Interpreters have been told to be invisible. It turns out to be wrong on many different levels.
What is it about?
For two decades, researchers in interpreting have said that their work proves that the traditional view of interpreters as neutral, invisible conduits is dodgy. In 2016, Uldis Ozolins argued that no-one ever said interpreters should be invisible and that "impartiality" is a better word anyway. This paper counters his argument by pointing out that even though the word "invisible" is rarely used, the view that interpreters should be invisible is common in the profession and no-one knows for sure what "impartiality" means. Once we get that settled, it becomes clear that we need to spend more time examining what interpreters actually do instead of researchers telling them what they should do.
Why is it important?
The arguments put forward by Uldis Ozolins are typical of those used by practitioner-researchers who may feel threatened by research that questions traditional practices and views of interpreting. By showing that we have to take on board what researchers have found, rather than dismissing their arguments based on the use of a single word, this paper encourages researchers to discuss their findings, even when they are controversial and suggests that researchers and practitioners can work together so both do better work.