1127596

research-article20222022
ISY0010.1177/27523810221127596Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary JournalNapier et al.

INTERPRETING
AND SOCIETY
Article AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Interpreting and Society:

Representation and
An Interdisciplinary Journal
September 2022, Vol. 2(2) 119­–140
© The Author(s) 2022
diversity in the sign Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

language translation and https://doi.org/10.1177/27523810221127596

DOI: 10.1177/27523810221127596
journals.sagepub.com/home/isy

interpreting profession in
the United Kingdom

Jemina Napier , Robert Skinner and

Robert Adam
Heriot-Watt University, UK

Christopher Stone, Sandra Pratt and

Daniel P Hinton
University of Wolverhampton, UK

Chijioke Obasi
University of the West of Scotland, UK; Coventry University, UK

Abstract
This article reports the findings of a nationwide sign language translator and interpreter
(SLTI) census to establish a baseline description of the United Kingdom’s SLTI
workforce that was commissioned by the Association of Sign Language Interpreters
UK. Complete responses were received from 690 practitioners from across the United
Kingdom (43% of the potential sample). The survey responses were analysed using the
SPSS statistical software, specifically to look at various intersectional characteristics
concerning gender, age, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. This article provides an overview
of the findings with respect to two key themes: representation and diversity in the
profession, along with discussion of the profile of the SLTI profession in the United

Corresponding author:
Jemina Napier, Centre for Translation & Interpreting Studies in Scotland, Department of Languages &
Intercultural Studies, School of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK.
Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under

the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed
as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
120 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Kingdom, and recommendations for actions for key stakeholder organisations. As a

first snapshot, this census functions as a baseline for future comparisons, and can be
modified and improved through open dialogue with professional and community groups.
This snapshot helps us to identify gaps in representation. Finally, it can also inform
the planning and forecasting of recruitment needs for the workforce and highlight any
education and training needs.

Keywords
census survey, diversity, intersectionality, representation, sign language translation and
interpreting

1. Introduction
It is difficult to estimate the exact number of deaf signers1 throughout the United
Kingdom (UK), but based on an analysis of the 2011 Scottish census results, Turner
(2020) estimates between 40,000 and 70,000 deaf signers. Sometimes the sign language
translation and interpreting (SLTI) profession reflects diversities within deaf communi-
ties and wider society; at other times not as much. There is now greater awareness of the
many different forms of structural inequality that disadvantage different groups and indi-
viduals in the outcomes they create. This has caused many professions in the UK to take
an introspective look at their own structures and systems. These issues also have great
significance in the UK SLTI profession where issues of gender, sexuality, disability, and
race equity among others need to come into sharper focus to utilise the diversity of skills
on offer. For the UK SLTI profession, which is predominantly female and estimated to
number approximately 1,6002 practitioners, it is therefore timely to consider the dispari-
ties perceived or experienced by members of the profession with respect to the work that
SLTI professionals undertake, what is expected of them, the opportunities offered to
them and any link this may have to the diversity characteristics they have. It has been
argued that the SLTI profession supports social justice goals for deaf communities by
providing improved access to society (McCartney, 2017). As such, it is appropriate that
social justice is also embedded in the profession by identifying potential barriers that
may prevent entry to, and progression within, the profession.
In recent years, there have been several movements that have motivated this study,
including the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter (BLM) movements. These movements
force us to better understand inequalities. This means that there is a rightful expectation
of a clearer and more nuanced understanding of the composition of the SLTI profession
in the United Kingdom. The concept of intersectionality, coined by Crenshaw (1989,
1991), can be used to interrogate inequalities in society, and intersectionality studies
(Cho et al., 2013) highlight how the diversity of lived experiences is important to con-
sider in all contexts. Intersectionality is therefore a valuable framework for considering
the diversity and representation in the SLTI profession. Understanding gaps in the SLTI
workforce profile will enable education and training institutions, professional bodies and
other stakeholders to become more mindful of how to remove barriers and increase
access to training and professional support for specific under-represented social groups
Napier et al. 121

within the profession. Improving diversity in the SLTI profession may improve opportu-
nities for deaf people to work with interpreters that they feel represent their identities
(Napier et al., 2017, 2019; Young et al., 2019).
The census was commissioned by the Association of Sign Language Interpreters UK
(ASLI) in 2021 to establish a baseline description of the SLTI workforce. The broad aim
was to see whether there are differences in education, work, and professional develop-
ment opportunities experienced by those in the SLTI profession. As such, the specific
objectives of the project were to:

•• Describe the demographic profile and intersectional characteristics of deaf and

hearing British Sign Language (BSL)/English interpreters and translators in
England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland.
•• Map the locations of translators and interpreters throughout the United Kingdom.
•• Obtain information on the educational qualifications of BSL/English translators
and interpreters.
•• Obtain information on the settings in which BSL/English translators and interpret-
ers work.

This is to date the largest sample of SLTIs surveyed in the United Kingdom and provides
a wealth of new data regarding the demographic profile of the SLTI profession. In this
article, we contextualise the findings of the census, by briefly documenting the emer-
gence of the SLTI profession in the United Kingdom and reviewing previous relevant
research. We then give an overview of the methodological process for developing, con-
ducting and analysing the census, before sharing the main findings with respect to two
key themes: representation and diversity in the profession, along with discussion of the
profile of the SLTI profession in the United Kingdom, and a summary of suggested rec-
ommendations for actions for key stakeholder organisations.

2. The emergence of the SLTI profession in the

United Kingdom
The first moves in the United Kingdom to formally establish a SLTI profession can be
traced back to the work of the Scottish Association for the Deaf approving interpreters,
and the British Deaf Association’s Communication Skills Project funded through the for-
mer UK Government’s Department of Health and Social Security (1977–1981). The
objective for both of these organisations was to separate formal interpreting as part of a
“multi-professional role” that included spiritual and welfare roles (Corfmat, 1990) typi-
cally undertaken by White, hearing, men, to a single professional role via two registration
bodies: the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP)3
(Simpson, 2007), and the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters (SASLI).4
Initial registrants in the 1980s were typically those who had family ties to deaf com-
munities or worked in deaf welfare or educational roles (Scott-Gibson, 1991), with larger
numbers of female interpreters. This is not surprising given that in many deaf-hearing
families the family “interpreter” (child language broker) is typically, but not exclusively,
the eldest female child (Napier, 2021). Many of the interpreting courses available at that
122 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

