TFDI DI full FINAL - AIIC · AIIC TFDI Task Force on Distance Interpreting 2 Figure 1: Age...

AIIC TFDI Task Force on Distance Interpreting 1

DISTANCE INTERPRETING Survey Results

As a first step towards “developing and adopting evidence-based working conditions that provide

for both quality of interpretation and interpreter wellbeing” (Executive Committee, 2018), the Task

Force on Distance Interpreting carried out an association-wide online survey on the frequency of

use of different Distance Interpreting modalities in early 2018. To that end, 2772 active members,

82 candidates and 188 pre-candidates received an invitation to participate in the survey. Data

were collected from January 8, 2018 to February 1, 2018 using a questionnaire comprising 66

questions relating to four different types of Distance Interpreting (i.e., Videoconference

Interpreting VCI, Audioconference Interpreting ACI, Video Remote Interpreting VRI and Audio

Remote Interpreting ARI). Of the 737 answers (which corresponds to a response rate of 24.2%),

664 complete data sets were retained for analysis. Consequently, the survey results have a

margin of error of 3.36% (at 95% CI).

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA The age of respondents ranged from 25 to 80 years (M = 52.86, SD = 11.5). Age was non-normally

distributed (see figure 1), with skewness of -0.03 (SE = 0.45) and kurtosis of -0.56 (SE = 0.45).

The majority of respondents identified as female (74.5%); 24.7% as male and 0.8% as other. They

had between 1 and 57 years (M = 25.22, SD = 11.62) of experience as professional conference

interpreters (see figure 2) and had worked between 0 and 330 conference days (M = 93.77, SD

= 54.04) during the previous year (see figure 3). The analysis is based on data from respondents

domiciled in 56 countries (see figure 4) and is mainly made up of freelance interpreters (86%)

(see figure 5). While 90% were active members, 2% were associate members, 1% were

candidates and 6% were pre-candidates.


Figure 1: Age distribution (grouped)

Figure 2: Mean age and mean experience

7.08

%

17.6

2%

30.5

7%

28.6

1%

13.1

0%

3.01

%

2 5 - 3 4 3 5 - 4 4 4 5 - 5 4 5 5 - 6 4 6 5 - 7 4 7 5 - 8 4

AGE DISTRIBUTION

age experienceYears 52.92 25.29

52.9

2

25.2

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MEAN AGE AND EXPERIENCE


Figure 3: Mean number of days worked during the previous year (2017)

Figure 4: Countries highest response rates (abridged)

activityDays 98.46

98.4

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

MEAN ACTIVITY

16.1

1%

10.9

9%

9.94

%

7.23

%

5.72

%

5.42

%

4.22

%

4.07

%

3.92

%

3.61

%

D E U F R A C H E B E L C A N U S A G B R E S P I T A B R A

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION


Figure 5: Professional profile of respondents

86%

9%

2% 2%

F R E E L A N C E S T A F F ( F U L L T I M E )

S T A F F ( P A R T T I M E )

O T H E R

PROFILE


VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING Videoconference Interpreting (VCI) was defined as “Information and communications technology-

enabled interpreting of one or more distant speaker(s)/signer(s), where the interpreter has a

video-mediated view of the speaker/signer and a direct view of some or all the other participants

at a given event”.

Illustrative example provided in the survey: A conference takes place in New York. Participants and interpreters

are in the conference room in New York. A guest speaker from Sydney could not attend in person. She gives

her presentation from Sydney – her image is projected on a screen, her voice broadcast over speakers and

fed into the interpreters' earphones. Interpreters in New York interpret the guest speaker from Sydney for the

conference participants in New York.

Of the total sample, 80% report having provided Videoconference Interpreting before. This DI

modality is mainly used for simultaneous interpreting (M = 7.17, SD = 13.18) and much less so

for consecutive interpreting (M = 0.31, SD = 13.7) (see figure 6), whereby the frequency of use

has remained the same for most interpreters (63%) increased for some (26%) and decreased for

a small minority (11%) from 2016 to 2017 (see figure 7).

Figure 6: Mean number of days worked in Videoconference Interpreting (VCI) in 2017

0.31

7.17

C O N S E C U T I V E S I M U L T A N E O U S

DAYS/MODALITY 2017 (VCI)


Figure 7: Frequency of days worked in Videoconference Interpreting (VCI) in 2017

Most staff interpreters report that their working conditions (or contracts) mostly remain silent on

the use of Videoconference Interpreting (69%), only sometimes explicitly allowing it (29%) and

almost never ruling it out (2%) (see figure 8).

Figure 8: Information provided to staff interpreters on the use of Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

4%

22%

63%

7%

4%

M U C H H I G H E R

S O M E W H A T H I G H E R

A B O U T T H E S A M E

S O M E W H A T L O W E R

M U C H L O W E R

FREQUENCY IN 2017 (VCI) 29

%

69%

2%

E X P L I C I T L Y A L L O W T H I S M O D A L I T Y

M A K E N O M E N T I O N O F T H I S M O D A L I T Y

E X P L I C I T L Y R U L E O U T T H I S M O D A L I T Y

INFORMATION - STAFFERS (VCI)


In the case of freelance interpreters, the picture is much more heterogeneous (see figure 9). Data

suggest that the majority of freelancers are rarely or never explicitly informed about the use of

Videoconference Interpreting (43%), although almost as many (38%) report being informed often

or always. The remaining 19% only sometimes receive this information upfront.

