Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (CALD) Cognitive Disability and …disabilityjustice.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CALD-Course... · Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (CALD),

CulturalandLinguisticDiversity(CALD),CognitiveDisabilityandtheJusticeSystem

ParticipantHandbookandResource

1CulturalandLinguisticDiversity(CALD),CognitiveDisabilityandtheJusticeSystem

Acknowledgements Barbel Winter from futures Upfront has produced this workshop and handbook for the Centre for Community Welfare Training (CCWT) as well as for project partners Intellectual Disability Rights Service (IDRS) and Life Without Barriers (LWB). The input of the following people is gratefully acknowledged:

Grace Leotta Mandy Marsters Paul Callaghan.

The information in the section “Culturally Responsive Person Centred Practices” has largely been drawn from a series of resources developed by futures Upfront and Maria Katrivesis for National Disability Services (NDS) and the various workbooks can be downloaded from: http://www.futuresupfront.com.au/pcp-across-cultures.html or https://www.nds.org.au/resources/person-centred-practice-across-cultures-resources

Released for use: August 2017 Disclaimer NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) as well as project partners and the course developer(s) do not give warranty nor accept any liability in relation to the content of this work. Copyright © NSW Department of Family and Community Services, 2017

Contact the Disability Justice Project: Level 4, 699 George Street (Cnr. Ultimo Road) Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9281 8822 Email: [email protected] www.disabilityjustice.edu.au


Introducing the Disability Justice Project It has been clearly established that people with cognitive disability, including people with intellectual and learning disabilities, acquired brain injury, people with alcohol and drug issues, mental health conditions, and/or complex trauma are at a much greater risk of ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system (Baldry et al., 2012; ABS, 2015).

Having a cognitive impairment predisposes persons who also experience other disadvantageous social circumstances to a greater enmeshment with CJS early in life and persons with cognitive impairment and other disability such as mental health and AOD disorders (complex needs) are significantly more likely to have earlier, ongoing and more intense police, juvenile justice, court and corrections episodes and events.

(Baldry et al., 2012; p. 4) Factors such as discrimination, poverty, difficulties with accessing services and complexity of needs can all add to the risks for individuals, families and communities. People with disabilities and their families, friends and carers reported daily

instances of being segregated, excluded, marginalised and ignored. At best they reported being treated as different. At worst they reported experiencing exclusion and abuse, and being the subject of fear, ignorance and prejudice.’

(Shut Out Report, 2009; p. 3) Of particular concern is the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people involved with juvenile and adult justice services. Given that First Nations Australians have unique status and rights in their own country, and are the most over-represented groups within the Criminal Justice System, a course ‘Supporting Aboriginal People’ was delivered and it is available online in a condensed format. The Disability Justice Project (DJP) aims to:

“...build capacity across the NSW disability sector to support people with a cognitive disability who come into contact with the justice system, to be able to exercise their rights under the law.”

The project is being delivered by a consortium of three partner agencies:

• The Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies/Centre for Community Welfare Training (ACWA CCWT)

• The Intellectual Disability Rights Services (IDRS) • Life without Barriers (LWB).

Go to this link http://disabilityjustice.edu.au/ to find out more.


Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (CALD), Cognitive Disability and the

Justice System Welcome to the one-day workshop and this associated handbook and resource. The purpose of this workshop is to focus our attention on the approximately 25% of people with cognitive disability in NSW who are from a culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, some of whom are in contact with the criminal justice system. The aim is to broaden our understanding of the role and importance of culture in our interactions with and our work alongside people with cognitive disability, especially when they are in contact or at risk of being in contact with the criminal justice system. By deepening our own understanding of culture, exploring our own cultural lenses, we strengthen our abilities, knowledge and skills to respond more culturally responsively in a person centred way. This workshop is essentially divided into two sections. In the first section we will explore ideas of diversity and explore that diversity in the Australian context. The first section will conclude with an exploration of our own cultural biases, assumptions and blind spots as a way of heightening our self-awareness and critical thinking for the part two. The second section will explore culturally responsive practices and will focus on three particular skills: empathy, listening and choice making, and how they can be used effectively in working effectively cross culturally. By the end of this one-day workshop, it is expected participants will be able to: • Understand the importance of culture (in its broadest sense) and how it impacts

on everything we do • Gain greater insights into our own cultural assumptions and biases • Have deeper knowledge of the experiences of migrant and refugees, specifically

in relation to people with cognitive disability who may be in contact with the justice system

• Have increased knowledge and skills in working with people from CALD backgrounds with cognitive disability who may be in contact with the justice system.

Please note: This workshop provides a broad introduction to working more culturally competently. It is not intended that attendance at this one-day workshop alone will be sufficient in attaining cultural competence. Further training is recommended.


The workshop 1. First People first

2. Working with diversity

3. Asylum Seeker? Refugee? Migrant?

4. People from CALD backgrounds with cognitive disability and the criminal justice system

5. Blind Spots, assumptions and unconscious biases

6. Culturally responsive person centred practices

Expectations

Activity:

Before we begin, please take a few minutes to think about what you would like to get out off the workshop today. Are there some specific issues that you would like to think about? Is there a particular incidence that brought you here? Please write down your expectations.


Introductions

Activity:

Mark on this map where you or (if you know) your ancestors come from. As people introduce themselves, please mark on your map where they or (if they know) their ancestors are from.

Looking at this map you might think we have done something strange to it, maybe simultaneously shrunk it one way and stretched it another? However, what actually happened is that the map of the world that we all have in our heads and that we were all taught at school as the ‘right’ map, is actually the map that was distorted. Maybe it was distorted to fit a worldview that favours Europe and America? If you are interested here is a bit more information:

“The Peters Projection World Map is one the of most stimulating, and controversial, images of the world. When this map was first introduced by historian and cartographer D. Arno Peters at a press conference in Germany in 1975 it generated a firestorm of Debate. This map is an area accurate map The earth is round. The challenge of any world map is to represent a round earth on a flat surface. There are literally thousands of map projections. Each has certain strengths and weaknesses. Choosing among them is an exercise in values clarification: you have to decide what’s important to you. That is generally determined by the way you intend to use the map.”