time were short courses tailored to those already fluent in BSL. In the early years, deaf
interpreters were included in the registers. However, this innovation fell away, and deaf
translators and interpreters were only readmitted by the NRCPD 35 years later.
The 1990s saw the establishment of university sign language interpreter education
programme,5 followed by the introduction by CACDP of the National Vocational
Qualification pathway, enabling people to also achieve registration by completing a
vocational programme that meets the National Occupational Standards for Interpreting.6
The two other regulatory bodies vet applicants through their own systems Regulatory
Body of Sign Language Interpreters and Scottish Register of Language Professionals
with the Deaf Community (RBSLI and SRLPDC).
The 2000s saw a swing from traditional interpreters (i.e., people from deaf families),
to novices with little previous contact with deaf communities, and who had learnt a sign
language as L2 (Stone, 2008, 2012). Brien et al. (2002, 2004) identified deaf, male, eth-
nic minority and disabled people’s under-representation in the SLTI profession as an area
that needed to be addressed via trainee recruitment. As academics and practitioners
began to recognise the SLTI profession as relatively young in status (Napier, 1998;
Obasi, 2007; Pollitt, 2000), debates continued about how best to further professionalise.
Within these considerations, the lack of ethnic diversity became more evident, particu-
larly in relation to Black deaf communities.
In the late 1990s/early 2000s, Black sign language interpreters joined Black deaf
activists in their journeys to America, to connect with other more established Black self-
organised groups in both the American Black deaf community and the Black American
sign language interpreting profession. LEMDA (London Ethnic Minority Deaf
Association) and BASLIN (Black and Asian Sign Language Interpreters Network) were
established around the same time. From this initiative, the first ever directory of inter-
preters from ethnic minorities was produced.7 A new organisation—the Interpreters of
Colour Network (IOCN)—was established in 2020 and has continued to produce a more
extensive online directory.
Issues of intersectional identity, inclusion and representation in deaf communities
have taken on new significance (see, for example, Chapple et al., 2021; Emery & Iyer,
2022; Leigh & O’Brien, 2020; Obasi, 2022), and as such also in the SLTI profession
(Parkins-Maliko, 2022; Sikder, 2019). Developing an evidence base is vital to our under-
standing of representation within the SLTI profession (Obasi, 2013).
This history brings us to the current context, where questions have resurfaced as to the
representativeness of the profession: who currently makes up the profession, and what
we need to do to improve representation.

2.1 Who makes up the SLTI profession?

A useful starting point in developing the census was to examine what we already know
about who makes up the SLTI profession and how these data were collected. Table 1
summarises various surveys that used questionnaire instruments to collect demographic
information about the SLTI workforce in the United Kingdom.
Existing data concentrate only on interpreting and provide a useful snapshot of the
emerging profile of UK SLI profession.8 Thus, much of the demographic detail we
Napier et al. 123

Table 1. Relevant UK SLTI Surveys.

Date # of respondents Author/s Focus

2002 223 Brien et al. The organisation and provision
of BSL interpreters in England,
Scotland, and Wales
2011 297 ASLI Survey of ASLI members’ fees
and working conditions
2013 54 Allardyce, Anderson, Deaf interpreters & translators
Canton, Marshall & in the UK
Simmonds (ASLI DIN)
2013 335 Mapson A national survey of BSL/English
interpreters
2015 485 NUBSLI A national survey of BSL
interpreters working conditions
2015 244 Townsend-Handscomb A national survey of BSL
(NUBSLI) interpreters working conditions
2017 329 Townsend-Handscomb A national survey of BSL
(NUBSLI) interpreters working conditions
2019 69 Mapson, Crawley & Waddell A landscape review of BSL
interpreting in Scotland

SLTI: sign language translator and interpreter; ASLI: Association of Sign Language Interpreters UK; NUBSLI:
National Union of BSL Interpreters; BSL: British Sign Language; DIN: Deaf Interpreter Network.

discuss here focuses on interpreters only. Unfortunately, there are no data available that
provides the specifics of the demographics in the UK deaf community, so we refer to the
wider census of the UK population for comparison.
We see a pattern over several surveys in that around 85% of respondents identify as
female and 15% as male (Brien et al., 2002, 2004; Mapson, 2014; Mapson et al., 2019;
National Union of BSL Interpreters [NUBSLI], 2015; Townsend-Handscomb, 2015,
2017), with a small number who identify as transgender (Townsend-Handscomb,
2017). Based on the smaller number of male trainee interpreters entering the field,
Brien et al. (2002, 2004) had predicted that the number of men in the profession would
decline. This suggests that many of the earlier male interpreters had traditionally
worked as missioners/welfare workers with deaf communities and interpreting was
part of their role. So, the availability of formal interpreting training has changed the
pipeline of who chooses to enter the SLTI profession.
The percentage of qualified SLTIs who have deaf signing parents (also known as
heritage signers, Napier, 2021) has decreased from 31% (Brien et al., 2002, 2004) to 13%
(Mapson, 2014). There are no earlier data available on the number of heritage signers in
the profession. Mapson found the percentage of heritage signers was higher among
SLTIs who had 15+-year experience (at 36%), which highlights how the beginnings of
the profession relied on people with familial or close connection to deaf communities.
This signifies an increase in hearing SLTIs who are “new signers” (De Meulder, 2018)
from 69% to 87%. This may be due to the increased profile of SLTIs in the media, more
awareness of sign language, and more opportunities to train and qualify as an SLTI
124 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

through different pathways. Therefore, when considering deaf heritage signers, it is nec-
essary to examine whether there are increased opportunities for deaf people from deaf
families to consider the SLTI profession as a career option.
Ethnicity was only specifically reported by Brien et al. (2002, 2004), who found that
5% of respondents were from a Black or minority ethnic background, compared with
13% of the general UK population as noted in the 2001 census (Sikder, 2019). ASLI’s
2011 survey of fees and working conditions reported 9% of respondents as being “non-
white” (Sikder, 2019). However, the survey did not focus specifically on ethnicities, but
only asked respondents to report whether they were “white” or “non-white” without
providing a breakdown of ethnicity, which is problematic in itself.
While we were able to formulate some general descriptions about the SLTI work-
force, the surveys noted in Table 1 did not include a detailed list of options that enabled
us to gain a more nuanced understanding. A more comprehensive list of gender identi-
ties, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, sexual identities, language profiles, family com-
mitments and signing background is needed to fully appreciate the intersectional
identities of SLTIs. For example, previous surveys did not provide space to identify those
who do not have deaf parents but do have other family or close connections with a sign-
ing background, such as a deaf signing partner, sibling, or grandparents.
More work was also needed to clarify similar trends or differences between those who
self-identify as deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing. It is anticipated that those who are
registered as translators are mainly deaf or hard-of-hearing. A survey from the US Deaf
Interpreters Institution (DII) indicates that this type of deaf-hearing distinction is impor-
tant. In 2007, the DII found that 62% of deaf interpreters identified as female and that the
majority came from deaf families (57%). Respondents to a survey of deaf SLTIs in the
United Kingdom (Allardyce et al., 2013) were more balanced, with 54% being female
versus 46% being male, but they were not asked if they were heritage signers. We have
already highlighted how the number of SLTIs who were brought up in the deaf commu-
nity has decreased within the hearing SLTI population. As noted above, changes in train-
ing opportunities may have facilitated this shift. Understanding the nature of the different
pathways into the profession can help us identify to what extent these pathways have
influenced the demographics of the SLTI profession.