Figure 9: Information provided to freelance interpreters on the use of Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

When videoconferences are used during an interpreted event, they tend to last between 15

minutes and two hours (see figure 10). Whereas in most cases (73%) the duration of the overall

workday for conference remains unaffected by the use of videoconference interpreting, in some

instances (27%) the use of this technology seems to go hand in hand with shorter events (see

figure 11). Overall, wo/manning strength, in other words the number of interpreters assigned to

any particular booth, does not seem to be affected by the use of this technology (see figure 12).

27%

11%

19%

22%

21%

A L W A Y S O F T E N S O M E T I M E S R A R E L Y N E V E R

INFORMATION - FREELANCERS (VCI)


Figure 10: Duration of interpreted videoconferences (VCI)

Figure 11: Change in duration of workday at event with Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

13%

32%

26%

15%

6%

4%

2% 3%

1 / 4 H O U R

1 / 2 H O U R

1 H O U R 2 H O U R S

3 H O U R S

4 H O U R S

5 H O U R S

6 H O U R S

DURATION (VCI)0% 0%

73%

12% 15

%

M U C H L O N G E R

S O M E W H A T L O N G E R

T H E S A M E S O M E W H A T S H O R T E R

M U C H S H O R T E R

WORKDAY DURATION (VCI)


Figure 12: Change in wo/manning strength at event with Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

In terms of equipment, respondents report using traditional interpreting consoles much more often

(90% of respondents use them always or often) than computers (31%) when providing

Videoconference Interpreting (see figure 13). Having said that, visual input is provided on

computer screens (in or outside the booth) almost as often (59%) as it is provided on giant screens

outside the booth (65%). Surprisingly frequently (40% always or often), visual input is provided on

both (see figure 14). While about half of respondents (48%) indicate that the likelihood of receiving

the (manuscripts of read) texts during Videoconference Interpreting is the same as during ordinary

in-situ conference interpreting (see figure 15), about half of them report that the chance of

receiving such text in advance is lower (46% somewhat or much lower).

2% 3%

89%

5%

1%

M U C H H I G H E R


T H E S A M E S O M E W H A T L O W E R

M U C H L O W E R

WO/MANNING STRENGTH (VCI)


Figure 13: Equipment used for Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

Figure 14: Type of screen used for visual input during Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

80%

21%

10%

10%

5%

13%

2%

9%

3%

48%

C O N S O L E C O M P U T E R

EQUIPMENT (VCI) always often sometimes rarely never

31%42%

19%

28%23%

21%

21%21%

29%

7%6%

9%

13% 7% 22%

C O M P U T E R S C R E E N G I A N T S C R E E N B O T H

TYPE OF SCREEN (VCI) always often sometimes rarely never


Figure 15: Availability of (manuscripts of read) text for Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

1%

5%

48%

20%

26%

M U C H H I G H E R



M U C H L O W E R

AVAILABILITY OF TEXT (VCI)


AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING For the purpose of our survey, we defined Audioconference Interpreting (ACI) as “Information

and communications technology-enabled interpreting of one or more distant speaker(s), where

the interpreter has no view of the speaker but a direct view of some or all the other participants

at a given event”.

Illustrative example provided in the survey: A hearing takes place in Rio. Participants and interpreters are in

the courtroom in Rio. A witness from Stockholm could not attend in person. He gives his testimony from

Stockholm – his voice is broadcast over speakers and fed into the interpreters' earphones but no image is

projected. Interpreters in Rio interpret the witness from Stockholm for the participants of the hearing in Rio.

Overall, 37% of our sample indicated having provided Audioconference Interpreting before. Once

more, this particular DI modality is used much more often for simultaneous interpreting (M = 5.65,

SD = 15.6) than for consecutive interpreting (M = 1.11, SD = 7.01) (see figure 16). The frequency

of use of Audioconference Interpreting has remained the same for most respondents (66%) from

2016 to 2017, whereas it increased for 20% and decreased for 13% of them (see figure 17).

Figure 16: Mean number of days worked in Audioconference Interpreting (ACI) in 2017

1.11

5.65


DAYS/MODALITY 2017 (ACI)


. Figure 17: Frequency of days worked in Audioconference Interpreting (ACI) in 2017

Most staff interpreters report that their working conditions (or contracts) do not address the use of

ACI (64%). Sometimes, (24%) it is explicitly allowed, while at times (12%), albeit less often, it is

ruled out (see figure 18). Freelancers report being informed about the use of ACI somewhat more

frequently (46% always or often) than not (42% rarely or never) (see figure 19).

Figure 18: Information provided to staff interpreters on the use of Audioconference Interpreting (ACI)

3%

17%

66%

8% 5%

M U C H H I G H E R




M U C H L O W E R

FREQUENCY IN 2017 (ACI)24

%

64%

12%




INFORMATION - STAFFERS (ACI)


Figure 19: Information provided to freelance interpreters on the use of Audioconference Interpreting (ACI)

The majority of audioconferences last between 15 minutes and two hours (see figure 20) and

although the duration of the overall workday remains the same for most interpreters (61%) some

39% report a reduction in workday duration (see figure 21).The number of interpreters assigned

to events with audioconferences is usually the same (88%) as for an in-situ event (see figure 22).

