Research

This research complements and is further strengthened by evidence outlined in the Sustainability of the ISL Interpreting Profession report (Heyerick 2025), which reinforces the need for systemic change to make interpreting a viable long-term career. These findings closely align with the SLIS Strategic Framework to Increase the Availability and Quality of ISL Interpreting in Ireland (2019), which identified key strategic factors including policy gaps, limited service capacity, a lack of quality standards and inadequate training pathways as major barriers to the availability and quality of ISL interpreting in Ireland.

The urgency of addressing these issues is echoed in the joint statement by the Irish Deaf Society and the Sign Language Interpreting Service (2022), which recognises the systemic exclusion of Deaf people in Irish society and outlines concrete priorities for reform. These include transitioning to a rights-based model of service delivery, investing in Deaf-led and well-resourced interpreting services, expanding interpreter training and ensuring meaningful consultation with the Deaf community in line with the UNCRPD and the future direction of national disability policy.

Ireland has clear obligations under both national and international law to make this vision a reality. The UNCRPD affirms the right of Deaf people to access information and services in their own language on an equal basis with others. The shortage of qualified interpreters is a barrier to this and impedes access to critical domains such as health, education and employment. The UNCRPD also places a strong emphasis on co-creation of policy and services with Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs) such as the Irish Deaf Society, recognising that those directly affected must play a central role in shaping solutions. The Public Sector Human Rights and Equality Duty requires public bodies to eliminate discrimination, promote equality and protect human rights in their everyday work- duties which cannot be fulfilled without the provision of qualified ISL interpreters.

The ISL Act 2017 further enshrines the legal right of ISL users to access public services in their native language. Yet despite these legal and moral commitments, this right is routinely undermined in practice due to the critical shortage of interpreters. The National Disability Authority’s (NDA) 2021 report found that 23% of public bodies experienced difficulties due to a shortage of ISL interpreters. The NDA identified the shortage as a major barrier to implementing the ISL Act, stressing that urgent action is needed and addressing the shortage is a top priority. There has however been limited progress on this to date.

This shortage is not just a quantity issue. As this research shows, the conditions under which interpreters train and work often make the profession unsustainable. Barriers include insecure employment, inadequate recognition and limited pathways for interpreter training. These factors combine to limit recruitment, retention and professional development.

Looking ahead, the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030 represents an important opportunity to embed the rights of Deaf people more firmly in Ireland’s policy framework.

Co-designed with DPOs, such a strategy can and must commit to ensuring an adequate supply of ISL interpreters as a core requirement for equality, inclusion and participation.

While this report highlights the barriers, it also puts forward practical, evidence-based recommendations which are further strengthened by previous research in this area, as well as the experiences of Deaf people and insights from interpreting service providers. Drawing on international comparison and grounded in the lived experiences of interpreters and students in Ireland,it provides a strong foundation for an urgently needed campaign. Our aim is not only to increase interpreter numbers, but also to push for the systemic reforms needed to make interpreting a viable, respected and sustainable profession.

This research is a call to action for Government to meet their legal duties and moral responsibilities. The evidence put forward by this research echoes what was previously established in other work and experienced by Deaf people. This research corroborates the need for measurable, concrete action.

We thank Dr. Gearóidín McEvoy for her dedication and collaboration, and we extend deep appreciation to the interpreters, students and stakeholders who contributed their experiences and insights to this project.

Statement by the Council of Irish Sign Language Interpreters (CISLI)

The Council of Irish Sign Language Interpreters (CISLI) is the national representative body for sign language interpreters in Ireland. As a collective, we are committed to supporting the future of both Deaf people who use Irish Sign Language (ISL) and professional Deaf and hearing interpreters. The shortage of interpreters currently facing the sector has been a long-standing concern for CISLI.

We recognise that demand for ISL interpretation has continued to rise since the enactment of the Irish Sign Language Act in 2017, while the number of interpreters entering and remaining in the profession remains insufficient to meet this demand.

CISLI is pleased to see that the Irish Deaf Society (IDS) has recognised this urgent need and are taking steps to address it. We welcome and fully support the findings of the recent report, which highlights the significant barriers to the training, recruitment, and retention of ISL interpreters. CISLI would like to express our sincere thanks to all those involved in the research for their time, effort, and dedication.

We deeply appreciate the publication of this important work and look forward with optimism to continued collaboration in improving ISL interpreter provision and creating a sustainable and supportive profession for both Deaf and hearing interpreters.

The supply of ISL interpreters falls far short in terms of being able to accommodate all requests for interpreting for access to public and private services.

At present, there is one third-level sign language interpreter training course in the Republic of Ireland which allows qualification as an ISL interpreter (Bachelor in Deaf Studies, Centre for Deaf Studies, TCD), however only 4-5 qualify in this specialism every year. ISL Interpreting is one of three majoring options with Deaf Studies and ISL Teaching being the other two.