(from: www.petermap.com)


1. First People First During a speech in 2008, Tom Calma, the Race and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner stated:

In the case of multiculturalism, recognition is largely about inclusiveness, it is about inclusive social policies that allow people from different cultures to participate and contribute to the wider society on an equal footing.

In the case of indigenous peoples, recognition is about acknowledgement of the central place of Indigenous peoples in this society, acknowledgement of the injustice and the harm that still befalls us as a result. Acknowledgement of Indigenous rights is a primary step to put in place comprehensive transitional processes to enable the restoration of indigenous dignity and future vitality.

(from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/speech-human-rights-multiculturalism-and-indigenous-rights)

In Australia no workshop or course on cultural diversity and working alongside people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds can be run without first acknowledging and recognising the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first Nations people. In Australia we must begin by acknowledging the ongoing impact of dispossession and colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:

“It must be recognised that the experience of trauma and loss, present since European invasion, are a direct outcome of the disruption of cultural wellbeing. Trauma and loss of this magnitude continue to have intergenerational effects.”

(from: Purdie N, Dudgeon P, Walker R; 2019: Working Together- Aboriginal Torres

Strait Islander Mental Health and Wellbeing Principles and Practice)

“Cultural genocide not only works to destroy the cultures of oppressed peoples, it also eradicates the sense of self, of self-worth and of wellbeing in individuals and groups so that they are unable to function.”

(from Judy Atkinson; 2002: Trauma Trails, recreating Songlines ; p71) The most recent document outlining that process towards restoration of dignity and future vitality spoken about by Tom Calma is the Uluru Statement from the Heart from May 2017:

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart: Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own


laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago. This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years? With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood. Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”

(from: https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF)


2. Working with Diversity

Activity: Can you think back at a time when you were working with someone/supported someone/ were

friends with someone who is different from you (you can interpret ‘different’ any way you wish).

Can you write down one positive and one negative experience that you can attribute to that difference? (Note: these experiences could be with different people.)


3. Asylum seeker? Refugee? Migrant?

Activity: Same same but different .. but how? Together with a discussion partner or partners, discuss and write down some of the key differences that you understand exist between an asylum seeker,

a refugee and a migrant. Maybe together you can also think about how those differences may impact on people’s health and wellbeing.

Asylum Seeker

Refugee

Migrant

(Have a go at this first. There is also more information in the Resources section of this Handbook)


4. People from CALD backgrounds with cognitive disability & the

criminal justice system “Figures often beguile me” said Mark Twain and then goes on to ‘quote’ Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies and statistics.” (Mark Twain, Chapters from my Autobiography, 1870) Data and statistics about people from CALD backgrounds, people with cognitive disability and data from the criminal justice system are indeed beguiling. In fact, they either don't exist or are almost impossible to make sense of. Comparing apples with oranges, counting one thing and not another, definitions that differ, all add to the most amazing disarray. Below are some excerpts from a couple of publications and various research, collated to make some sense of the data:

CALD Data

“When looking at CALD it is generally agreed that the term CALD is made up of at least two groups of people:

• People who were born overseas in a non- English speaking country. (about 1.2 million people in NSW), generally referred to as first generation migrants or refuges; and

• The children of the people who were born to first generation migrants or refuges, generally referred to as second-generation migrants or refugees. (an additional 1.2 million people in NSW).

There are others who identify as being from CALD background, whose grandparents, or even more distant family members, came to Australia from other non-English speaking countries. Census data collected on ancestry identifies that there are over 1.5 million people who say that either both or one of their parents are from a non-English speaking country.

Based on all the data above, it can be safely assumed that at least 25% of people living in NSW are from a CALD background (or 1 in 4 people).

Language Data

1.5 million people in NSW speak a language other than English at home (LOTE), about 1 in 5 people in NSW. This information does not say anything about whether the person who speaks LOTE at home speaks any English at all or how proficient they are in English. The Census captures that information as well in another question. 1.7 million people answered the question about their levels of English proficiency in the 2011 general Census. 218,000 or about 4% of people in NSW said they do not speak English well or not at all.


(Please Note: All figures above are based on data derived from the 2011 Census)

Disability and CALD

Overall the incidence of disability among CALD communities in Australia is approximately the same as it is for the general population (i.e. 1 in 5 people). However, it is important to note that the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA), using a range of data sets, argues that:

”There is a higher prevalence of impairment for people born in a non English speaking country aged over 45 years of age, especially for ‘first wave’ non English speaking migrants, up to 3 times that of the Australian born population.”1

This is suspected to be largely due to higher levels of acquired disability among that population, with significantly higher levels of workplace injuries being higher than among other groups.

Disability, CALD and the NDIS - a problem with the current definition

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), in line with some ABS definitions, defines CALD as anyone whose country of birth is not Australia, the UK, the USA, Canada or South Africa or whose primary language spoken at home is not English.

However, focusing only on country of birth and language spoken at home denies the importance of culture and this limited definition essentially reduces the number of people with disability counted as being from CALD backgrounds by about 50%.

(From http://www.futuresupfront.com.au/pcp-across-cultures.html Terminology and Data, Workbook 2.1 Person Centred Practice Across Cultures)

CALD + Justice A report “Crime prevention programs for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia” based on research by Dr Lorna Bartels from the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2011 identified the following:

It is generally recognised that people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities may face a range of complex issues, including discrimination and prejudice, social isolation and disenfranchisement, and difficulties in assimilating within the broader Australian culture and/or in maintaining a sense of identification with the culture of origin. In addition, refugees or people who have migrated to Australia as a result of adversity may be suffering from undiagnosed or untreated trauma. All of these factors may impact on involvement in and engagement with the criminal justice system.