Figure 20: Duration of interpreted audioconferences (ACI)

39%

7%

13%

20% 22

%


INFORMATION - FREELANCERS (ACI)

13%

25%

32%

16%

7%

5%

0%

3%

1 / 4 H O U R

1 / 2 H O U R

1 H O U R 2 H O U R S

3 H O U R S

4 H O U R S

5 H O U R S

6 H O U R S

DURATION (ACI)


Figure 21: Change in duration of workday at event with Audioconference Interpreting (ACI)

Figure 22: Change in wo/manning strength at event with Audioconference Interpreting (ACI) When providing Audioconference Interpreting, respondents report working mostly with traditional

interpreting consoles (80% always or often), followed by phone (57% always or often) and

computers (39% always or often) (see figure 23). In this DI modality, the likelihood of receiving

the (manuscripts of read) texts is viewed as the same as during ordinary in-situ conference

interpreting by just under half of respondents (45%), but as markedly lower by just over half (54%)

(see figure 24).

0% 1%

61%

16%

23%

M U C H L O N G E R




WORKDAY DURATION (ACI)2% 4

%

88%

3% 3%

M U C H H I G H E R


T H E S A M E S O M E W H A T H I G H E R

M U C H L O W E R

WO/MANNING STRENGTH (ACI)


Figure 23: Equipment used for Audioconference Interpreting (ACI)

Figure 24: Availability of (manuscripts of read) text for Audioconference Interpreting (ACI)

66%

23%37%

14%

16%

20%

11%

21%

14%

3%

4%7%

6%

37%22%

C O N S O L E C O M P U T E R P H O N E

EQUIPMENT (ACI)always often sometimes rarely never

0% 2%

45%

17%

37%

M U C H H I G H E R



M U C H L O W E R

AVAILABILITY OF TEXT (ACI)


VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING We defined Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) as “Information and communications technology-

enabled interpreting of one or more distant speaker(s)/signer(s), where the interpreter has a

video-mediated view of that speaker/signer but no direct view of the other participants at a given

event”.

The example provided in the survey: A conference takes place in Dakar. Participants are in the conference

room in Dakar. Some interpreters are in Paris, others in Mexico. The image of conference participants is

projected on a screen, their voices fed into the interpreters’ earphones. Interpreters in Paris and Mexico

interpret all conference proceedings for conference participants in Dakar.

Of our respondents, 26% had provided Video Remote Interpreting before. VRI is used more often

for simultaneous interpreting (M = 2.99, SD = 4.01) than for consecutive interpreting (M = 0.30,

SD = 1.36) (see figure 25). Overall, the frequency of use of Video Remote Interpreting has

remained the same for half of respondents (51%) from 2016 to 2017. It increased for 30% of them

while it decreased for only 19% (see figure 26).

Figure 25: Mean number of days worked in Video Remote Interpreting (2017)

0.30

2.99


DAYS/MODALITY 2017 (VRI)


Figure 26: Frequency of days worked in Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) in 2017

The working conditions (or contracts) of just over half of staff interpreters do not address the use

of VRI (53%). However, just under half (42%) report that their working conditions explicitly allow

it. Very rarely (5%) is Video Remote Interpreting explicitly ruled out (see figure 27).

Figure 27: Information provided to staff interpreters on the use of Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

7%

23%

51%

14%

5%

M U C H H I G H E R




M U C H L O W E R

FREQUENCY IN 2017 (VRI)42

%

53%

5%




INFORMATION - STAFFERS (VRI)


Figure 28: Information provided to freelance interpreters on the use of Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

Freelancers report being informed about the use of VRI much more often (69% always or often)

than not (27% rarely or never) (see figure 28).

Figure 29: Change in duration of workday at event with Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) The duration of the overall workday is shorter during Video Remote Interpreting (43% much or

somewhat shorter vs. 2% much or somewhat longer) (see figure 29), whereas the number of

55%

14% 1

9%

12% 15

%


INFORMATION - FREELANCERS (VRI)

1% 1%

55%

25%

18%

M U C H L O N G E R




WORKDAY DURATION (VRI)


interpreters assigned to VRI events is usually the same (85%) as for an in-situ event (see figure

30).

Figure 30: Change in wo/manning strength at event with Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

Figure 31: Interpreters’ workplace during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

For VRI, respondents report mostly being located at the conference venue (75% always or often).

Much less frequently are they at interpreting hubs (29% always or often) or at a private location

2%

8%

85%

4% 2%M U C H

H I G H E RS O M E W H A T

H I G H E RT H E S A M E S O M E W H A T

L O W E RM U C H L O W E R

WO/MANNING STRENGTH (VRI)

61%

22% 20%

14%

7% 3%

14%

11%13%

3%

11%4%

8%

48%61%

C O N F E R E N C E V E N U E I N T E R P R E T I N G H U B P R I V A T E L O C A T I O N

WORKPLACE (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never


(23% always or often) (see figure 31). They are usually in the same place as their booth mate(s)

(86% always or often) but less often with the entire team (72% always or often) (see figure 32).

Figure 32: Interpreters’ physical location during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

Figure 33: Interpreters’ workspace during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) Soundproof booths are very often provided for VRI events (69% always or often). Yet, frequently

there is no soundproof equipment available (38% always or often) while sometimes interpreters

work in soundproof rooms rather than booths (22% always or often) (see figure 33).

