Perspectiva de docentes surdos sobre os serviçõs de interpretação de Língua brasileira de sinais nas universidades públicas

Abstract

This dissertation investigates Deaf professors’ perspectives on Brazilian Sign Language (Libras) interpreting services in public universities, with particular attention to interpreting tasks in higher-education settings. The general objective was to examine how Deaf professors evaluate interpreting services in public higher-education institutions, taking as a reference the ethical principles and best-practice standards established for community sign-language interpreting. The theoretical-methodological framework is grounded in the Deaf Translation Norm (Stone, 2009), combined with studies on Deaf professors’ perceptions (Lourenço; Ferreira, 2019; Reis, 2015; Loss, 2016; Holcomb, 2018a, 2018b; Campello, 2017) and contributions from sign-language interpreting studies (Pöchhacker, 2004, 2006; Salvesvsky, 1993; Kade, 1968; Denissenko, 1989; Santos, 2010; Lourenço, 2017, 2018; Weininger, 2022). Discussions on the working relationship between Deaf professionals and interpreters (Hauser; Finch; Hauser, 2008) also inform this work. A signed online questionnaire was developed using the Qualtrics XM platform, based on the ethical principles and best-practice standards from the National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services (HIN, 2007), originally proposed as a guideline for community interpreters in Canada. The instrument consisted of 27 questions designed for Deaf professors’ profiles and was completed by 77 Deaf professors working in public universities across 23 Brazilian states and the Federal District. Additionally, two focus groups were conducted via Zoom, each with five Deaf participants. All sessions were recorded with consent and subsequently transcribed in ELAN for qualitative analysis. The focus-group transcripts were examined using thematic categories anchored in ethical principles of interpreting. The results revealed heterogeneous evaluations of interpreting services among Deaf professors. Many participants positively highlighted aspects of professionalism, such as punctuality and interpreters’ conduct in the classroom. Conversely, the study identified deficiencies in the quality of some interpretations, especially critical issues related to fidelity and accuracy, respect for professional boundaries, and the need for continuous interpreter training. The focus-group analyses corroborated these findings, showing recurrent problems in the linguistic performance of Libras interpreters, both among civil-service interpreters and outsourced professionals. This focus-group analysis also corroborated the questionnaire findings, revealing recurrent problems in the linguistic performance of Libras interpreters, both among civilservice and outsourced professionals. The results underscore the urgency of advancing the discussion on the need for greater respect for Deaf professors’ autonomy and a stronger, more effective commitment to the Deaf community, with a view to improving the quality of communicative mediation in academic contexts.