3. Methodology
These issues of diversity and representation were also important in putting together a
research team. The team involved academics who are all qualified interpreters, but who
vary in terms of race, gender, sexuality, age of and route to, sign language acquisition.
Each team member brought their lived personal and professional experience to the
research design and data analysis. An advisory group was established to ensure represen-
tation from stakeholders across the sector from sign language teachers, sign language
interpreters/translators and their representative organisations, importantly including the
IOCN and the Deaf Interpreters Network, considering the focus of the study on diversity
and representation. The advisory group provided critical support in the development and
testing of the census survey.
Given the need to conduct a census of the SLTI population in the United Kingdom, it
was agreed that an online, self-administered questionnaire would be the most effective
Napier et al. 125

way of reaching the sample population. After piloting, final ethics approval was received
by the Heriot-Watt School of Social Sciences Ethics (Human Research) Committee on
25 January 2021.
In developing this census, decisions had to be made regarding what to include or
exclude, to ensure that the census was manageable, and to reduce the risk of participant
dropout. The final census was designed to take no longer than 30 min to complete. These
criteria meant topics to do with the “experience of being” a SLTI professional could not
be included, as they were considered beyond the scope of this census project.

3.1 The questionnaire instrument

A questionnaire was developed in written English, which was considered appropriate for
a bilingual population of translators and interpreters qualified to work between BSL and
English. The questions selected focused on establishing a baseline profile of the SLTI
workforce.
The questionnaire was drafted initially by the research team, drawing on previous
literature about what we already know about the SLTI profession and guidelines on how
to design census survey demographic profile and language profile questions generally
and for professional populations (Butler-Henderson et al., 2017; Marian et al., 2007;
Middleton et al., 2010, 2011; Treanor, 2009). The finalising of the questionnaire fol-
lowed an iterative approach: it was shared with the advisory group for feedback and the
questions were revised through each iterative loop.
The questionnaire consisted of a total of 74 questions, using a combination of open,
closed, single-choice, multiple-choice, and Likert-type scale questions, which were
grouped into five different sections. When the final draft was confirmed, the question-
naire was transferred to the Heriot-Watt University licensed version of the online survey
tool Qualtrics. The online version of the survey contained a mixture of forced and non-
forced responses, and was designed to redirect participants to bypass or respond to cer-
tain questions depending on previous choices. The survey was piloted by all members of
the research team and members of the advisory group (n = 17).
Section A covered demographic information and personal intersectional characteris-
tics of the respondents relating to factors such as geographical location, nationality, age,
gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The aim of including these questions was
to capture the demographic profile of sign language interpreters and translators in the
United Kingdom, and to consider how diversity in the SLTI profession might extend to
other intersectional characteristics.
Section B focused on respondents’ linguistic and cultural profile, with a specific inter-
est in identifying how many SLTIs were heritage or new signers, and their relationship
with the deaf community. This has been highlighted as an important aspect that contrib-
utes to the standing and perception of (particularly hearing) interpreters as allies who
recognise their role in the wider social justice landscape, rather than simply as language
technicians (Hall et al., 2016).
Section C concentrated on respondents’ current professional status as interpreters/
translators, and was dedicated to understanding the qualification and registration status
of respondents and their workload, as well as exploring what (if any) career breaks they
126 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

had taken, and their career history. Taking into account the Covid-19 pandemic, we also
asked about the proportion of interpreting work carried out online before and during the
pandemic.
Section D focused on respondents’ professional and training background. Section E
sought to create an overview of respondents’ work patterns: the main region(s) in which
they work, their main areas of work (BSL-English translation, BSL-English interpreting,
deafblind/visual frame interpreting, etc.). In this article, we focus on the results from
Sections A—C to consider key themes of diversity and representation in the profile of the
SLTI profession.

3.2 Survey administration and participant recruitment

The first round of the online survey was made open to the UK SLTI population for 2 weeks
between 1 and 14 February 2021. An invitation to participate in the survey was presented
in BSL and in English, and posted on the ASLI UK webpage.9 Although the questionnaire
was only available in English, SLTI professionals were offered the opportunity to engage
in the survey in BSL through one-to-one interviews with a member of the research team.
However, nobody took up this offer. In response to feedback, four members of the research
team held a BSL question-answer session on 10 February 2021, in which SLTI practition-
ers could raise questions or concerns about answering the census.
Using network and snowball sampling techniques (Cresswell, 2013), the invitation
was disseminated through the membership and registration databases of the advisory
group organisational members, as well as through the research team and using video
graphics via various social media networks. In total, 822 respondents began the question-
naire with 690 completing it in full. It is not possible to determine the exact size of the
population as the SLTI profession is not regulated in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless,
based on the largest number of registrants with the NRCPD, the potential sample popula-
tion was estimated to be 1,600 practitioners. This suggests maximally a 43% response
rate. According to Babbie (1990), a survey return rate from 50% of the potential sample
population is adequate, 60% is good, and 70% is very good. However, for sampling
organisations or professional groups, a response rate of 35.7% is considered good
(Baruch & Holtom, 2008). From this perspective, the response rate of 43% for this SLTI
survey can be considered acceptable.

3.3 Survey analysis

An initial descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to summarise the responses to
each question and create heat maps. This provided a snapshot of the general demographic
profile of the SLTI profession with sufficient granularity while maintaining the anonym-
ity of respondents.
To understand any significant relationships within the data, Pearson’s chi-square
analysis was used to explore relationships between female and male respondents,
Black/minority ethnic and White respondents, and respondents who identified as les-
bian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (questioning), intersex, asexual, and LGBTQIA+
and heterosexual with respect to (1) part-time versus full-time work and (2) caring
responsibilities.
Napier et al. 127

Figure 1. Number of Respondents by UK Regions.

4. Results
Here we present descriptive statistics to summarise response rates, and inferential statis-
tics when statistical significance can be observed. The results focus on the 690 fully
completed census responses.

4.1 Section A: General demographics

The majority of SLTI survey respondents were based in England (98.13%). Figure 1
provides a further breakdown of respondents by UK regions. Greater London (18.4%)
was the most populated region, followed by the South-East (11.88%) and Scotland
(11.88%).
When looking at the distribution of deaf SLTIs (n = 25) across the United Kingdom,
Greater London appeared to be the most populous (n = 7), followed by the Northeast
(n = 3) and Southwest (n = 3). The census did not surface any deaf SLTIs based in the
East of England.
128 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Table 2. Nationality.