1 NEDA (2010): People from NESB with disability in Australia: What does the data say? http://www.neda.org.au/index.php/statistics


Ethnicity and offending

One of the key questions that arises in the context of cultural diversity and crime is whether people from different ethnic groups are more likely or less likely to offend than the general Australian population. Although there are a number of limitations to the data on ethnicity and crime, including those as a result of recording practices by police and corrections agencies on ethnic background of offenders, the available evidence seems to suggest that overall, migrants have the lowest rates of criminality in Australia, followed by first generation Australians, with the remaining Australian-born population having the highest rates of criminality (Baur 2006). However, adult migrants from New Zealand, Lebanon, Vietnam, Turkey and Romania have been identified as having a higher involvement in criminal activity than the Australian-born population, while juveniles from Lebanese, Turkish, Vietnamese, Indo-Chinese and New Zealand backgrounds were more highly represented in the criminal justice system than their Australian-born counterparts (Baur 2006).

As Baur (2006: 4) acknowledged, however, it is misleading to suggest that being a member of one of these groups is causally related to criminal activity. It is necessary to reiterate that the statistics used to identify these groups are inadequate. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that socio-demographic factors and social disadvantage can better explain criminality than membership in the identified groups

At 30 June 2010, 20$ of Australian prisoners (sentenced and unsentenced) were born overseas, although this rose to 25% in Victoria and New South Wales (which may be due to these jurisdictions having a higher immigrant population generally). (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010b. Prisoners in Australia, 2010. cat. no. 4517.0. Canberra: ABS)

Key criminal justice issues and barriers for CALD communities

Although there are risks associated with assuming homogeneity among CALD communities, a brief review of the recent Australian literature has identified the following as key criminal justice issues among such groups:

• difficulties with police, including perceptions and instances of racism, bias and over-policing;

• racially motivated attacks, predominantly from strangers, particularly in the context of so-called ‘hate crime’;

• disproportionately high rates of fear of crime, again, often in the context of hate crime;

• lack of awareness of the law (eg in relation to driving and domestic violence) and the operation of the criminal justice system;

• under-reporting as victims of crime, which may be due to a lack of understanding of, or confidence in, the criminal justice system, as well as fear of police and concern about the stigma and shame associated with criminal


justice system contact, which may act as a barrier to accessing both formal and informal support systems;

• issues with alcohol and other drugs (AOD), although there is some evidence suggesting lower levels of use among non-English speaking background groups than in the general population;

• difficulties accessing culturally appropriate services (eg legal assistance, domestic violence support and substance abuse treatment); and

• [lack of awareness and understanding of issues relation to] child protection and domestic/sexual violence issues.

In addition, Sawrikar and Katz (2008) have identified the following barriers as common to CALD communities:

• cultural barriers (language and cultural norms, as well as traditional gender roles and fear of authority figures, such as police);

• structural barriers (lack of knowledge of available services and difficulties accessing them); and

• service-related barriers (eg service models are culturally inappropriate or are perceived to be so).

(from: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/18.html)

CALD + Cognitive Disability +Criminal Justice There is no publically available data on this population group and differences in definitions and counting different things between different jurisdictions and arms of the justice agencies, as well as other systems make it almost impossible to get even a basic picture and understanding of CALD persons with cognitive disability in Australian criminal justice systems. For the purposes here, we have asked Eileen Baldry one of the authors of one of the key reports into this issue (Baldry, E. Dowse, L. and Clarence, M. (2012) People with intellectual and other cognitive disability in the criminal justice system; Sydney, University of New South Wales https://www.mhdcd.unsw.edu.au/) to share what they know from the available data from a cohort of 2,731 individuals who have been in prison in NSW. However, this information is to be treated with utmost caution because it is not representative and can be used as an indicator only.


In that research, 16% of the cohort is identified as coming from a CALD background (note definitions of CALD differ across data sets compared), has similarly high levels of mental and cognitive disability as others in the cohort and the top 4 communities represented are:

• Vietnam • Lebanon • Fiji • Samoa

(Please note that this data is not correlated back to population data and therefore it is not clear whether certain communities are over or under represented in that data set.) The NSW Law Reform Commission Report 135: People with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system – Diversion from June 2012 included the following:

The Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW submitted that some people from non-English speaking backgrounds experience barriers to accessing appropriate care prior to contact with the criminal justice system. They may either not be diagnosed or be misdiagnosed. Problems with obtaining an accurate diagnosis can arise from different cultural concepts surrounding disability, language difficulties, culturally inappropriate assessment tools or the masking of an impairment by language and cultural factors.

These barriers may mean that by the time a person seeks help, “the situation has increased in severity, complexity and impact” Contact with the legal system may compound this situation, as some members of CALD communities have a fear of, or lack knowledge of, the Australian legal system and legal services.

Certain groups within CALD communities have particular needs that warrant special consideration. For instance some refugees have experienced significant trauma such as torture and may experience post-migration stress. Both of these factors increase vulnerability to mental health impairments.

(from: http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-

135.pdf )


5. Blind Spots, assumptions and unconscious biases

Activity: How do we know what we know?

Imagine that contained in the circle below is all the knowledge that ever was and ever will be in the entire universe. Now please slice that circle into:

• the slice of what you know, • the slice of that what you know that you do NOT know, • the remaining slice? What do you call that?


Unconscious Biases Some of the more common unconscious biases include: Bias #1: “The Bandwagon Effect”

• We tend to go along with what other members of our group are doing. (Also known as the Herd Mentality.)

Bias #2: “Hyperbolic Discounting” • When presented with two similar rewards, we show a preference for the one

that arrives sooner rather than later. (To test this, ask around your office whether people would prefer $50 now or $75 a year from now—or how about $100 five years from now? Studies have shown that overwhelmingly we will take the money now, because they perceive a greater value.) We have been proven to discount the value of a later reward by a factor that increases with the length of the delay.

