groups are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes.” Field Methods 29 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1177/

1525822X16639015.

(18)

Hsieh, H.-F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.”

Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

Inghilleri, M. 2003. “Habitus, Field and Discourse. Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity.”

Target 15 (2): 243–268. doi:10.1075/target.15.2.03ing.

Inghilleri, M. 2009. “Translators in War Zones: Ethics under Fire in Iraq.” In Globalisation, Political Violence and Translation, edited by E. Bielsa and C. Hughes, 207–221. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Juvinall, B. 2013. “Heaven or Hell? the Plight of Former Wartime Interpreters of the Iraq and Afghanistan Conflicts Living in the U.S.” Michigan State Journal of International Law 21: 205–227.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Delgado Luchner,C., and L. Kherbiche. 2018. “Without Fear or Favour? the Positionality of ICRC and UNHCR Interpreters in the Humanitarian Field.” Target 30 (3): 408–429.

Delgado Luchner,C., and L. Kherbiche. 2019. “Ethics Training for Humanitarian Interpreters Working in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings.” Journal of War & Culture Studies 12 (3):

251–267. doi:10.1080/17526272.2019.1644412.

OHCHR. 2017. A/HRC/RES/36/23. Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on.29 September 2017 https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/RES/36/23

OHCHR. 2018. A/HRC/37/37/Add.1, Chap. IV. Report on the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of Special Rapporteurs/representatives, Independent Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, 27 to 30 June 2017), Including Updated Information on Special Procedures. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/

GEN/G17/294/11/PDF/G1729411.pdf?OpenElement

OHCHR. 2019a. A/HRC/40/38. Report on the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of Special Rapporteurs/representatives, Independent Experts and Chairs of Working Groups of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, 4 to 8 June 2018), Including Updated Information on Special Procedures. https://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/

WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/HRBodies/SP/A_HRC_40_38.docx&action=

default&DefaultItemOpen=1

OHCHR. 2019b. A/HRC/40/38/Add.1. Facts and Figures with Regard to the Special Procedures in 2018. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/_layouts/15/

WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_

HRC_40_38_Add.1.docx&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

OHCHR. n. d. International Commissions of Inquiry, Commissions on Human Rights, Fact-Finding Missions and Other Investigations. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/COIs.aspx Palmer, J. 2007. “Interpreting and Translation for Western Media in Iraq.” In Translating and

Interpreting Conflict, edited by M. Salama-Carr, 13–28. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Ruiz Rosendo, L.,, and M. Barea Muñoz. 2017. “Towards a Typology of Interpreters in War-Related Scenarios in the Middle East.” Translation Spaces 6 (2): 182–208. doi:10.1075/

ts.6.2.01rui.

Ruiz Rosendo, L.,and C. Persaud. 2019. “On the Front Line: Mediating across Languages and Cultures in Peacekeeping Operations.” Armed Forces and Society 45 (3): 472–490. doi:10.1177/

0095327X18755108.

Ruiz Rosendo, L. 2020. “Interpreting for the Afghanistan Spanish Force.” War & Society 39 (1):

42–57. doi:10.1080/07292473.2019.1701620.

Tipton, R. 2011. “Relationships of Learning between Military Personnel and Interpreters in Situations of Violent Conflict.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5 (1): 15–40.

doi:10.1080/13556509.2011.10798810.

Todorova, M. 2016. “Interpreting Conflict Mediation in Kosovo and Macedonia.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 15: 227–240.

Todorova, M. 2017. “Interpreting at the Border: “Shuttle Interpreting” for the UNHCR.” Clina 3 (2): 115–129. doi:10.14201/clina201732115129.

(19)

Appendix A. Participant questionnaire A. Introduction

As organisers, we want to continually improve the quality and relevance of our courses and, as researchers, we aim to better understand the work environment of UN interpreters. To achieve this dual aim, we would like to collect some information using this short questionnaire.

This questionnaire is anonymous; therefore, please do not indicate your name anywhere on the document. All data will be treated confidentially, in line with the University of [. . .] research ethics guidelines.

Filling in this questionnaire is entirely voluntary; if you agree to participate, please submit this document at the end of the course. By submitting this questionnaire, you agree to this data being used for the purpose of academic research and with a view to improving the design of future courses.

Thank you very much for taking the time to fill in this brief questionnaire!

B. General questions 1. Age:

2. Gender:

Female Male

Prefer not to indicate

3. Number of years working for the UN:

4. Highest degree obtained:

5. Main activity before joining the UN:

6. How many missions in the field have you carried out? Where?

7. What have been the challenges you have encountered when working in the field?

8. Do you think a course on Interpreting in UN field missions was needed? Why?/Why not?

9. Do you think there is added value in the UN and the university organising a course jointly on interpreting in UN field missions? Why?/Why not?

10. Did the course meet your expectations? Why?/Why not?

11. What do you consider to be the strengths of the FTI-UN joint seminar on Interpreting in UN field missions?

12. What areas could be improved in the training?

13. Do you think the length of the course was appropriate?

Yes No

14. Did you find the course to be useful for your current and/or future work?

Very useful Useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not useful at all 15. Would you recommend the course to your colleagues?

Yes No Maybe

16. What is your overall evaluation of the course?

Very good Good Somewhat good Not very good Not good at all C. Specific questions:

DAY 1

Session 1: Interpreting in the field What is your evaluation of the session?

Very good Good Somewhat good Not very good Not good at all Your comments on the session:

Session 2: Working with interpreters in the field I What is your evaluation of the session?

(20)

Session 3: Working with interpreters in the field II What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 4: Case scenarios

What is your evaluation of the session?

DAY 2

Session 1: Working with interpreters in the field III What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 2: Practical aspects

What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 3: Legal and administrative aspects What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 4: Security implications What is your evaluation of the session?

DAY 3

Session 1: Ethical implications What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 2: Ethical implications: Role plays What is your evaluation of the session?

Sessions 3 and 4: Psychological implications What is your evaluation of the session?

DAY 4

Session 1: Feedback on case scenarios What is your evaluation of the session?

Session 2: Wrap-up. Take-away recommendations What is your evaluation of the session?