National ID Total %
British 199 28.84
English 179 25.94
Welsh 12 1.73
Northern Irish 8 1.15
Scottish 3 0.43
Prefer not to say 52 7.53
British/English/Welsh/Scottish mix 187 27.1
British/English/Welsh/Scottish + self-describe 26 3.76
Not listed & prefer to self-describe 24 3.47
Grand total 690

As a whole, 93.75% of respondents were born in the United Kingdom. When compar-
ing the SLTI census data with Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, roughly 86%
of the general UK population were born in the United Kingdom, whereas 14% were born
overseas (5% European Union [EU] 27 nationals and 9% non-EU) showing less diversity
than the general populace.10 This low level of diversity also exists within the deaf prac-
titioner population, where all but one were born in the United Kingdom. The nationality
data are comparable with country of birth data, where the majority identify as having
British heritage (Table 2).
Continuing with the theme of nationality and heritage, most SLTIs identified as
“white” (89.5%). The lack of ethnic diversity was again observed within the deaf practi-
tioner group, where the majority were also White (88%). Table 3 provides a more detailed
look at the ethnic diversity (or lack thereof) of SLTIs. Of the respondents with a mixed
ethnicity, the largest number of responses noted were for Black Caribbean.
At the time of completing the survey, the oldest respondent was 76 years of age (year
of birth, 1945) and the youngest respondent was 18 years of age (year of birth, 2003). The
median year was 1977 (about 44 years old), and the mode year 1973 (about 48 years old).
In recognition of the varied conceptualisations and self-descriptions of gender and
non-gendered identities, the SLTI census offered more than the traditional binary options.
This is one example where the SLTI census deviated from the 2011 census; however, it
is expected that the 2021 census will produce comparable data. In total, the majority
identified as female (82.08%), with 16.81% identifying as male, 0.43% as nonbinary/
genderqueer, and 0.28% as transgender. The female–male balance is consistent with
other large-scale surveys on the SLTI profession. A total of 679 out of 690 respondents
identified with the sex registered at their birth.
Unlike the gender imbalance described for hearing SLTIs, the deaf SLTI population
was more balanced, with 60% females and 40% males. This finding is similar to the
results reported in the ASLI DIN survey (Allardyce et al., 2013). For the question “Is the
gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?,” 100% of the deaf
practitioners answered “yes.”
Although they may not represent the specific demographics of UK deaf communi-
ties, the groupings of SLTIs seem broadly representative of the wider population. An
Napier et al. 129

Table 3. Ethnicity (Subgrouped).

Ethnicity Total %
Black Caribbean 16 2.3
Black African/Caribbean+ 14 2.0
South/East Asian+ 10 1.4
South Asian 7 1.0
East Asian 5 0.7
Black African 4 0.6
Arab, Middle East and North Africa+ 2 0.3
Latin American 2 0.3
White, Black, Asian, Arab/Middle East, Latin American 1 0.1

interesting point to note is that the second and third largest categories are reversed when
comparing the wider UK population and SLTIs.
In terms of sexuality, the ONS 2018 data found that 94.6% of the UK population
(aged 16 years or above) identified as heterosexual (SLTI = 80.14%). According to the
ONS, 2.2% of the UK population identified as LGBTQIA+, while our data report a
figure seven times higher as 14.49% of the SLTI profession. This confirms anecdotal
reports of there being a higher proportion of LGBTQIA+ within the SLTI profession
when compared with the general population.
The majority of respondents (536, that is, 77.68%) indicated that they did not have a
disability or mental health condition, whereas 24 (3.47%) abstained. In total, the survey
produced 64 types of disability and mental health conditions from the 125 (18.11%) who
reported having a disability or mental health condition.11 The largest number of these
respondents (50/7.24%) identified as having a mental health condition. The second largest
group, 35 (5.07%), identified as having “stamina or breathing fatigue.” Other trends
included 26 (3.78%) mobility conditions (e.g., walking short distances or climbing stairs),
and 20 (2.89%) dexterity conditions (e.g., lifting or carrying objects, using a keyboard).
Potential issues with the phrasing of the SLTI census question, “Do you have a physi-
cal or mental health condition or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?”
was raised by one respondent. It was explained how being neurodivergent does not neces-
sarily mean having a physical or mental health condition. It is possible the phrasing of this
question did not inspire those who were neurodivergent to respond. A total of 12 (1.73%)
respondents indicated they had a “social or behavioural” condition (e.g., conditions asso-
ciated with attention deficit disorder or autism spectrum disorder).
We sought to understand how many SLTIs had caring duties, either for their own
children, or for another child or adult requiring their committed support. In total, 390
respondents (56.5%) indicated that they were parents, with 184 respondents (26.6%)
having one or more children under the age of 12 years. In addition, 167 (24.2%) con-
firmed they had official unpaid caring duties for an adult or child.
Pearson’s chi-square analyses showed that there is no significant difference in the prev-
alence of caring responsibilities between male and female respondents, χ2(1) = 0.199,
p = .655, between respondents who were White or from minority ethnic groups, χ2(1) = 0.235,
p = .628, or between heterosexual and LGBTQIA+ respondents, χ2(1) = 0.196, p = .658
(see Table 4).
130 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Table 4. Caring Responsibilities by Characteristics.

No caring responsibilities Caring responsibilities

Female 476 153
Male 100 29
Minority ethnic 71 20
White 508 163
LGBTQIA+ 102 30
Heterosexual 461 150

LGBTQIA: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (questioning), intersex, asexual, and (agender).

Table 5. Comparing Wider Population and SLTIs on Religion.

ONS 2011 (%) SLTIs (%)

Non-religious 25 51
Christian 59 38
Muslim 5 1.5%a

SLTI: sign language translator and interpreter; ONS: Office for National Statistics.
aLess than 1.5% of SLTIs reported being Jehovah Witness, Sikh, Jewish or Buddhist.

Comparing the SLTI data with ONS (2011) figures for England and Wales, we see
some interesting differences with regard to religion, as more SLTIs reported being non-
religious than the wider population (see Table 5).
Interestingly, the ONS data reveal that those who identified as non-religious tended to
be White, British, and under the age of 50 years. These variables describe the majority of
SLTIs who responded to this census.

4.2 Section B: Linguistic and cultural profile

As expected, the majority of respondents were hearing (92.5%), with a minority identi-
fying as deaf or hard-of-hearing (4%). A few respondents either abstained from this
question, or opted to self-define as being hearing but feeling culturally deaf because
they grew up in the deaf community.
Traditionally, when asking SLTIs whether they have family and/or personal ties to the
deaf community, this has been taken to mean whether they have deaf parents. This census
broadened the focus to include extended family members, non-biological relatives, and
partners. More than two-thirds of respondents (69.1%) had no family or personal connec-
tions with the deaf community. Table 6 provides a breakdown of the 213 respondents who
have a deaf family or personal connection.
The majority of deaf SLTIs came from a signing background (n = 17). Nearly half of
this sub-population were in a relationship with another deaf signing person (48%). One-
third (32%) were heritage signers. All of those who reported having deaf parents also
had other deaf signing relatives. The number of deaf SLTIs who were new signers rep-
resented only a third of the deaf SLTI population (n = 8, 32%).
Napier et al. 131

Table 6. SLTI Deaf Signing Connections.

