Cited by 9Interpreting and Communication in HealthcareSocial Work Education and PracticeTranslation Studies and Practices

Social Work with Interpreters: Using Practitioner Knowledge to Improve Practice

Open access
Pollock, Sarah·2023·The British Journal of Social Work

Abstract

Interpreters are crucial to enabling individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) to navigate the social welfare system, as they facilitate the development of relationships between this population and social workers. This article utilises primary data to analyse the interactive relationship between interpreters, social workers and service users with LEP with a view to better management of these three-way interactions and improved engagement with the LEP population, thus improving health and social care outcomes for this group. A social work education and workforce development review alongside online focus groups with professionals provided data to develop three broad categories: knowledge, values and skills. These categories house seven sub-themes, comprising trust/confidentiality, relationships, role knowledge, cultural knowledge, briefing and debriefing, values and attitude, and practical knowledge. Findings suggest that social workers saw interpreters as a barrier to their relationship with families rather than as a facilitator to communication. Enhancing practitioner knowledge, values and skills is essential to changing this narrative and improving relationships between professionals and in turn with the LEP population. By framing communication as a Human Rights issue, and prioritising language in social work education and workforce development, this is possible within existing legal and regulatory frameworks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjsw/bcad118

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Pollock, S.
Affiliations
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
Corresponding author
Pollock, Sarah
Venue
The British Journal of Social Work
Published
2023-04-26
Volume
53
Issue
8
Pages
3685-3703
ISSN
  • 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-263X
OpenAlex
W4367040294
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The British Academy/Leverhulme Small (SRG20\200644)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
Keywords
interpreters, social work practice, limited English proficiency, language barriers, social work education, workforce development, practitioner knowledge, trust and confidentiality, cultural knowledge, human rights, service user engagement, welfare system

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review