The National Disability Authority (NDA) reported that 23% of public bodies raised issues related to lack of interpreters or availability of interpreters (NDA Report on the Operation of the ISL Act, 2021). This resulted in instances where public bodies would acquire the services of unqualified or non-accredited interpreters to compensate for this (NDA Report on the Operation of the ISL Act, 2021).

Aims of the research

The overall aim of this research was to understand the barriers and challenges faced by students of ISL interpreting and also challenges faced by current qualified ISL interpreters, both active and inactive. Additionally, this research aimed to explore how the structure and delivery of Finnish sign language interpreter training

may inform improvements in the Irish context, given the similarities in both general and Deaf population sizes, but vastly different sign language interpreter numbers- Finland has over 500 qualified sign language interpreters, with Ireland having only 119 RISLI-accredited interpreters at the time this research was taking place. From this, the aim was to make practical, evidence-based recommendations for improving ISL interpreter availability in Ireland. The end goal of this research is to develop and deliver a collaborative campaign to increase the number of ISL interpreters in Ireland, but also to improve structures in place for working ISL interpreters.

How was the research carried out?

The research combined quantitative and qualitative methods. First, a survey was sent to ISL interpreters, student interpreters and former interpreters. A corresponding survey was sent to sign language interpreters in Finland. These surveys garnered information about the job of interpreters, work structures, expectations, realities, positive and negatives in both Ireland and Finland. The surveys were written in English and hosted on Survey Monkey. The survey links were disseminated amongst relevant communities.

In the Irish survey, respondents were asked if they were willing to be contacted for an interview, wherein 9 interviews were carried out with ISL interpreters. Six separate interviews were also carried out with interpreter training providers and representative bodies in Ireland (3 interviews) and Finland (3 interviews). Interviews were transcribed by an external party before being coded and analysed using NVivo software.

We recognise that demand for ISL interpretation has continued to rise since the enactment of the Irish Sign Language Act in 2017, while the number of interpreters entering and remaining in the profession remains insufficient to meet this demand.

CISLI is pleased to see that the Irish Deaf Society (IDS) has recognised this urgent need and are taking steps to address it. We welcome and fully support the findings of the recent report, which highlights the significant barriers to the training, recruitment, and retention of ISL interpreters. CISLI would like to express our sincere thanks to all those involved in the research for their time, effort, and dedication.

We deeply appreciate the publication of this important work and look forward with optimism to continued collaboration in improving ISL interpreter provision and creating a sustainable and supportive profession for both Deaf and hearing interpreters.

And yet ISL interpreters are deeply hindered by the work structures and systemic barriers in place. Interpreters have little to no job security. For the most part they have no stability, no paid leave, only statutory parental leave, no opportunities to grow in their career or be promoted. They are undervalued and their professionalism is undermined, potentially due to a large-scale lack of awareness about Deaf people and interpreters.

They are constrained financially and emotionally. Hearing interpreters are overworked and underpaid, and Deaf interpreters are underworked to the point that it is not a viable and sustainable career option. Because of their love and dedication to the job and the community, however, ISL interpreters often feel obligated to accept less, to work more because they fear the consequences for an underserved Deaf community if they do not. They want more training, but it is often unavailable or unattainable.

Hearing interpreters are deeply impacted by the shortage of interpreters but are also acutely aware that more interpreters can only come with improvements in systemic issues. For example, a second training course necessarily means there must be available Deaf academics to teach on these courses. Barriers to higher level education for Deaf people mean barriers to eventual academic careers for Deaf people. Additionally, while more interpreters may fix overworking in the field, it does not fix the systemic work structure issues, such as low pay, lack of job security, lack of paid leave, etc. Improving the number of interpreters will yield, at present, incremental change and fail to improve overall systemic barriers.

Opportunities for learning from the Finnish situation

It is likely beneficial to have multiple options to study to become an interpreter, at different institutions and on different campuses located outside the capital region. This solution speaks to some of the issues raised in the interviews in Ireland. It is also beneficial to teach business skills to student interpreters, particularly if they are required in their future career, as with ISL interpreters.

Additionally, because of their employment status, interpreters are able to focus on the job of interpreting alone, maintaining fulfillment in the positive aspects such as the variation, flexibility and connection. They also have job security, stability and benefits that are largely absent from the Irish system. Interpreters have paid leave, parental leave and a steady source of income, although that income may vary. They are mostly part of a union, they have occupational healthcare, and their work expenses are all covered. This structure would overcome some of the specific problems outlined by ISL interpreters, such as problems with securing bank loans or mortgages due to the freelance nature of the work, and security in family planning. However, there are systems which ought not to be emulated. Kela is the social insurance provider in Finland responsible for the provision of interpreters to Deaf people and it was repeatedly criticised as burdensome and a barrier to effective working by interpreters and stakeholders.