Deaf BSL connection Total %

Mother & father 81 11.7
Mother father+ 50 7.2
A mother or father 6 0.9
Siblings 34 4.9
Siblings+ 9 1.3
Other family/personal connections 80 11.6
Grand total 213 30.9

SLTI: sign language translator and interpreter; BSL: British Sign Language.

Considering that most of the respondents were “hearing British” with no family or
personal connection with deaf signing communities, it is not surprising that the majority
(84.2%) identified English as their preferred language. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of deaf
SLTI practitioners considered both English and BSL as their preferred language. A few
considered BSL (n = 4) or English (n = 3) as their “preferred language.” The other “pre-
ferred language” included three signed languages (Irish Sign Language, Swedish Sign
Language, Australian Sign Language) for deaf SLTIs, and five spoken languages (French,
German, Nigerian, Spanish and Welsh) for hearing SLTIs.12
The majority (87.8%) of SLTIs did not know another signed language. One third of
those who did know another signed language were deaf SLTIs (n = 16). The most com-
mon “other signed languages” were International Sign (n = 13), ASL (n = 12), Auslan
(n = 10), ISL (n = 9), and deafblind communication (n = 6).
The majority of SLTIs only knew English as part of their written/spoken language
profile (at 82.6%). The knowledge of another spoken/written language was more
diverse than other signed languages, with a combined list of 36 different spoken/writ-
ten languages. The most popular languages were European languages: French (n = 30),
Spanish (n = 30), and German (n = 21). Less frequent responses included (in no par-
ticular order) Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Jamaican Patois, Italian, Arabic, Welsh,
and Hindi.

4.3 Section C: Registration and employment

In the United Kingdom, there are three national registration bodies. The majority of
respondents were registered with NRCPD (90.4%), followed by RBSLI (3.9%) and
SRLPDC (3.6%). Some respondents (n = 61, 8.8%) are registered with more than one
organisation. Approximately 85% have fully qualified status (interpreters and translators
combined), whereas 13.5% are trainee interpreters. The remaining 1.5% were lipspeak-
ers, notetakers, or deafblind communicators.
SLTIs were asked to note their official working languages (those that they are quali-
fied to interpret between). While some respondents were multilingual, most responded
that English and BSL were their working languages (Table 7).
The majority (46%) of SLTI professionals work full-time in a self-employed capacity,
followed by those who were part-time and self-employed (38.6%) (see Table 8). Nearly
132 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Table 7. Official Working Languages.

Official working languages Total %

English 667 47.85
British Sign Language 683 49.00
Irish Sign Language 3 0.22
Australian Sign Language (Auslan) 8 0.57
American Sign Language 4 0.29
French Sign Language 2 0.14
International Sign Language 11 0.79
Other official working languages 16 1.15
Total 1394

Table 8. Employment Status According to Characteristics.

Part-time Full-time
Female 257 324
Male 29 92
Minority ethnic 32 50
White 254 365
LGBTQIA+ 40 77
Heterosexual 239 330

LGBTQIA: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (questioning), intersex, asexual, and (agender).

a quarter of the latter subgroup also worked in another employed position (51 part-time
and 7 full-time). Only three deaf SLTIs worked in a full-time employed position. Twenty
deaf SLTIs are self-employed, whereas 10 are full-time.
Pearson’s chi-square analysis showed that females are significantly more likely than
males to work part-time, χ2(1) = 17.038, p > .001. Analysis of relative risk suggested that
females are approximately 85% more likely (almost twice as likely) as males to work
part-time. Pearson’s chi-square analysis revealed that there is no significant difference in
the prevalence of part-time versus full-time work between respondents who are from
minority ethnic backgrounds and White respondents, χ2(1) = 0.121, p = .728, or between
heterosexual and LGBTQIA+ respondents, χ2(1) = 2.457, p = .117.
We found that 10% of the respondents had taken a career break, ranging in duration
from 3 months to 204 months (17 years). The mode was 12 months. (Many commented
that this break was maternity leave, and some had taken maternity leave more than once).

5. Limitations of the study

Before we conclude, there are some limitations to the study worth noting. The ideal
would have been to make the survey available in both BSL and English. Creating bilin-
gual/multilingual surveys in written languages is already a complex process (Sha & Pan,
2013), and creating a bilingual survey in a signed and written language using video
Napier et al. 133

technology is even more challenging, although not insurmountable (Bosch-Baliarda

et al., 2019; Lucas et al., 2013; Napier et al., 2018). For the purposes of this study, budg-
etary and time constraints precluded a bilingual survey. The offer of completing the
survey in BSL was also not taken up. This could have been because SLTIs all felt confi-
dent to respond in English, because they did not want to bring attention to the fact they
would rather complete the questionnaire in BSL, or because they were concerned about
lack of anonymity if they responded in BSL, or because they work between BSL and
English they were comfortable answering questions in English. In any case, it should be
acknowledged that because the questionnaire could only be answered in written English,
this might have deterred deaf SLTIs from participating in the survey. Furthermore, while
SLTIs are required to work between English and BSL, NRCPD have now introduced a
new category of Intralingual Relay Interpreters, where deaf interpreters will not be
required to work between BSL and English. Therefore, it is imperative that any future
census surveys are offered in both English and BSL.
We received 690 complete responses, giving a 43% response rate from a population
of 1,600. Ideally, in survey research terms, this should have been higher. However, as
noted in the introduction, this is to date the largest sample of SLTIs surveyed in the
United Kingdom. For any future census, it is suggested that allowing a longer period for
completion of the questionnaire and making a version available in BSL may encourage
more practitioners to respond. Having a baseline description from this census provides a
point of comparison for future data collection. These data have also documented who are
present, visible, and well represented within the profession, and uncovered those who are
absent, unseen, or peripheral.
Despite piloting the survey instrument, analysis of the data revealed that some ques-
tions should have been reworded to elicit data more accurately. (For example, for the
question asking about other sign languages, many respondents listed BSL when we really
wanted to elicit sign languages other than BSL. Also, the question asking about physical
and mental health conditions may have inadvertently excluded neurodiversity.)
This final point ties into what kinds of questions a census should contain and the
compromises that need to be made when selecting certain topics or questions. We recom-
mend that ASLI commissions a census every 5 years to see how far-reaching and long-
lasting the recommendations we make are, and what impact, if any, the changes have on
the demographic make-up of the SLTI profession. Such a census should include more
options for Northern Ireland, as well as new questions related to updated registration
categories, available training programmes, post-pandemic working, and patterns of
remote working and training needs. There also needs to be a BSL translation of the cen-
sus survey instrument.

