Child interpreting in social work: Competence versus legitimacy

Abstract

Child interpreting refers to persons under the age of 18, be it migrant children or children born to migrant parents, who interpret for their parents and other adults who do not share a mutual language. In England, it is estimated that over 300 language varieties are spoken on a daily basis. Within this multilingual context, social workers may work with families with different degrees of English language proficiency, and use an interpreter to facilitate interaction. This article draws upon empirical research from semi-structured interviews with nine social workers in social work settings in England and focuses on their experiences and viewpoints about children who interpret in social work contexts. The social workers approached child interpreting in two main ways, either permitting or prohibiting this practice. The article focuses on the way that the social workers construct understandings about children’s competence to interpret, and how they navigate challenges and complexities. The findings illuminate an invisible area of social work practice, and offer a useful way to conceptualize debates about children’s competence to act as interpreters, vis-à-vis their ascribed legitimacy.

Keywords:

• interpreting
• language
• informal interpreter
• transnational childhoods

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the social workers for taking time out of their busy lives to participate in this study. Thank you to the reviewers for their helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Declaration

This research was sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council: ES/H023720/1.

Notes

1. Following the classification of the census for England and Wales, 2011.

2. In social work practice, a child refers to persons aged from 0 to 18. Support is offered to those that were previously “looked after” up until the age of 25. Moreover, there is a separate legislative framework for children who are “looked after and accommodated”.

3. “M” indicates that the participant was monolingual and “B” indicates that the participant was bilingual.