Recommendations

1. Increasing the number of working interpreters in Ireland is material and would greatly improve issues around availability, burden on current interpreters, and opportunity to specialise. In the short term, advertising and promotion of the degree programme at CDS is one way to increase applications. This will potentially improve quality of applicants, increasing the volume of students who go on to secure high enough grades to interpret. However as has been noted, this is limited to 20 students maximum and there are other barriers which exist to pursuing the interpreting pathway. In the long term, increasing the number of interpreters means increasing the opportunities for studying, by introducing undergraduate or postgraduate opportunities, ideally outside of Dublin and perhaps with a focus on flexible learning options (see Recommendation 5). It may also mean implementing the option for post primary students to study and be examined in ISL, so as to improve ISL on entry to training courses, thereby potentially improving the yield of graduates while maintaining interpreter quality.

2. Interpreters need job security. Interpreters need options for paid leave, parental leave beyond statutory minimums, sick leave, and occupational supports. The current work structure is overall a negative for interpreters and may even be the reason some interpreters leave the job entirely. Interpreter companies may be a solution to this problem, whereby requests are made to companies who then appoint specific or preferred interpreters to the job, provide for emergency or ‘out of hours’ interpreting or substitute interpreting. This option would remove the administration burden on interpreters and provide them with the benefits of a PAYE employee. Interpreters must have the opportunity to be promoted and to be paid more for their specialised skills or experience. Deaf interpreters, in particular, must be able to work as interpreters and have job security to ensure their vital skills and knowledge are available. However, it is also important to be cautious here and not replicate some of the specific problems which manifest in Finland where these structures are in place, namely through the process of public tendering. Additionally, this should not threaten the continuation of freelance interpreting or sole trader interpreting for those who wish to continue working this way.

3. Interpreters need to be paid more for the work they do. Obviously, with freelance work as it currently stands, interpreters are free to charge what they choose, but there are typical industry fees which are at present, too low to support interpreters in the long term. Interpreters ought to be paid in line with similarly qualified, statutorily mandated professionals. Interpreters ought to be given the opportunity to form unions to ensure collective bargaining and better working conditions. It may be that in the short term, interpreters are encouraged to raise their fees and information is provided to the Deaf community and others about the reasoning behind this raise in fees. Set rates for bodies such as the Courts Service, or An Garda Síochána ought to be raised in line with industry standards and account for travel, unsociable hours and complexity. Policies ought to be put in place for public bodies to ensure best practice and appropriate and timely pay is afforded to ISL interpreters who are contracted.

4. Supports must be put in place to ensure the wellbeing of interpreters. This includes aftercare training for traumatic assignments, CPD, complaints mechanisms, etc. Regular funding ought to be made available to allow for this to be done as standard and not on an ad hoc basis.

5. There ought to be more opportunities for training for ISL interpreters be it other undergraduate training options, flexible or hybrid training courses, postgraduate training, CPD and upskill training. This must be balanced with the need to ensure quality among ISL interpreters. This is a long-term goal, as it must inherently come with an increase in academic opportunities for Deaf people and the removal of barriers to education for Deaf people so that there are ample Deaf people able to provide training on these courses.

6. Interpreters must be incentivised to work across the country so as to remove the postcode lottery which currently renders some areas with no interpreters. It may be that interpreters are given monetary incentives or base pay to be available, rather than only being paid for the work they do. This would mean that despite smaller Deaf communities in rural areas, for example, interpreters would still be located in the community, available and ready when needed.

7. Increased awareness about interpreters and the Deaf community is needed to improve not only the recognition of interpreter work, but to ensure that organisations, businesses and individuals know about the requirements to provide interpreters, know how to book interpreters and values the fees being charged for interpreting. In particular, this includes awareness about the need for Deaf interpreters and the vital role they play in ensuring access. A nationwide advertising campaign may be effective in raising awareness amongst the general public and public bodies alike.

8. A clearer understanding of the statutory obligations on public bodies to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights under Section 42 of the IHREC Act, the Public Sector Equality and Human Rights Duty is required, both by civil society organisations representing the rights of the Deaf community and public bodies. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have recently published revised guidance for public bodies and new guidance for Civil Society to this end. Informed civil society can support public bodies to ensure that the right of fair access to public services for members of the Deaf community is vindicated. Public bodies should use the Duty as a framework to assess the requirements of rights holders and service users. Cooperation by civil society and public bodies can assist in informing a greater understanding of the scale of need for ISL interpreters across the public service, providing an evidence base for the proposed scale up of training and improved working conditions for ISL interpreters.