6. Conclusions
The national census of SLTI practitioners has provided the opportunity to examine the
current demographic profile of practitioners with regard to diversity and representation
in the profession, the results of which will assist future recruitment, mentoring and pro-
fessional development plans for key stakeholder organisations.
In sum, the census data reveal that the typical SLTI practitioner in the United Kingdom
is a non-religious hearing 44-year-old White British heterosexual woman, with caring
134 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

responsibilities, who is self-employed, hails from England, works predominantly as an

interpreter (more so than as a translator), has qualified through the academic or voca-
tional training system (or a combination of both), is registered with NRCPD and is a
member of ASLI. One characteristic that is higher in proportion than the wider popula-
tion is the representation of SLTI professionals who identify as LGBTQIA+. This is a
positive story of representation. Comparison with ONS figures shows similar percent-
ages for some ethnic backgrounds, so the SLTI profession is representative for some
intersectional characteristics, but others are still under-represented.
Despite Brien et al.’s (2002, 2004) call for recruitment of SLTI trainees to include
more men, people from different minority ethnic groups, deaf and disabled people, we
have only seen minor shifts in the last two decades. Brien et al. predicted a drop in male
SLTI professionals, but this has not been the case. The presence of male SLTIs has been
maintained, but, in line with the nursing profession, the SLTI profession could take steps
to “degender” the profession (Sasa, 2019), to increase the proportion of men.
There has been a marginal increase in the number of SLTI professionals from ethnic
minorities, but not in sufficient numbers to lead to an appropriately diverse professional
profile. This may be due to a number of reasons, including the fact that potential SLTI
professionals do not see enough ethnic diversity among existing interpreters and inter-
preter educators to attract them into the profession (Obasi, 2013; Sikder, 2019). There is
a danger that the SLTI profession will become further institutionalised as a White profes-
sion if steps are not taken to actively change this profile. Interestingly, SLTI practitioner
representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is the reverse of the wider population,
in that Black interpreters are the second largest group, followed by Asian interpreters.
So, although active recruitment of Black interpreters is needed, particular effort should
be made to recruit interpreters from Asian and other ethnic minorities.
There has also been a marginal increase in the number of deaf SLTI practitioners, and
this subgroup evidences a more balanced gender profile. However, the proportion of deaf
practitioners is very small and mostly concentrated in London. Although it is known that
deaf people have practised as interpreters and translators informally for many years
(Adam et al., 2014), a concerted effort clearly needs to be made to recruit more deaf
people into the profession throughout the country, to provide more balance, particularly
in terms of ethnic minority representation, as all but one of the 25 deaf census respond-
ents were White. An increase in the number of registered deaf practitioners to date is
positive, and now that the NRCPD has introduced a new deaf (relay-intralingual) inter-
preters’ registration category, this may attract more deaf people into the profession as
they can opt to register as an interpreter or translator.13 However, the training options for
deaf practitioners are very limited (evidenced by the fact that most completed a voca-
tional programme to achieve their qualification), which may continue to impact on
recruitment if the availability of deaf SLTI training programmes does not change in the
foreseeable future. At present, there is only one academic programme in the United
Kingdom, offered by the University of Wolverhampton, that is mapped against the
National Occupational Standards and approved by NRCPD for SLTI registration for deaf
practitioners.14
There appears to have been a positive shift in the number of SLTI practitioners who
identify as having some form of disability, but this is difficult to say for sure as this is the
first time that such a question has been asked directly (apart from Lamb, 2020 survey
Napier et al. 135

specifically targeted at neurodivergent SLTI practitioners). Brien et al. (2002) suggested

that there was an under-representation of disabled people in the profession but did not
specifically report on any data. Since our census also included deaf practitioners, it may
be that some deaf respondents would identify as having a disability on the basis of their
deaf status. Nevertheless, given the increasing awareness in society of intersectional
characteristics that make up a person’s identity,15 and a broader recognition of disability
and neurodiversity as intersectional characteristics, it is possible that SLTI practitioners
feel more comfortable nowadays to disclose their disabled or neurodivergent status. This
proposition needs to be checked and compared again at a future point in time.
The number of SLTI practitioners who are heritage signers or who come from signing
backgrounds is higher than that reported in previous surveys, although this census does
not just report respondents that have deaf parents but rather all People from Deaf Families
(PDF) (Napier, 2021). This census also includes deaf practitioners, whereas previous sur-
veys have focused on hearing interpreters only. This may skew the findings of a higher
number of PDF respondents for this survey, since many deaf SLTI respondents have deaf
family members. Nevertheless, this is a positive shift. That they would have had frequent/
many experiences of sign language brokering when they were young could have been a
natural precursor pathway into the profession (Napier, 2017). It has been noted, however,
that sign language interpreter training programmes are more geared towards “new sign-
ers” who can enrol in programmes with no sign language background (Williamson, 2016).
Anecdotally, there are many reports of high levels of attrition of heritage signers from
training programmes (especially from academic programmes), which needs to be taken
into consideration in future planning for recruitment and training. In the United Kingdom,
there is now one new qualifying interpreter training programme targeted specifically at
hearing heritage signers.16
From our data, hearing interpreters tend to be concentrated in London and the South-
East, and in areas closer to current or former academic training programmes (Birmingham,
Edinburgh and Bristol), that is, they are more likely to stay in the area after graduating.
By contrast, most deaf practitioners are located in London. Given the shift to remote
working reported by UK respondents to this census, and from SLTI practitioners in other
international locations since the pandemic (De Meulder et al., 2021), geographical loca-
tion may be less of an issue if the “new normal” for post-pandemic SLTI provision
involves a hybrid of face-to-face interactions and online work.
In revisiting the aim and objectives of this census, we see that a baseline description
of the SLTI workforce is that the profession is becoming more diverse and representative
of the wider population, but overall is still a White, female, profession. The intersectional
experiences of SLTI practitioners have a bearing on their profile, but more effort needs
to be made to recruit a more diverse workforce. As such, we make the following recom-
mendations for stakeholder organisations:

1. SLTI registration bodies and the NUBSLI to establish policies and targets, with
targeted outreach for registration categories that include SLTIs with diverse char-
acteristics reflecting the wider UK population.
2. SLTI membership organisations (namely ASLI, Visual Language Professionals
[VLP], Scottish Collaborative of Sign Language Interpreters [SCOSLI], IOCN,
DIN) to work with the Association of British Sign Language Tutors and Assessors
136 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

