[Translated to English, original blog text in Finnish, www.soskieli.fi]
Katarina Iskala-Blomster, Senior Advisor, Assistance to victims of human trafficking, Victim Support Finland
Hanna Kara, researcher, SOSKIELI research project, Åbo Akademi University, University of Helsinki
Eveliina Heino, researcher, SOSKIELI research project, Åbo Akademi University, University of Helsinki
Camilla Nordberg, researcher, SOSKIELI research project, Åbo Akademi University
In this article, we look at trust of other language families in public services and the accessibility of public services for other language service users. We also look at the issue of languages and language skills in social work and public services more generally. By other language service users, we mean people who are not fluent in the languages of welfare institutions (Finnish, Swedish). We draw on research on the subject and the authors’ observations as practitioners and researchers.
Institutional trust can be directed both at the employees working in the institutions and at the institution as well as the service system more broadly (Heino & Lillrank 2020). When service users are not fluent in the so-called institutional languages used in the services, this can reinforce the power asymmetries already present in service encounters by creating a situation where the service provider has unilateral power over institutional language and communication in addition to expert and decision-making power (ibid.).
Heino & Lillrank (2020) see it as important that people retain agency when they decide to trust the service and the practitioners. For parents with children, there is also a moral expectation that the parent is able and capable of obtaining the necessary information and support for their child (Heino et al. 2024 forthcoming). Potential differences between parents’ and practitioners’ goals and expectations for the work, if unaddressed, may lead to mistrust towards the practitioners’ competence or their will to look after the service users’ best interest (Heino & Lillrank 2020).
Language differences are linked to accessibility and use of services in many ways, including information about services, service encounters, information about decisions and interventions, and opportunities to request justification for or changes to decisions. Accessing services can involve several messages or phone calls and persistent searching for the right service. Other language service users may not have adequate information about how to access services, what services they are entitled to or could claim, or how to reach a practitioner outside office hours, for example. In addition, the lack of a common language remains a barrier to communication that should always be overcome in some way.
Distrust may also be based on experiences of inequality or previous experiences of misunderstandings in dealings with service providers or experiences of not having received help and support. Practitioners may have failed to intervene or ask further questions, for example when the service user has brought up problems in their family, or practitioners may have explained these problems straightforwardly on ‘cultural grounds’. Service users may also feel mistrustful of interpreters and their confidentiality, or the availability of interpreters in a particular language may be limited. Successful and trusting relationship with an interpreter can serve as an important factor for institutional trust, but repeated tendering processes for interpreting services make it difficult to uphold service user-interpreter relationships (Koskinen 2018; Nordberg & Kara 2022).
Trust in services requires time, which is often limited, especially in public sector services. Parents’ possible experiences of not being able to access services due to, for example, lack of resources in the services, are also likely to reduce trust and may undermine their willingness to turn to services in the future. Another factor in building trust is that services are subject to frequent staff turnover, and information gaps occur both when staff changes and when services move from one location or region to another. If the threshold for contacting services is already high, for example due to lack of a common language, it is particularly important that the service user’s situation is taken seriously and that it is possible to build a service relationship over the long term.
Furthermore, Westlake & Jones (2018) have argued that in multilingual social service encounters with families with children, and when working with interpreters, situations of ambiguity in the communication are not always addressed with clarifying follow-up questions, questions are not open-ended, and the overall conversations remain narrow. This is a challenge for trust building between service users and practitioners. Multilinguality need not be only or primarily a challenge for the work, but multilingual service encounters can also encourage the practitioners to become more thoroughly familiar with the institutional language, to open up terms and acronyms, and to be as clear as possible (Gustafsson et al. 2023).
Merely translating service information from one language to another is therefore not sufficient (Greenwood et al. 2015), but strengthening multilingual skills and communication requires a range of activities. We list some of these below:
- Sufficient resources for the long-term use of public service interpreters.
- Investing in cooperation between interpreters and practitioners, for example in education.
- Providing information on services and support in a wide range of languages.
- Taking into account the diversity of language skills in recruitment, and recruiting practitioners from different language backgrounds.
- Involving multilingual and other language service users in developing services.
- Use of plain language.
- Use of visual materials.
- In a multilingual service context, putting attention to the need to clarify any ambiguities and allowing time for discussion and relationship-building.
- Family members, especially minor children, should not be used as interpreters and translators.
- More channels for low threshold contact and access and proactive guidance to services are needed.
References
Greenwood, N., Habibi, R., Smith, R., & Manthorpe, J. (2015). Barriers to access and minority ethnic carers’ satisfaction with social care services in the community: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature. Health & Social Care in the Community 23(1), 64–78.
Gustafsson, K., Norström, E., & Åberg, L. (2023). Social workers as targets for integration. Nordic Social Work Research. Doi:10.1080/2156857X.2023.2256737.
Heino, E., & Lillrank, A. (2020). Institutionaalisen luottamuksen rakentuminen: Maahanmuuttajataustaiset perheet perus- ja vammaispalveluiden käyttäjinä. Sosiologia 57(4), 346–362.
Heino, E., Kara, H. & Lillrank, A. (2024, tulossa) Contesting universalism in Finnish health and social services: Experiences of migrant parents with disabled child. Teoksessa Clarke, K., Lee Oliver, L. & Ranta-Tyrkkö, S. (toim.) Decolonizing Social Work in Finland: Racialisation and Practices of Care. Bristol, Policy Press.
Koskinen, K., Vuori, J., & Leminen, A.-K. (2018). Johdanto. In Koskinen, K., Vuori, J., & Leminen, A.-K. (toim.) Asioimistulkkaus: Monikielisen yhteiskunnan arkea. Tampere: Vastapaino, s. 7–28.
Nordberg, C. & Kara, H. (2022). Unfolding occupational boundary work: Public service interpreting in social services for structurally vulnerable migrant populations in Finland. In Language Policies for Social Justice, edited by Christopher D. Mellinger & Esther Monzó-Nebot. Special issue, Just. Journal of Language Rights & Minorities, Revista de Drets Lingüístics i Minories 1 (1–2): 137–162.
Westlake, D., & Jones, R. K. (2018). Breaking Down Language Barriers: A Practice-Near Study of Social Work Using Interpreters. British Journal of Social Work 48(5), 1388–1408.