Who Is EDI Actually For?

Aug 19

11 min read

Reflecting on Layne James Whittaker’s research into equality, diversity and inclusion within the profession

Equality, diversity and inclusion are often discussed as though they concern a particular group of people.

Someone may hear “EDI” and assume the conversation belongs mainly to people who have experienced racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia or another form of discrimination. Others may see it as an organisational requirement, a training module to complete or something that becomes relevant only after a problem has occurred.

Layne James Whittaker’s presentation at The Together Conference 2026 challenged that way of thinking.

Her session drew on qualitative research exploring what successful EDI training might look like within the British Sign Language interpreting profession. She wanted to understand interpreters’ experiences of the training already available, what they found useful, which barriers remained and what would need to change for EDI to become a meaningful part of professional practice.

At the centre of the presentation was a straightforward but important question:

Who is EDI actually for?

Layne’s answer was that it is not an optional extra for a small number of people. It concerns all of us, because our identities, circumstances and access needs can shape how we enter, experience and remain within the profession.

A profession made up of people, not one professional type

Interpreters and translators do not arrive at work as identical language professionals with interchangeable experiences.

The profession includes people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, genders, age groups and faiths. It includes Deaf interpreters and translators, disabled and neurodivergent professionals, LGBTQ+ people, parents, carers and people whose health or personal circumstances change during their careers.

Someone may take maternity or paternity leave. They may begin to experience the effects of menopause, develop a disability, receive a diagnosis or become responsible for caring for a family member. Their understanding of their own identity may also change over time.

Layne’s point was that EDI is not only relevant to people who enter the profession with a particular protected characteristic. Inclusion may become personally significant to anyone at different points in their life and career.

This wider view matters because professional systems are often built around an assumed “standard” worker. That person may be imagined as consistently available, able to travel, comfortable with established working practices, unaffected by caring responsibilities and able to process information or communicate in the way the organisation expects.

Many people will not fit that assumption, either permanently or at particular stages of their lives.

An inclusive profession does not treat this as an individual failure. It asks whether training, co-working practices, events, policies and systems have been designed with a realistic range of people in mind.

When EDI becomes a tick-box exercise

One of the clearest findings Layne discussed was frustration with EDI training that feels generic, shallow or disconnected from real professional life.

Participants described training that was completed because an organisation felt it should be seen to do something. There may be a short online course, a set of slides or a one-off discussion, but little opportunity to explore how the issues appear in interpreting and translation practice.

When training lacks depth and lived experience, people may switch off. They may finish the course without seeing a connection to their own work or understanding what they are expected to do differently.

This can gradually damage confidence in EDI itself. People may begin to see the subject as performative or ineffective, particularly when an organisation continues to have problems with racism, ableism or another form of discrimination after everyone has completed the required training.

A training session cannot repair an organisational culture by itself.

Layne described the risk of using EDI activity to cover over existing problems rather than addressing their cause. If discriminatory behaviour, inaccessible systems or unequal opportunities remain unchanged, the organisation has not dealt with the issue simply because it delivered a course.

Good training should lead people back into their everyday work with greater awareness and some understanding of what action looks like. It should also be supported by policies, leadership and working practices that reflect the same values.

Acting before something goes wrong

Participants in Layne’s research wanted a more proactive approach.

Too often, EDI receives attention only after an incident. A complaint is made, a colleague is excluded or an organisation becomes aware that one of its processes is inaccessible. Training is then arranged in response.

The problem with this approach is that someone usually has to experience harm before the subject is taken seriously.

Layne’s participants wanted EDI to be present from the beginning of professional development rather than added later. They suggested that it should be included within initial interpreter training, ongoing CPD, professional guidance, policies and the work of organisations connected to the profession.

Embedding EDI does not mean adding the same standalone module to every course. It means considering it throughout the learning pathway.

A session on co-working can include discussion about different access and communication needs.

Teaching about preparation can consider how culture, identity and lived experience influence the information a professional needs.

Ethics discussions can examine power, bias and the effects of discrimination.

Assessment processes can be reviewed for barriers.

Course materials and examples can include a wider range of people and settings.

Professional development can continue beyond basic awareness and allow practitioners to consider how inclusion relates to more complex areas of their work.

When EDI is present throughout training, it becomes part of how professionals understand practice rather than a separate subject they complete and then put aside.

Training needs to reflect the profession

Layne’s participants also questioned whether generic workplace EDI training was sufficient for interpreters.