(ABSLTA) to engage with all BSL training providers, to promote the SLTI pro-
fession to BSL students from diverse backgrounds (including ethnic minorities,
LGBTQIA+, men, deaf, and disabled).
3. SLTI membership organisations to engage with all training providers to support
recruitment strategies into training programmes for students from diverse
backgrounds.
4. SLTI membership organisations to work with ABSLTA and BSL teachers, as well
as representative deaf ethnic minorities organisations and hearing ethnic minorities
organisations in regions where there are higher populations of ethnic minorities in
the wider and deaf communities (in particular London, Glasgow, the Midlands, and
North West England), to target BSL classes and deaf community networks for
recruitment of BSL learners/users from ethnic minorities.
5. SLTI membership organisations to work with SLTI agencies to develop policies
and targets for booking interpreters and translators, to ensure representation of
practitioners with diverse characteristics, particularly practitioners from ethnic
minorities or who are deaf; and to ensure a gender balance in high-status work.
6. Registration bodies to require interpreters and translators to evidence some level
of engagement with diversity and inclusion issues as part of their annual
Continuing Professional Development requirements.
7. All stakeholder organisations to ensure that marketing materials feature inter-
sectional representation in photos/videos of people who are ethnic minorities,
deaf, or disabled, and that these materials reflect a balance of gendered
characteristics.
8. SLTI membership organisations to work with British Association of Teachers of
the Deaf (BATOD) in engaging with teachers of the deaf, to promote the SLTI
profession as a career choice to deaf students.
9. BSL and interpreter training programme educators and SLTI membership organi-
sations to use visual materials and case studies that feature intersectional repre-
sentation of people from ethnic minorities, or who are deaf or disabled, and to
balance gender in any training materials.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to data scientist, Dr Ixone Sáenz Paraíso, who assisted with creation of the heat maps,
and the Advisory Group members for their support throughout the project in devising the census
questions, disseminating the call for participation and giving feedback on the recommendations.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Association of Sign Language
Interpreters UK, with in-kind contributions from Heriot-Watt University, the University of
Wolverhampton, and the University of the West of Scotland.
Napier et al. 137

ORCID iD
Jemina Napier https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6283-5810

Notes
1. As per the recommendation by Kusters et al. (2017), we use “deaf” as a generic term, making
no judgement about the linguistic identity or status of deaf people who use a sign language,
and avoid the use of the now outdated convention of using “Deaf” to signify cultural signing
community members.
2. See https://www.nrcpd.org.uk.
3. Now known as two separate organisations: Signature, the awarding body for BSL qualifications
(https://www.signature.org.uk) and the National Register for Communication Professionals
with Deaf People (NRCPD), the voluntary regulator of BSL/English interpreters and trans-
lators, lipspeakers, notetakers, speech-to-text reporters, and deafblind interpreters UK-wide
(https://www.nrcpd.org.uk).
4. Now known as two separate organisations: the Scottish Register for Language Professionals
with the Deaf Community (SRLPDC), the voluntary regulator of BSL/English interpreters
and translators, lipspeakers, notetakers, speech-to-text reporters, and deafblind interpreters in
Scotland (https://thescottishregister.co.uk), and the Scottish Collaborative of Sign Language
Interpreters, a membership organisation to support Scottish interpreters’ professional devel-
opment (SCOSLI), (https://www.scosli.org).
5. First, at Durham and Bristol, both middle-class institutions, followed by Heriot-Watt
University, the University of Wolverhampton, and the University of Central Lancashire
(UCLan) who traditionally have reached a broader demographic.
6. Developed by CILT: The National Centre for Languages, see: http://wiki.secteuretablisse-
ment.org/uploads/UK-National_Occupational_Standards_for_Interpreting.pdf.
7. The term “ethnic minorities” is used throughout this report to capture the characteristics of
translators and interpreters, as per UK Government Race Disparity Unit convention: https://
civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2019/07/08/please-dont-call-me-bame-or-bme/.
8. Not translation, as that was not previously available as a registration qualification. The
NRCPD was the first registration body to introduce a translator registration category, with the
first person to officially register in 2012.
9. See https://asli.org.uk/sign-language-translators-and-interpreter-census-2021/.
10. This figure was based on 2019 ONS data, which has remained stable since 2017.
11. The complete list is too long to share in this article.
12. The respondent did not specify which of the many different indigenous languages of Nigeria
they knew.
13. See https://www.nrcpd.org.uk/NRCPD-updates.php?article=234. This category was not avail-
able at the time the census was launched so we do not have any data for deaf practitioners in
this category.
14. See https://www.wlv.ac.uk/courses/ma-interpreting/.
15. See https://medium.com/dna-s-blog/identity-beyond-disability-3d59d19b1dad.
16. See https://www.bslfirst.com/idp-hs.

References
Adam, R., Aro, M., Druetta, J. C., Dunne, S., & Klintberg, J. (2014). Deaf interpreters: An intro-
duction. In R. Adam, C. Stone, S. D. Collins, & M. Metzger (Eds.), Deaf interpreters at work:
International insights (pp. 1–18). Gallaudet University Press.
Allardyce, C., Anderson, S., Canton, C., Marshall, D., & Simmonds, S. (2013). Survey of deaf trans-
lators and interpreters [Unpublished report]. ASLI Deaf Interpreter Network.
138 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
Bosch-Baliarda, M., Soler Vilageliu, O., & Orero, P. (2019). Toward a sign language-friendly
questionnaire design. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 24(4), 333–345.
Brien, D., Brown, R., & Collins, J. (2002). The organisation and provision of British Sign
Language/English interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales. A study carried out on
behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions [Unpublished research report]. University
of Durham.
Brien, D., Brown, R., & Collins, J. (2004). Some recommendations regarding the provision and
organisation of British Sign Language/English interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales.
Deaf Worlds, 20(1), 6–60.
Butler-Henderson, K., Gray, K., Greenfield, D., Low, S., Gilbert, C., Ritchie, A., Trujillo, M.,
Bennett, V., Brophy, J., & Schaper, L. (2017). The development of a national census of the
health information workforce: Expert panel recommendations. Studies in Health Technology
and Informatics, 239, 8–13.
Chapple, R., Bridwell, B., & Gray, K. (2021). Exploring intersectional identity in Black Deaf
women: The complexity of the lived experience in college. Affilia, 36(4), 571–592.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory,
applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810.
Corfmat, P. (1990). Please sign here: Insights into the world of the deaf. Churchman.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago
Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Cresswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). SAGE.
De Meulder, M. (2018). “So, why do you sign?” Deaf and hearing new signers, their motivation,
and revitalisation policies for sign languages. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 705–724.
De Meulder, M., Pouliot, O., & Gebruers, K. (2021). Remote sign language interpreting in times
of Covid-19 [Unpublished research report]. Utrecht University of Applied Sciences. https://
www.hu.nl/onderzoek/publicaties/remote-sign-language-interpreting-in-times-of-covid-19
Emery, S., & Iyer, S. (2022). Deaf migration through an intersectionality lens. Disability &
Society, 37(1), 89–110.
Hall, W., Holcomb, T., & Elliott, M. (2016). Using popular education with the oppressor class:
Suggestions for sign language interpreter education. Critical Education, 7(13). http://ojs.
library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186129
Kusters, A., O’Brien, D., & De Meulder, M. (2017). Innovations in deaf studies: Critically
mapping the field. In A. Kusters, M. De Meulder & D. O’Brien (Eds.), Innovations in deaf
studies: The role of deaf scholars (pp.1–53). Palgrave.
Lamb, V. (2020). Brain game. NEWSLI: Magazine of the Association of Sign Language Interpreters
UK, 114, 22–27.
Leigh, I., & O’Brien, C. (Eds.). (2020). Deaf identities: Exploring new frontiers. Oxford University
Press.
Lucas, C., Mirus, G., Palmer, J., Roessler, N., & Frost, A. (2013). The effect of new technologies
on sign language research. Sign Language Studies, 13(4), 541–564.
Mapson, R. (2014). Who are we? NEWSLI: Magazine of the Association of Sign Language
Interpreters UK, 87, 13–15.
Napier et al. 139