Bias #3: “The In-group Bias” • We naturally polarize into groups. This bias means we tend to view “our”

group as better, while outsiders are collectively viewed as inferior. Bias #4: “The Confirmation Bias”

• We tend to ignore information that does not fit with our beliefs, and give more weight to information we find agreeable.

Bias #5: “Mere-Exposure Effect” • We tend to develop a preference for things merely because we are familiar

with them. Bias #6: “The Negativity Bias”

• We pay more attention to and give more weight to negative rather than positive experiences and information.

Bias #7: “System Justification” • We will defend and prefer the status quo, seeing it as better, more legitimate,

and more desirable than new alternatives. Bias #8: “The Spacing Effect”

• We recall information is better recalled if our exposure to it is repeated over a longer span of time, rather than occurring only once or grouped together in time.

(From: http://www.globoforce.com/gfblog/2012/8-cognitive-biases-that-will-make-or-break-your-culture/ )


6. Culturally Responsive Person Centred Practices

Some Definitions: Person centred approaches are:

“waysofcommissioning(funding),providingandorganisingservicesrootedinlisteningtowhatpeoplewant,tohelpthemliveintheircommunitiesastheychoose.Peoplearenotsimplyplacedinpre-existingservicesandexpectedtoadjust,rather,theservicestrivestoadjusttotheperson.Personcentredapproacheslooktomainstreamservicesandcommunityresourcesforassistanceanddonotlimitthemselvestowhatisavailablewithinspecialistservices.”2

The key principles that underpin person-centred practice are:

• the person is at the centre

• their wider social network is involved as full partners

• there is a partnership between the person, their family and the service provider

• the whole of life is considered.

Cultural competence is defined as:

“asetofvalues,behaviours,attitudes,andpracticeswithinasystem,organisation,programoramongindividualsandwhichenablesthemtoworkeffectivelycrossculturally

Itreferstotheabilitytohonourandrespectthebeliefs,language,interpersonalstylesandbehavioursofindividualsandfamiliesreceivingservices,aswellasstaffwhoareprovidingsuchservices.Strivingtoachieveculturalcompetenceisadynamic,ongoing,developmentalprocessthatrequiresalongtermcommitment”.3

To be ‘culturally responsive’ means

being willing to consider the world through another person’s eyes. Even when we share a similar background we often think, feel and respond to things in life differently – think about age-related perspectives or gender-influenced views. Working with people means learning to work with diverse ways of seeing and being in the world. Unintentionally, we can assume that what and how we value and do things is universally applicable and/or that common traits can be applied to people with similar backgrounds. Humans do not all see or respond to the world the same way.

2 ValuingPeople–ANewStrategyforLearningDisabilityforthe21stCentury.GuidanceforImplementationGroups,http://valuingpeople.gov.uk 3 Denboba,D.,U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,HealthServicesandResourcesAdministration(1993).MCHB/DSCSHCNGuidanceforCompetitiveApplications,MaternalandChildHealthImprovementProjectsforChildrenwithSpecialHealthCareNeeds


‘Culturally responsive practice’ is about appreciating this tendency in ourselves, and each other, and being willing to learn about and consider each person’s perspective. People are unique regardless of what may at first appear to be similarities. This way of working allows us to get to the real heart of each person’s needs. Essentially, it is about listening and developing a respectful curiosity about who people are, what motivates and influences them, and how this impacts the ways they like to be, and feel best supported, in the world.

The term ‘responsive’ is important here. It acknowledges that ‘culturally responsive practice’ requires a commitment to an ever-unfolding process of learning. Each person will see and experience the world through their own cultural lens, and what makes up that cultural lens is going to be different for each individual. So the process is always evolving, and our abilities to remain curious and consider people’s needs from their unique cultural perspective, which itself can change and grow, is the key.

What are the parallels between person centred and culturally responsive practices?

Person-centred Culturallyresponsive

Understand self Understand self in the context of culture

Understand personal lens Understand different, culturally diverse lenses

Understand personal values, beliefs and their impact

Understand personal values &beliefs in the context of culture

Understand impact of culture on the ‘making of’ personal values and beliefs

Explore the impact of conscious and unconscious prejudice

Accept existence of conscious and unconscious prejudices and continually challenge oneself and others

(From http://www.futuresupfront.com.au/pcp-across-cultures.html, A culturally responsive person centred organisation, Workbook 2.3 Person Centred Practice

Across Cultures)


Key culturally responsive person centred practices: • Listening – unconditional positive regard across cultures • Enabling choice making – navigating between choice as liberation or choice

as burden • Critical thinking • Working with assumptions • Empathy • Reflective Practice

In this workshop and this handbook we will focus on: • Empathy • Listening • Choice Making

Empathy

The four skills of empathy identified in the video clip by Brené Brown on empathy are:

• Perspective taking

• Staying out of judgement

• Recognising emotions in other people

• Talking about / acknowledging those emotions.

(from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw)

If you want to learn more about empathy, have a look at the work by Roman Krzniac (a goggle search will reveal a range of books, articles and you tube clips)

But for the purpose here, looking culturally responsive person centred practices, there are a couple of questions worth thinking about.

Can empathy be learned?

Until recently, empathy was thought of as a personality trait; some have it some don’t. But with the emergence of neuroscience and us learning more and more about our brains, it is becoming clearer that while empathy is a ‘natural phenomena occurring automatically’ in the brain, ‘nature’ can also be helped along and be strengthened.

So the answer to the question, ‘Can empathy be learned?’ is a clear ‘yes’, and environments that are empathic are certainly good for developing your empathic abilities.

(From http://www.futuresupfront.com.au/pcp-across-cultures.html Empathy- A practice to connect across cultures, Workbook 1.1

Person Centred Practice Across Cultures)


Are there cultural differences in empathy?