80%60%

6%

12%

7%11%

2%3%

5% 14%

S A M E A S B O O T H M A T E S S A M E A S T E A M M A T E S

PHYSICAL LOCATION (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never

51%

14%31%

18%

8%

7%

18%

32%19%

2%

11% 13%

11%34% 28%

S O U N D P R O O F B O O T H S O U N D P R O O F R O O M N O N - S O U N D P R O O F E N V I R O N M E N T

WORKSPACE (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never


Figure 34: Technical equipment used for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

Figure 35: Type of screes used for visual input during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

When providing Video Remote Interpreting, respondents largely report working with traditional

interpreting consoles (81% always or often) and less frequently with computers (40% always or

often) (see figure 34). Visual input in Video Remote Interpreting is most often provided on one

71%

36%

10%

4%

11%

23%

1%

5%

7%31%

C O N S O L E C O M P U T E R

EQUIPMENT (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never

56%

27% 22%

18%

8% 7%

18%

33%34%

3%

11%8%

5%22% 29%

C O M P U T E R S C R E E N G I A N T S C R E E N B O T H

TYPE OF SCREENS (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never


screen (82%) and more rarely on multiple screens (39% always or often) (see figure 36). These

screens are most often computer-screen sized (74%), although frequent use of giant screens is

reported at 35%. The use of both types of screen simultaneously is reported at 29% (see figure

35). As for the visual input presented, most frequently this comprises the speaker (83%) and slides

(61%) while listeners and speakers’ texts are most frequently not shown (60% and 79%

respectively) (see figure 37). Finally, the likelihood of receiving the (manuscripts of read) texts is

viewed as the same as during ordinary in-situ conference interpreting by the majority of

respondents (59%), but as markedly lower by 33% and markedly higher by only 8% (see figure

38).

Figure 36: Number of screens used for visual input during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

47%23%

35%

16%

13%

38%

4%

8%

2%14%

O N E S C R E E N M U L T I P L E S C R E E N S

NUMBER OF SCREENS (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never


Figure 37: Type of visual input provided during Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

Figure 38: Availability of (manuscripts of read) text for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

60%

10%31%

3%

23%

6%

30%

0%

12%

25%

30%

18%

3%

35%

4%

14%

1%25%

6%

65%

S P E A K E R S L I S T E N E R S S L I D E S M A N U S C R I P T S

VISUAL INPUT (VRI)always often sometimes rarely never

2%

6%

59%

20%

13%

M U C H H I G H E R



M U C H L O W E R

AVAILABILITY OF TEXT (VRI)


AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING In our survey, Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI) was defined as “Information and communications

technology-enabled interpreting of one or more distant speaker(s), where the interpreter has no

view of the speaker nor of any other participants at a given event”.

The illustrative example provided in the survey: An interview takes place in Vancouver. Interviewer and

interviewee are in Vancouver. The interpreters are in New Delhi. The voices of the interviewer and interviewee

are fed into the interpreters’ earphones but no image is projected. The interpreters in New Delhi interpret the

entire interview for the participants in Vancouver.

Of our total sample, 17% had provided Audio Remote Interpreting before. Once more, this

particular DI modality is used much more often for simultaneous interpreting (M = 5.46, SD =

18.15) than for consecutive interpreting (M = 2.05, SD = 9.89) (see figure 39). While for half of

respondents the frequency of use of Audio Remote Interpreting has remained the same (52%)

from 2016 to 2017 for almost a third (28%) it has risen while for about a fifth (20%) it has fallen.

(see figure 40).

. Figure 39: Mean number of days worked in Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI) in 2017

2.05

5.46


DAYS/MODALITY 2017 (ARI)


Figure 40 Frequency of days worked in Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI) in 2017

Figure 41: Information provided to staff interpreters on the use of Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

The working conditions (or contracts) of the majority of staff interpreters (69%) rule out ARI. In

around a fifth of cases (23%) ARI is explicitly allowed; in 8% it is not mentioned (see figure 41).

Freelancers report being informed about the use of ARI in most cases (86%) (see figure 42).

7%

21%

52%

12%

8%

M U C H H I G H E R




M U C H L O W E R

FREQUENCY IN 2017 (ARI)23

%

8%

69%




INFORMATION - STAFFERS (ARI)


Figure 42: Information provided to freelance interpreters on the use of Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

Figure 43: Change in duration of workday at event with Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

78%

8% 7% 7% 5%


INFORMATION - FREELANCERS (ARI)

0% 0%

20%

15%

64%

M U C H L O N G E R




WORKDAY DURATION (ARI)


Figure 44: Change in wo/manning strength at event with Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

The duration of the overall workday is shorter during Audio Remote Interpreting for most

respondents (79%) and the same for the rest (see figure 43). The number of interpreters assigned

to ARI events is the same as for an in-situ event for 56%, lower for 36% and higher for only 9%

(see figure 44).

Figure 45: Interpreters’ workplace during Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

4% 5%

56%

16% 20

%

M U C H H I G H E R



M U C H L O W E R

WO/MANNING STRENGTH (ARI)

13%33%

54%7%

7%

11%

17%

10%

11%

11%9%

4%52%40%

20%

C O N F E R E N C E V E N U E I N T E R P R E T I N G H U B P R I V A T E L O C A T I O N

WORKPLACE (ARI)always often sometimes rarely never


For ARI, respondents report mostly being located at a private location (65% always or often).

Much less frequently are they at interpreting hubs (40% always or often) or at a conference venue

(20% always or often) (see figure 45).

Figure 46: Interpreters’ physical location during Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

They are located in the same place as their booth mate(s) (44%) as often as they are not (44%)

and generally not in the same place as the rest of the team (70% rarely or never) (see figure 46).

