Geneva, January 2020, Phil Smith
There are three sides to any discussion on remote simultaneous interpreting: the users; the providers of the required hardware and the interpreters, each group with its own interest, with, you might say, its own axe to grind.
Interpreters travelled to Bern eager to find out more. Remote simultaneous interpreting is coming but we do not yet know in which shape or form. At this early stage we – professional interpreters – would be well advised to get involved so we can influence its introduction.
The scene was set by Amy Brady, a staff interpreter at UNOG, who explained the UN’s attitude to remote interpreting, which can be best summed up as “wait and see”. RSI is not necessarily a cheap solution because the technical requirements and complexity mean it will not cost less than hiring local interpreters. It is however attractive if it means the interpreters or some delegates don’t have to travel. The question is, does the UN need such an option for the meetings it organises. The jury is still out.
Sally Bailey, chief interpreter at the Council of Europe, said it was important to define our terms before beginning any discussion. In the traditional set up the interpreters are in booths in the meeting room. In remote they may be in the same building but in a different room, they may be in the same city but in a different building, they may interpret for delegates in another city or country, or they may be at the meeting place, but some delegates are elsewhere. The interpreters working remotely may be in a centre or hub, or in some systems they can work from home.
Whatever the option chosen it is important for the interpretation to be based on the five core principles that uphold professional standards:
- Solid language skills
- Clear view of the room, speaker and visual aids
- Impartiality
- Preparation
- Professional secrecy
We must draw a clear distinction between the technical side of RSI and the interpreters, the hardware and the software if you will. The quality of the service will still depend on the professional skill of the interpreters hired, so a business model based on technology that includes interpreters as an adjunct is a recipe for a substandard service.
It would be wrong to assume that RSI is cheaper than traditional interpreting, because for organisations with a local pool of interpreters it isn’t. Costs can come down if RSI means interpreters don’t have to travel, thus saving on flights and accommodation costs. However, the equipment and required bandwidth plus the need for a dedicated operator do not come cheap, so promoting RSI as a major saving is misleading.
AIIC must get involved in order to talk to those providing the technical systems. There is little future in expensive, hi-tech equipment if the whole thing breaks down because the interpreters are not up to standard – there is a community of interest here.
We can picture the new technology as a virtual booth. Instead of the usual console and buttons we will have a computer. A number of these platforms are already on the market, some seem better at reproducing the look and feel of a booth than others.
The world is now a technical place with a thirst for new machines to do daily chores. Small start-ups are riding this technological wave to supply RSI. Companies enter the market by offering IT equipment and convincing clients that it will save money and reduce the carbon footprint of the meeting. But there is more to getting it right than fancy technology, sexy kit and beguiling modernity.
Our clients may enquire about RSI so the first question to ask is: which problem are you trying to solve by using it? What are your actual needs? For clients that organise meetings in one main venue and work with local interpreters, there is little to be gained by RSI. But even if it is of little practical use, people are attracted to new and technical solutions.
Ultimately organisers will still depend on the core interpreting proficiencies – knowledge of passive languages, fluency, general knowledge, an enquiring mind, powers of synthesis and an ability to communicate. RSI is simply a new way to transmit those time-honoured skills.
Those at the meeting approached RSI with an open mind, indeed there was recognition that in some instances it might open up new markets or help us hold on to old ones, and colleagues liked its green credentials. It was clear that the solution would be to work in hubs. Colleagues were sceptical about working from home support because we cannot rely on domestic networks for bandwidth or guarantee there will be noise and we have no realistic way of talking to our boothmates. The image – one suspects it come from someone who is not an interpreter – of interpreting at the breakfast table in your dressing gown got short shrift – its only achievement as a selling point is to inhibit acceptance of the new technology. Participants were adamant that working from home – before or after breakfast – was a non-starter.
RSI in on the way. We interpreters should not fear it because it could open up new market possibilities. We must adopt a positive, can-do attitude so we can shape our own future and at the same time make sure our clients continue to get the best possible service. I expect this to be the main topic around the dinner tables of Switzerland in the coming months.
Please also read the resumee of the first remote interpreting workshop organised by AIIC Switzerland and Phil Smith’s « booth camp » article acoustic shocks in (remote) simultaneous interpreting.
Register for the second remote interpreting workshop that will be organised by AIIC Switzerland in February 2020 here.