With empathy gaining more prominence as an idea and practice for the 21st century, researchers are exploring the question of whether empathy is universal or whether there are cultural differences. At this stage in the inquiry, it appears that there is consensus that empathy is a universal human trait/ quality and that there are different ‘types’ of empathy (affective or cognitive) that are stronger in some cultures than in others. If you want to know more about this issue, check out the links in the resources section of this handbook.

Are we biased in our empathy?

David Eagleman is a neuroscientist who has written a couple of books and has also made a few TV shows. In an interview with ABC Radio called “The story of your brain” he had the following to say:

“So neuroscientists have studied empathy for the last 15 years or so, and what it turns out to be is when you see somebody else getting hurt, the same networks that are in your brain, that care about you getting hurt, light up. Those become active. And that's what empathy is. You are literally feeling somebody else's pain. You don't have the sensory experience of, let's say, getting stabbed in the hand, you don't have that sensory experience but you feel all this other stuff around that. And it turns out that the more you care about that person, the stronger that empathic response is, and you are running the simulation of what it would be like if that were you.

One of the experiments we've been doing in my lab, we're just about to publish this now, is this issue of what happens with in-groups and out-groups? Because it turns out that out-groups are very easy to make, to define. And so we've been running an experiment in my lab where we do the following, we show six hands on the screen, and then one of those hands gets picked by the computer and you see the hand get stabbed by a syringe needle. It's really awful-looking, and you have an empathic response to that. The networks in your brain that care about you being in pain light up.

Now what we do is we label those six hands with different religious labels, so Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist or atheist. And now the computer picks a hand and stabs it, and we are measuring what happens in your brain, and it turns out that if you happen to belong to that in-group you really care about it, you have a stronger empathic response than if the hand is labeled as a member of your out-group, of one of your out-groups, in this case there are five of them. And so in that case you have a smaller empathic response, just based on a one-word label.

This is a really important sort of thing because my hope is that the next generation will come to recognise things like propaganda and what makes certain people in your out-group…because as soon as you're told by your government or your parents or whatever that someone is in your out-group, you just care about them less. And so the hope is that the next generation will come to recognise these patterns of dehumanisation, literally dehumanisation


because the networks in your brain that care about someone as another human get dialed down, and that the next generation will become more immune to this”.

(From: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-story-of-your-brain/7108384#transcript )

Can empathy effect social change? Roman Krznaric says that empathy can:

• Inspire mass action and social change • Develop an ambitious imagination

and he says “If we aspire for empathy to fulfill its revolutionary potential as a force for social change, we must generate a deep cultural shift so that looking at the world through other people’s eyes becomes as common as looking both ways when we cross the road.”

(from Roman Krznaric: Empathy, 2014)

The idea is that if empathy has the potential to be practised not just with our in-group, not just with our clan, people of our country, people with the same belief, etc. then there is potential to ‘feel with’ others who may not be like us, but with whom we can connect because of our shared humanity. Have a think about how some social change campaigns have used this idea, and are working to connect us with others and their issues based on our shared humanity. Think back to the conversation about “Same same, but different” at the beginning of the workshop.

If you want to know more about this, have a look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g and the writings by Jeremy Riffkin.


Listening - cross culturally

Activity: Remember being listened to

Try to remember the last time someone really listened to you – really listened. Try to remember what they did and write it down.

Activity:

Deep Listening

Listen to the Podcast ‘Deep Listening’ (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/deep-listening-working-with-indigenous-mental/3226200)

• From your listening, what are the factors that may impact on how people communicate?

• What does listening mean across different cultures?


This ABC podcast from 2007 has lost none of its relevance. In it, Denis McDermott, now Professor in Indigenous Health at Flinders University and Chair of the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, says about deep listening:

“It's definitely not an original idea, definitely not. I've picked it up from a number of sources, most notably from a woman called Miriam Rose Ungunmerr-Baumann who is from the Daly River mob in the Northern Territory. But from her cultural group comes this notion of dadirri, and she describes it as a kind of inner deep listening, a kind of still awareness. But there's similar ideas I found when I started to look around, around various Indigenous cultures around Australia, in Sydney from the Eora language there's a word called ngara. And ngara in this language means to hear, to listen. But with the added dimension of thinking at the same time, a self reflection. And as a Victorian Koori organisation board member pointed it out to me just this last week in Melbourne, it has the additional dimension of actually finishing off what you're hearing with an action. So if someone is actually telling you something, your obligation, if you like, is to follow that through. So it's a link and a reciprocity going on.”


Choice Making

Activity: A quick survey

Question No Yes Unsure If Unsure, why?

Does more choices mean more well-being?

Is making choices something we learn?

Do we know what we want (when asked)?

Are more choices better for us?

Do the choices I make say something about my individuality?

Does choice making have anything to do with culture?

Once you have completed this, talk to the person next to you. Do you have different responses? How are they different and can you work out why? Everyone is different. Some elements of choice making may be influenced our cultural background. We all have to find out what we prefer and how choice making works best for us. Below is some research that explores those questions more deeply


More choice and control means a better life

In Australia (and maybe in the Western world generally) much of our current relationship with choice and choice making looks like this formula:

More choice + control = A better life

The researchers in this field seem to agree that all humans value some level of choice and choice making. There can be no doubt that more choice and control will be a good thing for people with disability, many of whom have had so little choice and control in key areas of their lives that any increase in this area is an improvement.

However, making choices is complex. Given that it is such a central ‘theme’ of person centred thinking and critical in delivering on the promises of individualised funding assisting people have a better life, it is helpful to explore some key principles a bit further.

Does more choice mean more well-being?

Barry Schwartz4 talks about what in the U.S. is called ‘patient autonomy’, that is, people get to choose their health care provider. Schwartz argues that because people do not really understand their choices, this patient autonomy is simply shifting the burden and responsibility from someone who knows (in this case a doctor) to somebody who knows nothing about it (the patient) and who is likely to be unwell at the time of having to choose. He argues that more choice does not necessarily lead to better outcomes.

