Skip to main content

Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of bilingual workers used in the study

From: Overcoming language barriers in community-based research with refugee and migrant populations: options for using bilingual workers

Type of worker

Positives

Negatives

Professional Interpreters

Verified fluency in English and community language

Expensive

 

Well organised service for booking interpreters

No facility to help with participant recruitment

  

Difficult to find interpreters for some languages

  

Some problems with interpreters answering for participants

Bilingual/Bicultural Students

Provides practical experience for students in their field of study

Required intense supervision

 

Often have good community networks to recruit interview participants

Limited professional experience on which to draw if client became distressed

 

Often speak community languages where there is limited access to interpreters

Potential for social desirability bias as most women interviewed knew the student personally

  

Level of language proficiency in community language was not accredited

Overseas- trained Health Professionals

Level of fluency in community language often recognised by an overseas university

Required some supervision

 

Good understanding of confidentiality, boundaries & referral processes

Required intensive assistance with aspects of the Australian employment system

 

Good professional experience on which to draw if participant became distressed

Potential for social desirability bias as most women surveyed knew them personally

 

Often have experience in / interest in research, so already understand research protocols

 
 

Good community networks to find women to interview

 

Community- sector Bilingual Workers

Good understanding of confidentiality, boundaries, referral processes

Heavy workload, so difficult to find time to interview new arrivals

 

Good professional experience on which to draw if participant became distressed

Potential for social desirability bias as most women surveyed already knew them

 

Good community networks

 
 

Require minimal supervision

Â