The interpreting and translation professions have particular working structures. Many practitioners are freelance and move between organisations rather than belonging to one workplace. They may co-work with someone they have never met, enter environments with very different cultures and policies, and depend on agencies or service providers for information and support.

A generic course may explain broad principles without addressing these realities.

What should an interpreter do when a colleague makes a discriminatory comment during an assignment?

How can a freelancer raise an access need without being concerned that they will no longer be booked?

What responsibility does a co-worker have when another professional is being excluded?

How should a translator respond when a client asks for a translation choice that stereotypes or misrepresents a community?

What support is available when a practitioner experiences discrimination in a setting where they are only present for a few hours?

Participants wanted more training options that were directly connected to interpreting practice. They also wanted regulatory bodies, professional associations and other organisations to provide clearer leadership, guidance and support.

This does not mean that every aspect of EDI is unique to sign language interpreting and translation. There is much to learn from wider research and other professions. However, people need help applying that knowledge to the particular decisions and relationships they meet in their own work.

Lived experience is valuable, but the work must be shared

Meaningful EDI training needs lived experience.

People directly affected by racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia or other forms of exclusion can identify issues that others may not see. Their knowledge can challenge assumptions and show how apparently neutral practices affect people differently.

However, Layne was also clear that the responsibility for EDI cannot remain with those who are already carrying the effect of exclusion.

It is not fair to expect the only disabled person in a group to explain ableism, the only interpreter of colour to challenge racism or the only Deaf translator in an organisation to identify every inaccessible process.

Participants described EDI as a shared workload. Allies need to educate themselves, offer support, challenge discriminatory behaviour and contribute to making professional spaces safer and fairer.

Listening to lived experience remains essential, but listening should lead to action. The person sharing their experience should not then be left alone to solve the problem.

Shared responsibility might involve:

a colleague speaking up rather than waiting for the affected person to challenge a comment
an organisation reviewing its own systems instead of asking one individual to produce all the solutions
training providers paying people properly for contributing lived experience
allies completing their own reading and learning rather than repeatedly asking others to educate them
professional bodies making EDI visible within guidance, standards and decision-making
teams checking inclusion during planning rather than waiting for a difficulty to appear

Allyship is therefore more than privately agreeing that discrimination is wrong. It involves a continuing willingness to notice, learn and act.

What does inclusive co-working look like?

One practical example from Layne’s session concerned co-working.

Interpreters regularly discuss language preferences, switching times, preparation and how they will support one another during an assignment. An inclusive co-working conversation can go further by asking each person what helps them work well.

A Deaf interpreter may have particular requirements relating to feed, positioning or visual access. A neurodivergent colleague may process information differently or find a specific form of support more useful. Someone with a physical condition may need changes to seating, breaks or working position.

The aim is not to ask intrusive questions or expect someone to disclose private information. It is to make space for colleagues to state what they need without having to first prove that the need is legitimate.

Layne suggested inclusive information sheets as one possible way to support these conversations. The broader principle is that inclusive practice should be intentional rather than dependent on someone raising a problem in the middle of the work.

This can be as simple as asking:

How do you work best, and is there anything we should agree before we begin?

That question does not assume that one person is the standard and the other requires special treatment. Both professionals are invited to discuss the conditions that allow the team to work effectively.

Equality is not always about treating everyone identically

EDI conversations can become confused when equality is understood to mean giving everyone exactly the same thing.

Identical treatment may appear fair while still producing unequal outcomes.

Two interpreters may be given the same information, but one may need it in a different format to access it.

Everyone may be expected to attend an event in the same way, but the timing, venue or platform may create barriers for some participants.

A training provider may apply one assessment process to every learner, even though part of that process measures conformity to an expected communication style rather than the professional skill being assessed.

Equity asks what people need to participate fairly. That does not remove professional standards or suggest that every request must be accepted without consideration. It asks whether the route to meeting those standards creates avoidable barriers for some people.

This distinction is particularly relevant within a profession built around access. Interpreters and translators may be highly aware of barriers affecting Deaf people while paying less attention to the access needs and unequal experiences within their own professional community.

Layne’s session asked the profession to apply its concern for access internally as well as externally.

Inclusion affects the communities we work with

EDI within the profession is not only about whether interpreters and translators feel supported.

It also affects service provision.

The identities and experiences we bring into a setting can influence what we notice, the assumptions we make and how we understand the people involved. A profession with a narrow range of voices may also have gaps in its collective knowledge.

If training includes little discussion of race, culture, disability, gender, sexuality or faith, practitioners may be less prepared to recognise how these areas shape communication.