Sheena Iyengar in her book5 and in her TED talk, referring to a cross-cultural study, says that having had a choice in a difficult matter does not necessarily make a person more satisfied or happier afterwards. She gives an example where either a doctor or the next of kin had to make a really difficult decision about people’s care and treatment (turning off life support). She found that in the country where the doctor made the choice to turn off life support (in France), the next of kin was coping better with the decision one year afterwards than the next of kin (in America) who made the same decision themselves. In an interesting twist, the next of kin in America continued to insist that it was important to them that they had the choice (even so it left them feeling worse than the next of kin in France).

Finally, despite publishing a book called ‘The Tyranny Of Choice’, Renata Salecl6, a philosopher from Slovenia, argues that opening new choices can shift our thinking and helps us imagine and possibly create another reality. This means that, for example, having a choice about participating in a mainstream activity, rather than one exclusively available to people with disability, might open the thinking of someone to the possibility that life could be inclusive.

4 Schwartz, B (2004): The Paradox of Choice: Why More is less 5 Iyengar, S (2010): The Art of Choosing 6 Salecl, R. (2011): The Tyranny of Choice


Thinking about these findings, there are clearly cultural differences in our relationship to choice and the importance we place on choice making.

Putting all of this into a person centred thinking and doing context, could there be situations were choice and choice making could lead to less good outcomes?

Of course, in part, these questions depend on what we think a good outcome might look like. It also depends on whether we believe all choices have to be perfect right from the start or whether making some choices is as much about learning about the act of choice making, as it is about the outcome itself.

Is choice making something we learn?

Sheena Ivengar, referring to studies with people who grew up in pre- capitalist Eastern block countries, makes the point that choice making can produce fear and anxiety in people, especially if they are not used to many choices.

This is not a new idea. Kierkegaard, a 19th century Danish Philosopher, said that anxiety was the:

“dizzying effect of freedom, of paralysing possibilities and of the boundlessness of one’s own existence”7

So we put strategies in place. If choice making becomes all too much for us, we try to manage by:

• Creating yes/no options,

• Distinguish choices that are real from choices that are not real;

• Reducing the differences between the choices (create categories).

Basically, if we become overwhelmed by the choices on offer we do not experience this as liberating, but as constraining or even anxiety provoking.

But can choice making can be learned? How can we go about it?

All of this has relevance for us as we move from a system where people with disability had no or very few choices to an environment where a proliferation of choices is expected.

Working from a person centred perspective; it might be useful for us to remember the studies of Shena Iyengar with pre-capitalist Eastern Europeans. If with think of people with disability, especially people with intellectual disability, as a cultural group, then we could certainly see that a lack of choices in the past might mean that people may experience fear and anxiety in the face of too many choices. Just thinking about the choices may leave some people feel overwhelmed and worried.

Do we know what we want (when asked)?

Malcolm Gladwell says that if you ask people what they really want, they don’t tell you8. We often don’t quite know what we want. Or we think we know what we want, but it is not really what we want. 7 Kerkegaard, S. ( 1844): The Concept of Anxiety


He uses examples from advertising food that suggest that we say one thing, but often we really mean something else.

We all know about optical illusions, but we are not so good at understanding the illusions of our mind and how those impact on our choice making.

As an aside, if you think you know what you want and that you can’t be manipulated have a look at the work of what’s called behavioural economists in the area of irrational decision-making. Dan Ariely, a Professor of Psychology and Behavioural Economics, did a great TED talk and wrote a whole book on this topic.9

Back to Gladwell, who also said that in order to find a way towards ‘happiness’, we have to find a way to each person, person by person. Each individual is different. We are not ‘clusters of people’. This sounds very much like operating from a person centred approach.

The two points made by Gladwell are very important to those of us wanting to work from a person centred perspective that is culturally responsive.

Firstly, if we simply ask people what they want, many (but not all) people will not know. We need to find better questions; better ways of being and exploring choices together with people; and people need to have the time, resources and opportunities to find out the answers for themselves. None of us can imagine something we cannot imagine – this might sound funny but if you think about it, you know this is true for everyone. Sometimes we cannot imagine what might be possible. This is why listening to and learning from people in similar situations is really important.

Secondly, if we treat people as one group (for example, treating people with the same disability as one group, or people from the same ethnic community as one group), we will miss the opportunity for people to make the choices that work for them as individuals within their cultural context.

Are more choices better for you?

Most people believe that everyone benefits from making choices about the things that affect their lives and that more choices are better than fewer choices. Well, not really. Both Iyengar and Schwartz say that having too many choices leads to:

• A lack of engagement: it’s all too hard and we simply delay choosing. The more there is on offer the less likely it is that we will choose.

• Less satisfaction with the choice we made: we are always thinking about what would have been if we had chosen something else. We worry about having chosen the wrong thing, even if we if we are ok with our choice. This is ‘the grass is always greener on the other side’ thinking.

8 Gladwell, M. (2004): Choice, Happiness and spaghetti sauce, Ted talk; https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce?language=en 9 Ariely, D. (2008): Are we in control of our own decisions?; Ted talk; https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions?language=en


• Less satisfaction due to higher expectations: if things are good now, we expect them to be perfect next time and yet nothing seems ever good enough. This is ‘ in the good old days everything was better’ thinking.

• Poorer decisions: If we have 10 or more choices in a range of critical areas (such as finance or health care) we tend to make poorer decisions than if we had fewer choices.

Is making choice an expression of our individuality?

Sheena Iyengar suggests that people from cultures that value the self over the collectives generally see choice making as an expression of their individuality, an act that defines their identify.

At the same time, she powerfully proves that in cultures that value the collective over the individual, decision making by individuals is much more about an opportunity to express harmony and connectedness with others.

Now does this really matter?

Yes it does. In a cross-cultural experiment Iyengar shows that making choices that are congruent, that is, in line with your culture, result in better outcomes from those choices. Having made a choice that is ‘culturally right’ you have a better chance in achieving success as a result from that choice. In Iyengar’s study that meant American children performed better in a test when they chose elements of that test themselves. While children from a Japanese background performed better when they followed the choice their mother had suggested to them.

