Findings and Analysis

6.4.1 The Current Situation and Challenges Identified

According to interview results, conference interpreters in Taiwan still face challenges in several aspects: unsteady workflow; insufficient client education and common misconception ( Seleskovitch, 1978; Tzeng, 1992). In addition, some clients think that it is easy to evaluate the quality of the interpreting services they receive (Kurz, 2001; Moser, 1995; Ru, 1996). Therefore, some clients would have unreasonable demand due to the fact that they do not have a clear understanging of the nature of conference interpreting work. Also, there are no clear professional

standards or rules that practitioners agree upon and no systematic and firm theory base. As a result, the conference interpreting profession is unable to exercise quality control comprehensively and convincingly.

To clients, an evaluation tool that can be easily understood and accepted by layman is absent. This may lead to information asymmetry. Besides, there is no interacting platform for the professionals and the clients. The clients are unable to locate adequate conference interpreters when needed. As reported by some of the interviewees, some clients are reluctant to pay for good quality interpreting. It is impossible for this study to determine the reason why some clients are unwilling to pay higher price for conference interpreters. However, it is possible that clients are reluctant to pay because they do not fully understand the nature of conference interpreters and the level of professional proficiency needed. Furthermore, there is no authority figure to supervise the functioning of the occupation, thus generate a sense of insecurity for clients.

A major challenge for conference interpreters is that the market is quite closed and controlled by senior conference interpreters. Senior interpreters and market mechanism combined function as the quality control system. It is not easy for novice interpreters to obtain job opportunities if they are not referred by active interpreters or peers.

Other situations identified include that the topics of conferences are even more specialized and difficult, conference interpreters have to rely on themselves for job gratification and the difficulty to locate conference interpreters in language combinations other than Chinese-English.

6.4.2 The Impact of Government Accreditation System

Government accreditation can set clear professional standards; become a benchmark for quality evaluation; reduce market chaos; gain public trust, improve professional image, and give interpreters more bargaining power. In addition, government accreditation test is non-exclusive and enjoys higher credibility than tests conducted individually. A neutral and competent authority will be less likely to raise doubts as to the credibility and fairness of the test. And a test open to all will

give potential candidates a chance to enter the conference interpreting market without the referral of veterans. Another advantage of government accreditation is that the design of the accreditation test and the consequent results serve as reference for future research and theory development of the profession.

It is noteworthy that although many participants do agree to the benefits government accreditation can bring, they point out that if the accreditation test is not credible itself, the positive results mentioned above will not be a natural outcome. Furthermore, an accreditation test will not replace school education and market experience. It is only one of the factors that contribute to successful professionalization process.

Participants oppose to the idea of an effective government accreditation test state that the market has not achieved critical mass. This means the demand for conference interpreters is not high enough to sustain a nationwide accreditation test. Besides, a reliable and valid test must have clear aims and standards that are verifiable and theorized. As it is stated in the Regulations for Administration of Skills Certification and Examination Site, occupations lack of the standards of objective evaluations in its knowledge and technique should not be certified. And Professional and Technical Examination requires professions licensed to be “duly-defined professions and technical occupations.” As many of the participants in the T & I schools and conference interpreters sets point out, presently the evaluation of the interpreting test results still largely based on the experiences of senior conference interpreters. Therefore, the conference interpreting profession has not met the requirement set for government accreditation.

Some of the interviewees argue that there is no need to implement an accreditation at all because government accreditation only verifies core-interpreting abilities. Conference interpreting is highly complex and it is not sufficient enough to identify qualified conference interpreter based on the results. Furthermore, T & I schools have already achieved basic quality control. There is no need to implement an extra mechanism.

As for client education, some participants believe that clients reluctant to offer high remuneration will not change their minds because of the accreditation test. Furthermore, conference organizers have been actively involved in client education and made good progress. Government accreditation will have no effect on the situation.

Although the views taken by participants in T & I schools, conference interpreters and conference organizers are divided, all the clients interviewed support the idea of an interpreter accreditation system. However, they do specify the needs to establish clear proficiency test levels, a professional database, continuing education requirements and a supervision system along with the government accreditation test.

As for the initial MOE test held in December 2007, many interviewed expressed doubts in the credibility and are quite reserved as to the final effects.

6.5 Implications

The conference interpreting profession in Taiwan has not yet formed systematic knowledge and clear professional standards. Therefore, it should not be licensed or certified, even if a government accreditation test does answer to the challenges identified by all the groups related to conference interpreting. Without validity, the accreditation system may release unqualified practitioners into the market, and as a consequence impose an incorrect impression upon the general public and damage the professional image of practitioners. Also, when that happens, many of the practitioners would find it hard to defend the charges against them. In conclusion, before the conference interpreting discipline is mature enough, present mechanism will continue to function as the most suitable solution.