They always or often work in non-soundproofed environments (72%) (see figure 47). When

providing Audio Remote Interpreting, respondents largely report working with phones (65%

always or often) and less frequently with traditional consoles (48% always or often) or computers

(34% always or often) (see figure 48).

In ARI, the likelihood of receiving the (manuscripts of read) texts is viewed as markedly lower than

during ordinary in-situ conference interpreting by the majority of respondents (58%). 33% of

respondents report the likelihood to be the same, while for 9% it higher (see figure 49).

37%19%

7%

3%

11%

8%

2%

9%

42%61%

S A M E A S B O O T H M A T E S S A M E A S T E A M M A T E S

PHYSICAL LOCATION (ARI)always often sometimes rarely never


Figure 47: Interpreters’ workspace during Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

Figure 48: Technical equipment used for Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

21% 12%

62%11%8%

10%

11%

7%

12%

6%14%

2%50% 59%

13%

S O U N D P R O O F B O O T H S O U N D P R O O F R O O M N O N - S O U N D P R O O F E N V I R O N M E N T

WORKSPACE (ARI)always often sometimes rarely never

40%23%

55%

8%

11%

10%11%

18%

14%5% 11%

4%37% 39%17%

C O N S O L E C O M P U T E R P H O N E

EQUIPMENT (ARI)always often sometimes rarely never


Figure 49: Availability of (manuscripts of read) text for Audio Remote Interpreting (ARI)

3%

6%

33%

20%

38%

M U C H H I G H E R



M U C H L O W E R

AVAILABILITY OF TEXT (ARI)


COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The direct comparison (where possible) of our data across the four Distance Interpreting (DI)

modalities reveals interesting similarities and differences. For example, our data show that while

for about half the interpreters surveyed the frequency of Distance Interpreting has remained the

same in 2017, there is a general growth in the use of all four DI modalities (see figure 50).

Similarly, simultaneous interpreting seems to be used most often, regardless of DI modality.

Having said that, in absolute numbers, the average number of days worked in DI remains relatively

low. For simultaneous, participants report providing VCI most often (just over 7 days on average),

and VRI least often (just under 3 days on average). Both ACI and ARI were performed between

5 and 6 days on average. For consecutive, absolute figures are negligible for the video-based DI

modalities (less than 1 day on average) and very low for audio-based DI modalities (between 1

and 2 days on average) (see figure 51). If the general growth trend continues, however, absolute

figures can be expected to rise fairly rapidly.

Figure 50: Frequency of days worked in Distance Interpreting (DI) in 2017

much higher somewhathigherabout the

samesomewhat

lower much lower

VCI 0.04 0.22 0.63 0.07 0.04ACI 0.03 0.17 0.66 0.08 0.05VRI 0.07 0.23 0.51 0.14 0.05ARI 0.07 0.21 0.52 0.12 0.08

4%

22%

63%

7% 4%3%

17%

66%

8% 5%7%

23%

51%

14%

5%7%

21%

52%

12%

8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

FREQUENCY IN 2017 (DI)


Figure 51: Mean number of days worked in Distance Interpreting (DI) in 2017

Unlike VRI and ARI, where the duration of the “link” corresponds to the duration of the entire

event, VCI or ACI are merely a part of a conference. Interestingly, the duration of both VCI and

ACI do not usually appear to exceed two hours. In fact, both cluster around the one-hour mark

(see figure 52). This appears to support the view that VCI and ACI are principally used to enable

the temporally limited remote participation of a small number of individuals.

A comparison of the overall duration of the interpreters’ workday across the four DI modalities

shows that this duration is either the same as for an ordinary in-situ assignment (without the use

of such technologies), or shorter. In the case of ARI the result is particularly clear, indicating that

almost 4 times out of 5 (79%) the event is shorter. We conclude, therefore, that currently ARI is

associated with the shortest remotely interpreted events (see figure 53).

consecutive simultaneousVCI 0.31 7.17ACI 1.11 5.65VRI 0.30 2.99ARI 2.05 5.46

0.31

7.17

1.11

5.65

0.30

2.99

2.05

5.46

0123456789

10

NU

MBE

R O

F D

AYS

DAYS/MODALITY 2017 (DI)


Figure 52: Duration of interpreted VCI vs ACI

Figure 53: Change in duration of workday at event with Distance Interpreting (DI)

The extent to which interpreters (both staffers and freelancers) are made aware of the use of DI

technologies (in their staff regulations, contracts or general working conditions), varies not only

across employment status, but also across DI modality. Freelance interpreters, for example, know

that they are expected to provide remote interpreting (VRI or ARI) much more often than that they

will be teleconference interpreting (ACI or VCI) (see figure 54). This might suggest that the use of

1/4 hour 1/2 hour 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 5 hours 6 hoursVCI 0.13 0.32 0.26 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03ACI 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.03

13%

32%

26%

15%

6% 4% 2% 3%

13%

25% 32

%

16%

7% 5%

0% 3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

DURATION (VCI-ACI)

much longer somewhatlonger the samesomewhat

shorter much shorter

VCI 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.12 0.15ACI 0.00 0.01 0.61 0.16 0.23VRI 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.25 0.18ARI 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.15 0.64

0% 0%

73%

12%

15%

0% 1%

61%

16% 23

%

1% 1%

55%

25%

18%

0% 0%

20%

15%

64%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

WORKDAY DURATION (DI)


teleconference interpreting has become more customary among conference organizers and

perhaps more acceptable among conference interpreters. When it comes to staff interpreters, it

is interesting to note that, more often than not, the use of VCI, ACI and VRI are not mentioned in

their working conditions (see figure 55). When they are mentioned, these modalities are usually

explicitly allowed. This is not the case for ARI, which staff interpreters’ working conditions almost

systematically address – mainly to explicitly rule it out. These data (both from freelancers and

staffers) might suggest that Audio Remote Interpreting is currently viewed as the most exceptional

of the four DI modalities, and that it is therefore either ruled out entirely or explicitly mentioned in

individual contracts. This might partly relate to the data gathered on wo/manning strength, which

appears to be unaffected by the use of DI modalities, with the exception of ARI, where lower

wo/manning levels are reported by 36% of respondents (see figure 56).

