Social Work with Interpreters: Using Practitioner Knowledge to Improve Practice
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Pollock, S.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pollock, Sarah
- ORCID
- Pollock, Sarah
- Venue
- The British Journal of Social Work
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- green
- e-space.mmu.ac.uk
- 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