Equal access to community interpreting in Flanders – a matter of self-reflexive decision-making?

Authors

  • Britt Roels Junction Migration-Integration, www.kruispuntmi.be
  • Marie Seghers Centre for Diversity and Learning, Linguistics Department, Ghent University
  • Bert De Bisschop LANG+, Linguistics Department, Ghent University
  • Piet Van Avermaet Centre for Diversity and Learning, Linguistics Department, Ghent University
  • Mieke Van Herreweghe LANG+, Linguistics Department, Ghent University
  • Stef Slembrouck LANG+, Linguistics Department, Ghent University

Keywords:

community interpreting, Flanders, framework, decision-making, institional end users, immigrants clients, inequality

Abstract

The central issue tackled by this article revolves around decision-making by public service institutions in respect of the uses and perceived effects of community interpreting and translation in Flanders (Belgium) and/or other resources of language support (such as the use of a lingua franca, soliciting the help of a multilingual co-worker, etc.). The aim of the study was to obtain a clear understanding of processes and participant frameworks of decision-making with regard to language support within these institutions. Consequently, a qualitative survey was set up focusing on three selected geographic regions and, within these regions, on four domains of public service (health, education, public administration and employment assistance). Respondents were both institutional end users and immigrants. The results reveal a lack of national and local organizational policy and explicit procedures in the allocation of language support resources. This lack contributes to inequality in foreign language users’ access to the services of public institutions. It is recommended that a self-reflective framework be introduced for regulating access to a more systematic use of community interpreting alongside other instruments or strategies for bridging language barriers. Such a framework should be tailored to the needs of the institution’s clients and to domain-specific and local needs of the institution. It should also include the relative availability of other adequate instruments for bridging language barriers.

Downloads

Published

2015-11-06