Mapson, R., Crawley, V., & Waddell, Y. (2019). British Sign Language interpreting in Scotland:
A landscape review [Unpublished research report]. Queen Margaret University.
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and
Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilin-
guals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.
McCartney, J. L. (2017). Sign language interpreting as a social justice profession. Caribbean
Curriculum, 25, 79–96.
Middleton, S., Gardner, G., Gardner, A., & Della, P. (2011). The status of Australian nurse practi-
tioners: The second census. Australian Health Review, 35, 448–454.
Middleton, S., Gardner, G., Gardner, A., Della, P., Gibb, M., & Millar, L. (2010). The first
Australian nurse practitioner census: A protocol to guide standardised collection of informa-
tion about an emergent professional group. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 16,
517–524.
Napier, J. (1998). Free your mind—The rest will follow. Deaf Worlds, 14(3), 15–22.
Napier, J. (2017). Not just child’s play: Exploring bilingualism and language brokering as a precur-
sor to the development of expertise as a professional sign language interpreter. In R. Antonini,
L. Cirillo, L. Rossato, & I. Torresi (Eds.), Non-professional interpreting and translation:
State of the art and future of an emerging field of research (pp. 381–409). John Benjamins.
Napier, J. (2021). Sign language brokering in deaf-hearing families. Palgrave.
Napier, J., Lloyd, K., Skinner, R., Turner, G. H., & Wheatley, M. (2018). Using video technology
to engage deaf sign language users in survey research: An example from the Insign project.
International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research, 10(2), 101–121.
Napier, J., Skinner, R., Young, A., & Oram, R. (2017). Mediating identities: Sign language inter-
preter perceptions on trust and representation. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional
Practice, 14(1), 75–95.
Napier, J., Young, A., Oram, R., & Skinner, R. (2019). “When I speak people look at me”: British
deaf signers’ use of bimodal translanguaging strategies and the representation of identities.
Journal of Translation and Translanguagingin Multilingual Contexts, 5(2), 95–120.
National Union of BSL Interpreters. (2015). Survey of BSL interpreters’ working conditions. National
Union of BSL Interpreters.
Obasi, C. (2007). Sign language interpreting in higher education: A period of progress? In
L. Barnes, F. J. Harrington, J. Williams, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Deaf students in higher
education: Current research and practice (pp. 202–215). Douglas McLean.
Obasi, C. (2013). Race and ethnicity in sign language interpreter education, training and practice.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 103–120.
Obasi, C. (2022). Identity, language and culture: Using Africanist Sista-hood and Deaf cultural
discourse in research with minority social workers. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 353–368.
ONS. (2011). 2011 Census Data. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011
Parkins-Maliko, N. (2022). Intersectionality of the sign language interpreter identity: An African
perspective. In C. Stone, R. Adam, C. Rathmann, & R. Müller de Quadros (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of sign language translation & interpreting. Routledge.
Pollitt, K. (2000). On babies, bathwater and approaches to interpreting. Deaf Worlds, 16, 60–64.
Sasa, R. (2019). Male nurse: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 54(4), 593–600.
Scott-Gibson, L. (1991). Sign language interpreting: An emerging profession. In S. Gregory & G.
Hartley (Eds.), Constructing deafness (pp. 253–258). Pinter in association with The Open
University.
Sha, M., & Pan, Y. (2013). Adapting and improving methods to manage cognitive pretesting of
multilingual survey instruments. Survey Practice, 6(4), 1–8.
Sikder, A. (2019). Power down. NEWSLI: Magazine of the Association of Sign Language
Interpreters UK, 109, 8–12.
140 Interpreting and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2(2)

Simpson, S. (2007). Advance to an ideal: The fight to raise the standard of communication between
deaf and hearing people. Scottish Workshop Publications.
Stone, C. (2008). Whose interpreter is she anyway? In C. B. Roy (Ed.), Diversity and community
in the worldwide sign language interpreting profession: Proceedings of the second WASLI
Conference, Segovia, Spain, July 2007 (pp. 75–88). Douglas McLean.
Stone, C. (2012). Interpreting. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An
international handbook (pp. 980–997). De Gruyter.
Townsend-Handscomb, D. (2015). Survey of BSL/English interpreters’ working conditions
(2015–2016) [Unpublished research report]. National Union of BSL Interpreters.
Townsend-Handscomb, D. (2017). Survey of BSL/English interpreters’ working conditions (2017)
[Unpublished research report]. National Union of BSL Interpreters.
Treanor, S. (2009). 2011 census question testing: The national identity question [Unpublished
research report]. Ipsos MORI.
Turner, G. H. (2020). How many people use British Sign Language? Scotland’s 2011 census and
the demographic politics of disability and linguistic identity. In J. Kopaczyk & R. McColl
Millar (Eds.), Language on the move across domains and communities. Selected papers from
the 12th Triennial Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster, Glasgow
2018 (pp. 37–70). Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster.
Williamson, A. (2016). Lost in the shuffle: Deaf-parented interpreters and their paths to interpret-
ing careers. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 8(1), 4–22.
Young, A., Napier, J., & Oram, R. (2019). The translated deaf self, ontological (in)security and
deaf culture. The Translator, 25(4), 349–368.

Biographies
Jemina Napier is a practising sign language interpreter and chair of Intercultural Communication at
Heriot-Watt University, where she teaches interpreting students at undergraduate and postgraduate
level and supervises PhD students on a range of topics related to interpreting.
Robert Skinner is a practising sign language interpreter and assistant professor in languages and
intercultural studies at Heriot-Watt University where he teaches interpreting students at under-
graduate level.
Robert Adam is a practising sign language interpreter and translator and associate professor in
languages and intercultural studies at Heriot-Watt University where he teaches interpreting stu-
dents at undergraduate and postgraduate level and supervises PhD students on a range of topics
related to interpreting and sign language communication.
Christopher Stone is a practising sign language interpreter and reader in translation and interpret-
ing at the University of Wolverhampton, where he teaches interpreting students at undergraduate
and postgraduate level and supervises PhD students on a range of topics related to interpreting and
interpreter education.
Sandra Pratt is a practising sign language interpreter, senior lecturer in deaf studies and interpreting,
and PhD candidate at the University of Wolverhampton, where she teaches interpreting students at
undergraduate and postgraduate level.
Daniel P Hinton is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Wolverhampton where he
teaches undergraduate psychology students and supervises research degrees.
Chijioke Obasi is a previously qualified sign language interpreter and associate professor in gen-
der, equality, and diversity at Coventry University, where she offers various training on equality
and diversity topics. She is also a senior research fellow at the University of the West of Scotland.