Figure 54: Information provided to freelance interpreters on the use of Distance Interpreting (DI)

always often sometimes rarely neverVCI 0.27 0.11 0.19 0.22 0.21ACI 0.39 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.22VRI 0.55 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.15ARI 0.78 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05

27%

11% 19

%

22%

21%

39%

7% 13% 2

0% 22%

55%

14% 19%

12%

15%

78%

8% 7% 7% 5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

INFORMATION - FREELANCERS (DI)


Figure 55: Information provided to staff interpreters on the use of Distance Interpreting (DI)

Figure 56: Change in wo/manning strength at event with Distance Interpreting (DI)

As teleconference modalities (VCI and ACI) are part of a traditional conference event by definition,

data on the physical location of interpreters were only collected for remote interpreting. These

data show a very different picture for VRI and ARI. While interpreters providing VRI are generally

located at the conference venue, those providing ARI usually work from a private location, while

remote interpreting hubs are used relatively infrequently for either remote interpreting modality

explicitly allow thismodality

make no mention ofthis modality

explicitly rule out thismodality

VCI 0.29 0.69 0.02ACI 0.24 0.64 0.12VRI 0.42 0.53 0.05ARI 0.23 0.08 0.69

29%

69%

2%

24%

64%

12%

42% 5

3%

5%

23%

8%

69%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

INFORMATION - STAFFERS (DI)

much higher somewhathigher the samesomewhat

lower much lower

VCI 0.02 0.03 0.89 0.05 0.01AVI 0.02 0.04 0.88 0.03 0.03VRI 0.02 0.08 0.85 0.04 0.02ARI 0.04 0.05 0.56 0.16 0.20

2% 3%

89%

5% 1%2% 4%

88%

3% 3%2%

8%

85%

4% 2%4% 5%

56%

16% 20%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

WO/MANNING STRENGTH (DI)


(see figures 57, 58, and 59). These data tally with those collected on the physical location of team

mates and booth mates.

Figure 57: Interpreters located at conference venue in VRI vs ARI

Figure 58: Interpreters located at remote interpreting hub in VRI vs ARI

always often sometimes rarely neverVRI 0.61 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.08ARI 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.52

61%

14%

14%

3% 8%13

%

7%

17%

11%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

INTERPRETERS AT CONFERENCE VENUE (VRI-ARI)

VRI ARI


22%

7% 11% 11%

48%

33%

7% 10%

9%

40%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

INTERPRETERS AT HUB (VRI-ARI)VRI ARI


Figure 59: Interpreters located at private location in VRI vs ARI

In VRI, 86% of interpreters are always or often located in the same place as their booth mates,

while 72% are always or often in the same place as their team mates. Conversely, in ARI only

44% of interpreters always or often work in the same location as their booth mates, while 44% do

not. What is more, 70% report only rarely or never working in the same location as their team

mates (see figures 60 and 61).

Figure 60: Physical location of booth mates in VRI vs ARI


20%

3%

13%

4%

61%

54%

11%

11%

4%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

INTERRPETERS AT PRIVATE LOCATION (VRI-ARI)

VRI ARI


80%

6% 7% 2% 5%

37%

7% 11%

2%

42%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

BOOTH MATES IN SAME LOCATION (VRI-ARI)

VRI ARI


Figure 61: Physical location of team mates in VRI vs ARI

With the exception of ARI, which is often provided over the phone (see figure 64), interpreters

usually work with traditional consoles when providing DI (see figure 62). For the time being,

computers are not the main interface for any of the four DI modalities (see figure 63).

Figure 62: Frequency of use of console for Distance Interpreting (DI)


60%

12%

11%

3%

14%19

%

3% 8% 9%

61%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

TEAM MATES IN SAME LOCATION (VRI-ARI)

VRI ARI


80%

10%

5% 2% 3%

66%

14%

11%

3% 6%

71%

10%

11%

1% 7%

40%

8% 11%

5%

37%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

(DI) VIA CONSOLEVCI ACI VRI ARI


Figure 63: Frequency of use of computer for Distance Interpreting (DI)

Figure 64: Frequency of use phone for ACI vs ARI

In VRI, interpreters usually receive the visual image on a computer-sized screen; additionally,

giant screens or a combination of computer-sized and giant screens are used about equally

frequently (see figures 65, 66 and 67).