Many people with disability have learned not to make choices and to first listen to what other people think. People who are highly dependent on others for their day-to-day care and support may listen to others and their wishes first, and then choose something that is in line with the choice of the people surrounding them.

So again the learning from cross-cultural studies can assist us in our person centred thinking and doing.

What to do with all of that?

Maybe after all of the above its important to say again: It is great that people with disability will have more choice and control and, like everyone, most will value that.

To assist people in their choice making Sheena Iyengar provides us with four tips:

• Drop the number of choices: Assist people to cut out choices that don’t work, the choices that are not really a choice anyhow.

• Before you choose, imagine the outcome of the choice: Help people to try imagine, try to understand (and feel) the consequences of the choice; assist people to make that imagination feel real.

• Put the choices into categories and choose a category first: for example, assist people to choose between further study or work before you choose between all the work options and all the further study options


• Start with a small number of choices and increase after that: for example, assist people to choose between ice cream or cake for dessert, and only then help people choose from all the different flavours of ice- cream.

Finally, she says, and we agree, any good person centred practitioner can assist people to be choosy about choosing.

(from: http://www.futuresupfront.com.au/pcp-across-cultures.html Choice Making – Cross cultural differences and what we can learn from them,

Workbook 1.3; Person Centred Practice Across Cultures)

Reflection

Activity:

Please take a few minutes to think about your expectations (page 4 of this workbook). Have your expectations been met? Have you learned things you did not expect? What is missing and where would you get it? Finally, will anything you learned influence your work and if so how?


More resources and links:

Working with Diversity

A bit about the benefits and challenges of cultural diversity in the workplace can be found here http://www.hult.edu/news/benefits-challenges-cultural-diversity-workplace/ A New Zealand Perspective on the benefits of diversity https://diversityworksnz.org.nz/benefits-of-diversity/ Productive diversity- People with disability and the Australian Public Service https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/people-disabilities-and-productive-diversity-australian-public-service

Asylum Seeker, Refugee and Migrant An asylum seeker is a person who has fled from his or her own country due to fear of persecution and has applied for (legal and physical) protection in another country but has not yet had their claim for protection assessed. An asylum seeker is a person who has fled from his or her own country due to fear of persecution and has applied for (legal and physical) protection in another country but has not yet had their claim for protection assessed. A person remains an asylum seeker until their protection ‘status’ has been determined. A refugee is a person who has fled his or her own country and cannot return due to fear of persecution, and has been given refugee status. Refugee status is given to applicants by the United Nations or by a third party country, such as Australia. According to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), a refugee is a person who is:

• outside their own country and • has a well-founded fear of persecution due to his/ her race, religion,

nationality, member of a particular social group or political opinion, and is • unable or unwilling to return.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that at the end of 2012 there were 15.4 million refugees in the world.


Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. Australia has been condemned many times for continued breaches of international human rights and, in particular, its treatment of asylum seekers. For example the Human Rights Watch Report 2017 singled out:

“Human Rights Watch has condemned Australian government policies relating to offshore processing and prolonged detention, criticising legislation

DisabilityJus,ceProject


Australia’sRefugeeintake


h4p://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublica,ons/Documents/sta,s,cs/humanitarian-programme-outcomes-offshore-2015-16.pdf


introduced last year that prevents those arriving by boat from ever settling in Australia.

As explained in the report, Australia’s policy since June 2013 has been to send those arriving by boat to Manus Island or Nauru, with 900 people currently detained on Manus Island and 1,200 on Nauru.

In April 2016 the PNG Supreme Court ruled this practice to be unconstitutional. Although the highest court in Australia has ruled that the operation of the centres is lawful under Australia’s Constitution, both governments have since agreed to close the Manus Island centre. However, the 2017 HRW report emphasises there is still no established timeframe within which to do so.”

(from: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/publications-external/hrw-2017-eport/)

In relation to asylum seeker and refugee the Australian government has also obligations under various other international treaties, including:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment (CAT) • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

(https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/asylum-

seekers-and-refugees-guide)

A migrant is someone who voluntarily chooses to leave his or her own country and make a new life in another country. Australia has a long history of migration. People have been moving to Australia for work and better opportunities since British colonisation in 1788.

(from: http://www.roads-to-refuge.com.au/whois/whois_definitions.html)

More about Refugees and Migrants with Disability: http://www.neda.org.au/index.php/reports/item/refugees-and-migrants-and-the-united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-july-2008


People from CALD backgrounds with cognitive disability and the criminal justice

system Crime prevention programs for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/1-10/18.html

Blind Spots, Assumptions and unconscious biases PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers, US) have a webpage dedicated to Blind Spots and 4 associated videos focusing on

• Challenge assumptions • Enhance objectivity • Overcome stereotypes • Broaden Perspectives

(from: http://www.pwc.com/us/blindspots) The Royal Society has put out a video on ‘Understanding unconscious bias” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVp9Z5k0dEE&t=6s (Please don't let the math example at the beginning distract you) Want to learn more about your own biases and blind spots? You might like to do a text. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp Want to understand more about different biases go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwGBIr_RIw&t=84s


UNCRPD&keyissuesaffec2ngrefugeesandmigrantswithdisability

•  CurrentAustralianmigra,onhealthtestisatoddswiththeequalprotec,onobliga,onunderAr,cle5ofUNCRPD,leadingtounjus,fiableindirectdiscrimina,onforsomerefugeesandmigrantswithdisability.

•  Tenyearwai,ngperiodfortheDisabilitySupportPensionundertheSocialSecurityAct1991(Cth)interfereswithhumanrightsunderAr,cles28,25and15,rela,ngtostandardoflivingandsocialprotec,on,healthandinhumanordegradingtreatment.

