Sign language interpreting, by history if not by definition, puts indi viduals in a somewhat awkward position. Interpreters need to be im partial in what they interpret, but they need to be involved and invested enough to ensure that communication is accurate and suc cessful. They work for both deaf and hearing participants in any given situation, and both deaf and hearing participants lose if an interpreter is not involved or is not successful. However, often the general public’s view is that interpreters work ‘‘for’’ deaf people and are solely ‘‘re sponsible for them.’’ Interpreting situations sometimes involve intensely private infor mation of the sort that might be hard to share with one person (e.g., a lawyer or a doctor), and yet both parties have to depend on a third person who is expected to maintain objectivity and confidentiality re gardless of the stress or personal conflicts created by the interaction. As such, although sign language interpreters are essential intermediaries, facilitating communication between individuals who use different languages and may be from different cultures, they have to resist di recting or controlling the interactions or injecting their own views of the participants or the content they are interpreting. Finally, in educational interpreting, where interpreters are supposed to facilitate the effective flow of classroom communication, they are often perceived as being solely responsible for it, bestowing on them a role in the education of deaf children that is neither wanted nor ap propriate. This is not for want of caring or trying. Educational inter preters may or may not be familiar with the content of a particular class,they may have lesser educations than the students they are interpret ing for (e.g., at the college level), or they may have sign language and interpreting skills that are inappropriate for the audience or setting. Questions concerning all of these issues have been raised in a variety of settings and publications, but their answers are surprisingly elusive. In part, this is because the field is young, the issues themselves are not well defined, and the extent to which they raise problems or elicit questions at all depends on the experience and perspective of those involved. More interesting, perhaps, is the sensitivity of the issues—for interpreters, interpreter educators, and the deaf (and hearing) indi viduals they serve. It is not surprising that some of these issues are difficult; there is no doubt that they have the potential to cause dis comfort or harm to all involved. What is surprising is the lack of se rious inquiry about these issues and the paucity of research about even the most basic of questions (e.g., how effective is interpreted commu nication?). And that brings us to the beginning of the story.
