Community Care logo
Loading
E-Newsletters
Inform image
You are in:   News

Those with little or no English are reliant upon interpreters to use social care and other services. Bogusia Temple, Rosalind Edwards and Claire Alexander look at why many still prefer to use family and friends rather than professional translators.

Thursday 03 February 2005 00:00

Bogusia Temple is a reader in research methodology at the University of Salford, working across health, housing and social care fields.
Rosalind Edwards is based at London South Bank University, researching families and social capital.
Claire Alexander is senior lecturer at the London School of Economics, with expertise in race and ethnicity issues.

English language usage among migrant communities has become central to debates about multiculturalism, citizenship and social inclusion. English language competence is seen as essential to ensure integration into British society.

People who speak little English need interpreters in order to use a range of social care and other welfare, legal and education services. Providers of interpreting services are emphasising professionalisation as the way forward, with recognised training and qualifications for interpreters. They emphasise, for example, codes or guidelines for standards of behaviour and practice that include maintaining impartiality and avoiding prejudice, fidelity to meaning in interpreting and intervention only for the purpose of clarification, and maintaining confidentiality.

Despite government and service providers saying they want user views, there is little research about what users of interpreting services would like. A study funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation examined the experiences and understandings of people who need interpreters.

The researchers looked at the views of 50 people in Manchester and London from Bangladeshi, Chinese, Indian, Kurdish, and Polish groups who needed interpreters in order to use social care and other services. The five ethnic minority groups were chosen for a range of established and recent migrant views. Given these different histories, each group had access to varying formal and informal networks of people who could act as interpreters.

People decide whether they need an interpreter, and who is best able to meet this need, according to the level of English they feel is necessary for particular occasions. Sometimes they can manage themselves, but at other times they want a family member, friend or professional interpreter to help them.

An interpreter's proficiency in both English and their own mother tongue were seen as important. People told us that service providers were often unaware of the range of dialects within each language and provided unsuitable interpreters.

A good interpreter is seen as someone who does more than change words into another language. People prefer interpreters who can plead their case, empathise with them, and help them with understanding systems and procedures. The personal character, attitude and trustworthiness of an interpreter are seen as crucially important.

Generally, people told us that they did not know the status of interpreters who have been provided for them by services. They often assumed that if interpreters had been provided, they were members of staff who spoke the language rather than professional interpreters.

Also, people did not know how to find a professional interpreter for themselves, or who would meet the cost. Even when they did know how to find one they had difficulties in obtaining their services. The service cannot always be booked unless you speak English. Other difficulties mentioned were lack of reliability, no interpreter who speaks their language available when they need one, or a booked interpreter turning up too late or not at all.

Experiences of professional interpreters are mixed. Some people had positive things to say, including their knowledge of the way service procedures worked and of specialist terms, especially in medical or legal matters. They also mentioned how important their code of confidentiality was and that they held no hidden personal or institutional agenda. In particular, good experiences of professional interpreters were built up over time with the same interpreter. This meant that they could get to know and trust them.

But most were critical of the interpreters who had been provided for them. Nedim, a Kurdish man, says: "I went to housing and they brought an interpreter. We asked them to pay my housing but they told me they didn't pay my rent anymore. So I came back and brought one of my friends. He explained my situation and they accepted it. This is the difference between good and bad [interpreting]. I know that the interpreter didn't interpret my words exactly. That's why they refused me the first time. Actually, I look on [an interpreter from a service provider] as a government agent. I don't feel safe."

Most people had used informal networks to obtain interpreters. Informal networks of family and friends were more available, could help with everyday matters and with transport, and did not require payment. There were drawbacks to this including embarrassment, concerns about privacy, a lack of knowledge of service procedures and specialist terms. Generally, however, people preferred drawing on these informal networks in all but important legal and medical matters.

Di Wu, a Chinese man, says: "My friends are good enough, they will interpret for me... I may need help to buy something or solve some problem. The advantage is that my friends will treat me sincerely and they will always tell me the truth and provide good suggestions... Professional interpreters have too many clients each day, they do not have the time and energy to please everyone."

Several recommendations came out of the research. Service providers who use professional interpreters or bilingual staff should receive training about differences within communities in terms of age, gender, dialect and political context. When people are accompanied by family or friends who act as interpreters, service providers need to use simple language that can be easily communicated.

Where possible, procedures for professional interpreters should include taking responsibility for a "case load" of clients with whom they establish an ongoing relationship based on trust.

People should be provided with more information about how to access professional interpreters. Professional interpreters should clarify their role when they meet their clients and should be prepared to take on a more proactive role.

Short courses on providing interpreters should be made available to members of different ethnic minorities who are bilingual, especially those regularly acting as interpreters for family members or friends. Such courses could provide information about health, legal and other service procedures and specialist terms.

In our research we found that what is being put forward in professional codes of practice is not the same as the qualities that are valued by the people who need interpreters. People who speak little or no English usually need to use a professional interpreter at some stage. They recognise that knowledge of service procedures and specialist terms is beneficial. However, they see the role of interpreter as involving more than the transfer of words between people who do not speak the same language. In particular, they value a proactive interpreter and place particular emphasis on their personal character, attitude and trustworthiness. They want the advantages of familiarity and knowledge of the person who is acting as interpreter for them.

Abstract
This article reports on findings from a research project looking at user views of access to services with interpreters. It examines the experiences and preferences of people who use professional interpreters and informal networks of family and friends. The researchers found that people generally preferred to use informal networks as these were developed over time and based on trust. Professional interpreters were valued for their knowledge of specialist terms and procedures.

Further Information

  • The full report, Access to Services With Interpreters: User Views by Claire Alexander, Rosalind Edwards and Bogusia Temple with Usha Kanani, Liu Zhuang, Mohib Miah and Anita Sam, is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and is available from www.jrf.org.uk
  • M Robinson, Communication and Health in a Multi-Ethnic Society, Policy Press, 2002
  • Department of Health, Guidance on Developing Local Communication Support Services and Strategies, DoH Equality and Human Rights Group, 2004
  • Institute of Linguistics' Code for Professional Conduct and other information: www.iol.org.uk

Contact the authors

 

 

blog comments powered by Disqus
 
More from Community Care
Trending now logo
 
 
Social care link

 

    Transcare