21%

10%

13%

9%

48%

23%

16% 21%

4%

37%

36%

4%

23%

5%

31%

23%

11% 18

%

11%

39%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

(DI) VIA COMPUTERVCI ACI VRI ARI

always often sometimes rarely neverACI 0.37 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.22ARI 0.55 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.17

37%

20%

14%

7%

22%

55%

10% 14

%

4%

17%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

(ACI-ARI) VIA PHONEACI ARI


Figure 65: Frequency of use computer screen for VCI vs VRI

Figure 66: Frequency of use of giant screen in VCI vs VRI

always often sometimes rarely neverVCI 0.31 0.28 0.21 0.07 0.13VRI 0.56 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.05

31%

28%

21%

7%

13%

56%

18%

18%

3% 5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

IMAGE ON COMPUTER SCREEN VCI VRI


42%

23%

21%

6% 7%

27%

8%

33%

11% 22%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

IMAGE ON GIANT SCREENVCI VRI


Figure 67: Frequency of use of computer and giant screen in VCI vs VRI

Finally, and importantly, our data show that the likelihood of receiving texts (or manuscripts of

prepared speeches) is lower during DI than it is during ordinary in-situ conference interpreting

(see figure 68).

Figure 68: Availability of (manuscripts of read) text for Distance Interpreting (DI)


19%

21% 29

%

9%

22%

22%

7%

34%

8%

29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

IMAGE ON COMP. & GIANT SCREENVCI VRI

much higher somewhathigher the samesomewhat

lower much lower

VCI 0.01 0.05 0.48 0.20 0.26ACI 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.17 0.37VRI 0.02 0.06 0.59 0.20 0.13ARI 0.03 0.06 0.33 0.20 0.38

1% 5%

48%

20% 26

%

0% 2%

45%

17%

37%

2% 6%

59%

20%

13%

3% 6%

33%

20%

38%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

AVAILABILITY OF TEXT (DI)


CONCLUSION

The objective of this first AIIC survey on the use of DI was to map the landscape and better

understand the type and frequency of distance interpreting modalities used by members. The first

yet perhaps not the most surprising conclusion might well be that all Distance Interpreting is not

the same. Not only are the four DI modalities under scrutiny rather different from a technical point

of view, they also differ with regard to their frequency of use and their implementation.

Consequently, these differences need to be acknowledged and should guide the discussion on

working conditions governing different Distance Interpreting modalities. We have also found that

Distance Interpreting is often not addressed in conference interpreters’ working conditions. While

we do not yet have universal standards governing DI technology, conference interpreters should

at least be informed about their workplace and their workspace (including the kind of technology

employed) prior to an assignment. The workspace for remote interpreting, for example, ranges

from conference venues (mostly for VRI) to specialized interpreting hubs to private locations

(mostly for ARI). Although we can assume that the former two are (or should be) equipped with

state-of-the-art equipment and connectivity, promoting remote interpreting services in home-to-

venue setups means deliberately relinquishing control over crucial technical aspects of DI. Given

that in the free comments one out of twelve interpreters indicates having experienced poor sound

conditions in different DI modalities, it would appear that albeit technically possible, appropriate

sound and image quality are not yet consistently offered. It is interesting to see that the equipment

mostly still comprises traditional interpreting consoles across most DI modalities with the

exception of ARI, which is mostly provided over the phone. The number and type of screens used

to provide conference interpreters with visual input, on the other hand, differs considerably.

Finally, staffing levels seem to remain largely unaffected by the type of DI technology used with

the exception of ARI, where they are sometimes lower than for comparable face-to-face

interpreting assignments. This suggests that DI is often seen as equivalent (and therefore a

substitute) for face-to-face conference interpreting even though research points towards earlier

onset of fatigue and burnout symptoms.


Seeing the increase in the frequency of use across all types of Distance Interpreting, we conclude

with a call for additional systematic research into the cognitive ergonomics of DI to establish

minimal standards and best practices.

This report was compiled by Prof. Dr. Kilian G. Seeber on behalf of AIIC’s Task Force on Distance Interpreting.


TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: AGE DISTRIBUTION (GROUPED) ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: MEAN AGE AND MEAN EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 3: MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR (2017) ................................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 4: COUNTRIES HIGHEST RESPONSE RATES (ABRIDGED) .......................................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 5: PROFESSIONAL PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 6: MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) IN 2017 ......................................................................... 5 FIGURE 7: FREQUENCY OF DAYS WORKED IN VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) IN 2017 ............................................................................. 6 FIGURE 8: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STAFF INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) ........................................... 6 FIGURE 9: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO FREELANCE INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) .................................... 7 FIGURE 10: DURATION OF INTERPRETED VIDEOCONFERENCES (VCI) .................................................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 11: CHANGE IN DURATION OF WORKDAY AT EVENT WITH VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) .............................................................. 8 FIGURE 12: CHANGE IN WO/MANNING STRENGTH AT EVENT WITH VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) ............................................................. 9 FIGURE 13: EQUIPMENT USED FOR VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) .....................................................................................................10 FIGURE 14: TYPE OF SCREEN USED FOR VISUAL INPUT DURING VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) ...............................................................10 FIGURE 15: AVAILABILITY OF (MANUSCRIPTS OF READ) TEXT FOR VIDEOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (VCI) ............................................................11 FIGURE 16: MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) IN 2017 ......................................................................12 FIGURE 17: FREQUENCY OF DAYS WORKED IN AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) IN 2017 ..........................................................................13 FIGURE 18: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STAFF INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) ........................................13 FIGURE 19: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO FREELANCE INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) .................................14 FIGURE 20: DURATION OF INTERPRETED AUDIOCONFERENCES (ACI) .................................................................................................................14 FIGURE 21: CHANGE IN DURATION OF WORKDAY AT EVENT WITH AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) ............................................................15 FIGURE 22: CHANGE IN WO/MANNING STRENGTH AT EVENT WITH AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) ............................................................15 FIGURE 23: EQUIPMENT USED FOR AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) .....................................................................................................16 FIGURE 24: AVAILABILITY OF (MANUSCRIPTS OF READ) TEXT FOR AUDIOCONFERENCE INTERPRETING (ACI) ...........................................................16 FIGURE 25: MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (2017).......................................................................................17 FIGURE 26: FREQUENCY OF DAYS WORKED IN VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) IN 2017 ................................................................................18 FIGURE 27: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STAFF INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ...............................................18 FIGURE 28: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO FREELANCE INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) .......................................19 FIGURE 29: CHANGE IN DURATION OF WORKDAY AT EVENT WITH VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ...................................................................19 FIGURE 30: CHANGE IN WO/MANNING STRENGTH AT EVENT WITH VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ..................................................................20 FIGURE 31: INTERPRETERS’ WORKPLACE DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) .......................................................................................20 FIGURE 32: INTERPRETERS’ PHYSICAL LOCATION DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ............................................................................21 FIGURE 33: INTERPRETERS’ WORKSPACE DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) .......................................................................................21 FIGURE 34: TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT USED FOR VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ...........................................................................................22


