Professional ethics – do they need future-proofing? On the art of telling things apart

Intro

Discussions about professional ethics in conference interpreting have lately struck me as rather unsatisfactory.

Can we impose our European fees on colleagues from different continents when working remotely?

Can I do two assignments in one day?

Can I just switch on my Computer-Aided Interpreting tools in the booth and have AI listen to the meeting I am interpreting?

Will we be allowed to sell AI-based interpretation to our clients?

These are just some recent examples which have given rise to quite heated discussions on the application of our professional ethics, with remote simultaneous interpreting and AI having brought about substantial technological change.

This is why AIIC Germany’s Western subregion, coordinated by Ina Breuing and Inés de Chavarría, decided to meet in Cologne last November together with students and trainers of the conference interpreting Master’s programme. We collectively reflected on our understanding of professional ethics and how to make them more fit for purpose. To set the scene and give some theoretical background, we invited Jonas Lunte to co-moderate this two-hour workshop with me. Jonas is a member of the Executive Board of the German conference interpreters‘ association, VKD. He has been looking into the topic of professional ethics for VKD recently, so he was the perfect match to guide our discussion.

It has taken me two months to write up something worth calling a summary, and I have finally figured out why: For me at least, this evening was all about telling things apart. What is a question of professional ethics and what isn’t? My impression is that many things are being mixed up here. Luckily, Jonas started off by clarifying the basic concepts, and Morven Beaton-Thome helped to remember others. (If you are up for a deeper dive into this fascinating and complex topic, I recommend this article.)

In this post, I will try to outline the key topics discussed, and the ideas that emerged from our brainstorming sessions, where professionals and students joined in small groups.

 Basic concepts around (professional) ethics

Ethics are the theory and study of morality or moral standards.

Moral standards define what is good or bad, what can harm or benefit people. They cannot be governed by decisions of a particular authority. They go beyond self-interest, are unbiaised and universal.

It can be helpful to think of who our action and the respective standards are directed towards. Is it colleagues, clients, or the profession as a whole?

Economic or other personal considerations are not moral standards.

Digital ethics, as Jonas put it, could provide a moral framework for good conduct in a digital environment.

Deontology and Teleology

Just like in general law, in ethics a deontological interpretation looks at duties and detailed rules, while a teleological interpretation focuses on goals and objectives, thus the consequences of an action rather than the obeyance of rigid rules.

Accordingly, AIIC distinguishes between a Code of professional ethics and Professional standards. The German VKD combines both in one document called Berufs- und Ehrenordnung, which loosely translates as Rules of professional conduct and ethics.

Topics discussed

The group of colleagues present at our get-together in Cologne covered quite a broad age range, from people having graduated in the late eighties to those who were rather new in the profession. Accordingly, our first round of brainstorming was a vivid back and forth on a very diverse range of topics and views. Comments went from people reminiscing about how much better things were in the olden days and how we really need more solidarity to some more upbeat reflections about the many opportunities new tech brings to the profession—like how remote interpreting lets you work more with less (travelling) hassle, and that AI can be a great support in the booth.

Professional domiciles and remote interpreting

Ever since I entered the profession in 2000, the concept of professional domiciles was a much discussed one. Originally, I reckon, it was created to protect ourselves from unfair competition, being undercut, and auto-exploitation. We shouldn‘t compete with local colleagues by travelling to assignments and paying travel expenses from our own pockets, i.e. de facto reducing our interpreting fees. The aim was certainly not the other way around, having ficticious domiciles in order to “lawfully” pay travel expenses from our own pockets and unfairly compete with local colleagues.

In my two professional associations, the respective rules read as follows:

AIIC Professional standards (i.e., not professional ethics!):

Members of the Association shall declare a single professional address. It shall be published in the Association’s list of members […] .

At VKD, it says

Konferenzdolmetscher:innen im BDÜ e. V. verpflichten sich, ihren beruflichen Wohnsitz in das Mitgliederverzeichnis aufnehmen zu lassen. Es kann nur ein Wohnsitz angegeben werden.

With the surge of remote interpreting during Covid, the concept of professional domiciles gained new prominence. Suddenly, for the same meeting, colleagues from low-income countries could provide interpretation services at much lower rates than those from high-income countries. Now, which rates were to apply for a meeting with mixed teams from different regions of the world? Those of the place where the client was based? Or – in case of hybrid meetings – where the meeting was being held? Were colleagues from low-income countries undercutting local rates when working for clients based in regions far away from their own? Or was charging lower fees when working remotely on “high-income territory” perfectly fine, as those colleagues were simply charging the fees that made perfect sense based on their respective cost of living?

The professional domicile being a rather deontological rule, could the topic possibly be approached in a more teleological way? What is the purpose of the concept anyway? Economically speaking, it could be fair competition and adequate/decent/profitable fees. In terms of health and safety, the purpose could be to prevent self-exploitation, for example by working night shifts to serve a client in a different time zone. Or client proximity if it is about knowing the client, context, cultural background and creating relationships based on trust and proximity. And, ultimately, loyalty and solidarity might be invoked as moral principles to justify that we stay clear of certain markets, or clients.

Having such purpose-oriented rules might be a way forward to avoid rigid rules ending up being turned against their own purpose. They would also be applicable to a greater variety of technologial setups, and it would help distinguishing real moral questions from purely commercial – or protectionistic -interests. (Which, by the way, are expressly excluded from matters to be referred to AIIC‘s Disciplinary and Disputes Committee for arbitration).

Using AI for preparation, to help out in the booth, or even as an interpreter replacement

What do our Code of professional ethics or our Professional Standards tell us about the use of AI in interpreting for whichever purpose? Not much so far. The protection of intellectual property, personal data, and sensitive data are of course regulated in laws, legal acts, international conventions, or bilateral non-disclosure agreements. But how to turn law into professional ethics, if at all? Could trustworthiness and transparency be the overarching moral principles? Implying that AI-based or any other tools will be used in a responsible and transparent way, naming the tools that are being used, obtaining prior consent by everyone involved (interpreters and speakers alike), and weighing up risks and benefits, chosing more data-efficient or data-protection compliant options where possible. Or, taking it one step further, self-committing to keeping up to date on the latest developments in order to offer the best possible advice to our clients.

Way forward

From what was brought forward by the different brainstorming groups, a more teleological approach seemed to be the overall preferred way forward. It was suggested to provide generic guidelines and examples for illustration. It was also suggested to put such guidelines in the first person, e.g. “I provide a professional service in accordance with my skills, language competencies and knowledge, and technical means.” A positivity- and consultancy-inspired mindset was also mentioned to be beneficial to the profession.

Long may the debate continue!