How effective do families of non-English speaking background (NESB) and child protection caseworkers in Australia see the use of interpreters? A qualitative study to help inform good practice principles
How effective do families of non-English speaking background (NESB) and child protection caseworkers in Australia see the use of interpreters? A qualitative study to help inform good practice principles
复制标题
澳大利亚非英语背景 (NESB) 家庭和儿童保护个案工作者对口译员的使用效果如何？
DOI：
10.1111/cfs.12088
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Pooja Sawrikar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pooja Sawrikar
在澳大利亚，很少有关于在儿童保护事务中使用口译员的有效做法的实证研究。这项研究旨在解决这一差距。对29个非英语背景(NESB)客户家庭和17名儿童保护个案工作者(作为一项更大研究的一部分)进行了定性访谈。出现了4个良好做法的例子(例如准确的翻译)和14个无效做法的例子。因此，不良做法的例子被归类为以下问题：(1)口译员(例如，笔译不准确)；(2)个案工作者(例如，时间不足)；(3)NESB家庭(例如，拒绝使用口译员)；和(4)资源(例如，面对面口译员不足)。正如预期的那样，结果在很大程度上复制了(很少的)国家和国际文献，表明良好做法的特点和阻碍它们的因素在多文化国家是相似的。然而，本文认为，对处理这类敏感问题的口译员进行培训以及对个案工作者进行有效地与口译员合作的培训似乎是良好做法的核心。这项研究意义重大，因为它利用了定性方法提供的丰富数据，以确定所有相关变量，并为良好做法原则提供经验支持。
Little empirical research has been conducted in Australia on what constitutes as effective practice with interpreters in child protection matters. This study aimed to address this gap. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 29 non-English-speaking background (NESB) client families and 17 child protection caseworkers (as part of a larger study). Four examples of good practice (e.g. accurate translation) and 14 examples of ineffective practice emerged. The examples of poor practice were consequently grouped as issues with: (i) interpreters (e.g. inaccurate translation); (ii) caseworkers (e.g. insufficient time); (iii) NESB families (e.g. refusing to use an interpreter); and (iv) resources (e.g. insufficient face-to-face interpreters). As expected, the results largely replicate the (scant) national and international literature, indicating that features of good practice, and barriers to them, are similar across multicultural countries. This paper does however argue that training for interpreters dealing in such sensitive matters and training for caseworkers on working effectively with interpreters seem to be at the heart of good practice. This study is significant because it draws on the richness of data that qualitative methods offer to identify the full range of relevant variables and provide empirical support for principles of good practice.