FIGURE 35: TYPE OF SCREES USED FOR VISUAL INPUT DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) .....................................................................22 FIGURE 36: NUMBER OF SCREENS USED FOR VISUAL INPUT DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ..............................................................23 FIGURE 37: TYPE OF VISUAL INPUT PROVIDED DURING VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) .................................................................................24 FIGURE 38: AVAILABILITY OF (MANUSCRIPTS OF READ) TEXT FOR VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING (VRI) ..................................................................24 FIGURE 39: MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) IN 2017 ............................................................................25 FIGURE 40 FREQUENCY OF DAYS WORKED IN AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) IN 2017 .................................................................................26 FIGURE 41: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STAFF INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI)...............................................26 FIGURE 42: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO FREELANCE INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) .......................................27 FIGURE 43: CHANGE IN DURATION OF WORKDAY AT EVENT WITH AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) ...................................................................27 FIGURE 44: CHANGE IN WO/MANNING STRENGTH AT EVENT WITH AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) ..................................................................28 FIGURE 45: INTERPRETERS’ WORKPLACE DURING AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) .......................................................................................28 FIGURE 46: INTERPRETERS’ PHYSICAL LOCATION DURING AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) ............................................................................29 FIGURE 47: INTERPRETERS’ WORKSPACE DURING AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI).......................................................................................30 FIGURE 48: TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT USED FOR AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) ...........................................................................................30 FIGURE 49: AVAILABILITY OF (MANUSCRIPTS OF READ) TEXT FOR AUDIO REMOTE INTERPRETING (ARI) ..................................................................31 FIGURE 50: FREQUENCY OF DAYS WORKED IN DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) IN 2017 ..........................................................................................32 FIGURE 51: : MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED IN DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) IN 2017 .....................................................................................33 FIGURE 52: DURATION OF INTERPRETED VCI VS ACI .......................................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 53: CHANGE IN DURATION OF WORKDAY AT EVENT WITH DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) .............................................................................34 FIGURE 54: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO FREELANCE INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) .................................................35 FIGURE 55: INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STAFF INTERPRETERS ON THE USE OF DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI).........................................................36 FIGURE 56: CHANGE IN WO/MANNING STRENGTH AT EVENT WITH DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) ............................................................................36 FIGURE 57: INTERPRETERS LOCATED AT CONFERENCE VENUE IN VRI VS ARI .....................................................................................................37 FIGURE 58: INTERPRETERS LOCATED AT REMOTE INTERPRETING HUB IN VRI VS ARI ...........................................................................................37 FIGURE 59: INTERPRETERS LOCATED AT PRIVATE LOCATION IN VRI VS ARI ........................................................................................................38 FIGURE 60: PHYSICAL LOCATION OF BOOTH MATES IN VRI VS ARI .....................................................................................................................38 FIGURE 61: PHYSICAL LOCATION OF TEAM MATES IN VRI VS ARI .......................................................................................................................39 FIGURE 62: FREQUENCY OF USE OF CONSOLE FOR DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) ...............................................................................................39 FIGURE 63: FREQUENCY OF USE OF COMPUTER FOR DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) .............................................................................................40 FIGURE 64: FREQUENCY OF USE PHONE FOR ACI VS ARI .................................................................................................................................40 FIGURE 65: FREQUENCY OF USE COMPUTER SCREEN FOR VCI VS VRI ...............................................................................................................41 FIGURE 66: FREQUENCY OF USE OF GIANT SCREEN IN VCI VS VRI ....................................................................................................................41 FIGURE 67: FREQUENCY OF USE OF COMPUTER AND GIANT SCREEN IN VCI VS VRI .............................................................................................42 FIGURE 68: AVAILABILITY OF (MANUSCRIPTS OF READ) TEXT FOR DISTANCE INTERPRETING (DI) ............................................................................42

TFDI DI full FINAL - AIIC · AIIC TFDI Task Force on Distance Interpreting 2 Figure 1: Age...

Documents

Transcript of TFDI DI full FINAL - AIIC · AIIC TFDI Task Force on Distance Interpreting 2 Figure 1: Age...