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 |  |