If Deaf interpreters and translators are excluded from professional decisions, services lose knowledge that should be central to their design.

If people from marginalised groups enter the profession but do not feel able to remain, recruitment alone has not created inclusion.

Layne argued that embedding inclusion can help the profession become fairer, more accessible and more representative of the communities in which practitioners work.

Representation does not mean assuming that one professional can speak for an entire community. It means that professional knowledge and decision-making should not be shaped through one limited set of experiences.

What does this mean for translators?

Layne’s research focused mainly on interpreters’ experiences of EDI training, but the wider questions also apply to translators.

Deaf translators may encounter barriers to training, professional networks, technology or commissioned work. Their decisions may be questioned by hearing people who hold organisational authority but have less knowledge of BSL and Deaf audiences.

Translation teams may need to consider who is involved in reviewing content, whose language preferences are prioritised and whether the final material represents people respectfully.

The commissioning process itself may create exclusion. Tight deadlines, inaccessible meetings or a lack of information can prevent some professionals from taking part.

Requiring everyone to work in one fixed way may reduce the range of translators an organisation is able to use.

EDI is also relevant to the content being translated. A translator may need to make decisions about language connected to race, disability, gender, sexuality, faith or culture.

Good professional preparation includes understanding those issues rather than treating them as separate from translation practice.

Interpreters and translators may work differently, but both professions need spaces where people can raise concerns, challenge assumptions and contribute without being treated as difficult for doing so.

What are we passing on?

The theme for The Together Conference 2026 was Pick It Up, Pass It On.

Professional culture is passed on through formal teaching, but also through everyday behaviour.

A trainee notices whose contributions are taken seriously.
A Deaf translator sees whether hearing colleagues treat them as an equal professional.
A newly qualified interpreter learns whether it is safe to mention an access need.
Someone experiencing discrimination watches to see who remains silent.
A colleague hears how people speak when the person being discussed is not in the room.

These moments teach people what the profession values.

We may say that inclusion matters while passing on practices that communicate something different. We may invite people into the profession while expecting them to adapt to systems that were never designed with them in mind.

Layne’s session encouraged a shift from viewing EDI as a statement of good intentions to considering what it looks like in daily professional life.

What happens in the classroom, during co-working, within associations, at conferences, in assessment and when complaints are raised?

Who carries the responsibility?
Who is expected to change?
Who is listened to?
Who becomes tired of having the same conversation?

These questions may be uncomfortable, but avoiding them does not create neutrality. It allows existing practices to continue without examination.

Shared purpose requires shared work

The theme for The Together Conference 2027 is New Insights, Shared Purpose.

A shared purpose cannot be built by asking a small number of people to repeatedly explain why inclusion matters. It needs contributions from across interpreting, translation, education, research, professional regulation and service provision.

Perhaps you are researching the experiences of a group whose voice is missing from current professional discussions.

You may have reviewed an assessment process, redesigned an inclusive course or developed a better way to discuss access within co-working teams.

You might have experience of a professional network, organisation or project that has made practical changes rather than relying on general statements.

You may also have findings that show where current approaches are not working.

These experiences could contribute to the programme for The Together Conference 2027.

The Call for Papers opens on Monday 5 October 2026. You do not need to decide whether your proposal belongs in the live programme or the extended conference. Submit your idea and the review panel will consider where accepted contributions fit best.

Poster submissions will also be welcomed for developing research, early findings, workplace projects, resources and practice-based reflections.

New insights often begin when someone notices that a familiar system works well for some people but not for everyone.

Sharing that insight is one part of the work. Deciding what we will do with it is the shared purpose that follows.

Using this article for unstructured CPD

You may wish to reflect on one or more of the following questions:

When you hear “EDI”, who do you instinctively think the subject is for?
How might your own access needs or circumstances change during your professional career?
What EDI training have you completed, and did it connect clearly to interpreting or translation practice?
Have you seen EDI activity used as a response after harm rather than being built into practice beforehand?
What assumptions are built into the way your training, workplace or professional networks operate?
How do you currently discuss access and working preferences with co-workers?
When have you seen responsibility for inclusion placed mainly on someone with lived experience?
What does active allyship look like within your professional role?
Are there discriminatory comments or practices that colleagues may be expected to challenge alone?
How could training providers, professional bodies or organisations make their work more inclusive?
What might you change in your own practice after reflecting on Layne’s session?
Is there a project, experience or area of research that you could share through a 2027 conference proposal or poster?