(NEDA,2008)


To read more about the Doll Test, go to: http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-the-doll-test

Culturally responsive person centred practices Empathy (and culture) Atkins, David (2014) The Role of Culture in Empathy: The Consequences and Explanations of Cultural Differences in Empathy at the Affective and Cognitive Levels. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,(Full text available) https://kar.kent.ac.uk/47970/ Cross Cultural Empathy: http://empathicperspectives.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/cross-cultural-empathy.html Listening Active Listening basics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWe_ogA5YCU The core elements of Active Listening:

1. Paying Attention

• Give the speaker your undivided attention, and acknowledge the message. Recognize that non-verbal communication also "speaks" loudly.

• Look at the speaker directly.

• Put aside distracting thoughts.

• Don't mentally prepare a rebuttal!

• Avoid being distracted by environmental factors, for example side conversations

2. Showing that you are listening

• Use your own body language and gestures to convey your attention.

• Nod occasionally.

• Smile and use other facial expressions.

• Note your posture and make sure it is open and inviting.

• Encourage the speaker to continue with small verbal comments like ‘yes’, and ‘mmhh’

3. Providing Feedback

• Our personal filters, assumptions, judgments, and beliefs can distort what we hear. As a listener, your role is to understand what is being said. This may require you to reflect what is being said and ask questions.

• Reflect what has been said by paraphrasing. "What I'm hearing is…" and "Sounds like you are saying…" are great ways to reflect back.


• Ask questions to clarify certain points. “What do you mean when you say,’Is this what you mean?’ ”

• Summarize the speaker's comments periodically.

4. Deferring Judgement

• Interrupting is a waste of time. It frustrates the speaker and limits full understanding of the message.

• Allow the speaker to finish each point before asking questions.

• Don't interrupt with counter arguments.

• Respond Appropriately

• Active listening is a model for respect and understanding. You are gaining information and perspective. You add nothing by attacking the speaker or otherwise putting him or her down.

• Be candid, open, and honest in your response.

• Assert your opinions respectfully.

• Treat the other person in a way that you think he or she would want to be treated.10

On the other hand, Carl Rogers, who can be called one of the ‘fathers’ of person centred approaches, digs much deeper and yet, at the same time, gives us much less of a ‘list’ and more of way of being with his three critical elements of listening:

• Listen for total meaning (both content and feeling/attitude) • Respond to feelings (acknowledge the feelings in your communication) • Note all clues (much of communication is non-verbal).11

Choice Making• “Decisions, decisions, decisions”: An animated video made by Speakout

Tasmania designed to teach young people with intellectual disability about choice and decision making https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmWO3E1kJT4

• Malcolm Gladwell: “Choice, Happiness and Spaghetti Sauce” on https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce

• Barry Schwartz: “The Paradox of Choice” on https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

• Sheena Iyengar: “The Art of Choosing” on https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing

• “How to make choosing easier” on https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

10 from: https://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/ActiveListening.htm 11 Rogers, C and Farson, R: Active listening http://wholebeinginstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/Rogers_Farson_Active-Listening.pdf


The last resource: Working with Interpreters Working with Interpreters is not part of the course, but as it is such an important part of connecting and communicating with people from CALD backgrounds, below a resource developed by the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW: Factsheet No. 9: Using Interpreters successfully

Identifying the language Working out what language your service user speaks can be the first challenge. To prepare for this situation the best thing to do is to ring the Community Relations Commission (1300 651 500) and ask them to send you some Interpreter Cards. These cards will help you and your service user to identify the language being spoken.

Identifying whether an interpreter is needed • Ask your service user to repeat a message that you have just given in his/her own words. • Ask your service user a question that requires him/her to provide a long response; avoid

questions that can be answered with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ or asking familiar questions such as ‘Where do you live?’

• If you think that an interpreter is required, discuss this with your service user before you make an arrangement for an interpreter.

Most importantly, if you feel that you cannot communicate with your service user then you will need an interpreter.

Different types of interpreter services There are basically two types of interpreting services: on-site and telephone interpreting.

• On-site interpreting means that an interpreter comes to where the meeting is being held. In general, on-site interpreters are used for complex and long matters.

• Telephone interpreting is interpreting that is provided over the phone and is especially useful for emergencies.

Both types of interpreting services have advantages and disadvantages. If money is a concern, telephone interpreting generally (but not always) works out cheaper.

How to book an interpreter A range of private and government agencies provide interpreting services. Most importantly you and your service user need to make sure that the interpreter you book (and pay good money for) is an accredited interpreter. Government interpreter services only employ interpreters that have been accredited by the National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters (NAATI).


Working with an interpreter Below are some ‘Handy Hints’ that we found useful when working with interpreters:

• Brief the interpreter about relevant words and concepts prior to the interview whenever possible.

• While interpreters are used for their language expertise, you may be able to us their cultural expertise, by asking the interpreter before the interview for information on any cultural factors that might affect the interview. Be aware of gender, class, disability and other issues (such as political, religious) that may impact on the interview. Seek the service user’s permission if you need to obtain additional cultural information from the interpreter during the interview.

• Stress that you and the interpreter are bound by codes of ethics to maintain the confidentiality of the interview.

• Use plain English where possible. • When complex issues are involved remember to summarise periodically. • If your service user does not understand what you are saying, it is your responsibility (not

the interpreter’s) to explain it more simply. • Always use the first person, for example: ‘How are you feeling?’ Do not say (to the

interpreter): ‘Ask her/ him how she/he is feeling?’ • Do not try to save time by asking the interpreter to summarise. • Be aware that it may take more or fewer words than those you have spoken to convey the

message in another language. • Do not let the interpreter’s presence change your role in the interview. It is not the

interpreter’s role to conduct the interview.

Be aware • Speaking louder does not help.

• Do not use children as interpreters. • Gender issues may be relevant and you may need an interpreter who is of the same gender

as your service user.

• Especially when working with people from smaller communities, ask your service user whether they know the interpreter. If she/he refuses the interpreter, you will need to book another one.