A response to Dr. Leal-Idrogo's "Further Thoughts." (response to article by Anita Leal-Idrogo in this issue, p. 21)

We welcome the opportunity to respond to Anita Leal-Idrogo's perceptive thoughts regarding the use of translators/interpreters in rehabilitation. Both our article and Leal-Idrogo's critique serve to highlight the language needs of linguistically isolated rehabilitation clients. We agree on the importance of bringing the needs of non-English speaking clients into the forefront and we find ourselves in agreement with many of the specific issues raised in her commentary.

We will address, section by section, the issues raised in the order in which she raised them.

To begin with, we are sympathetic to Leal-Idrogo's personal account of her experience as a child who spoke primarily Spanish as she encountered the U.S. educational system. In addition, her account of personal experiences as a bilingual rehabilitation professional helped us understand her perspective on the use of translators and interpreters. Indeed, as she implies, we must all begin our journey into multicultural rehabilitation work from the perspective of our own cultural identity and from our own socio-historical background. Likewise, our clients, whatever their racial, ethnic, or linguistic background, bring their own unique perspectives, gifts, talents, biases, and disabilities to the rehabilitation setting.

Her personal account underscores the need for sensitivity toward and respect for persons of all racial/ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. While she correctly points out that Latinos comprise the largest group of non-English speaking people in the U.S., we felt that it was important in our article to address the needs of other racial/ethnic minorities as well. We made an effort to broaden the article beyond a focus on the needs of Latino rehabilitation clients by making specific reference to Asian American and Native American linguistic needs. While she focuses almost exclusively on the needs of Latinos, we see no difference in her position and ours except that ours was broader and more inclusive.

Bilingual/Bicultural

Leal-Idrogo's comments focus on clarifying use of the term "bilingual/bicultural" and discuss roles for bilingual/bicultural rehabilitation workers. In response we again point out that the focus of our article was not on the definition or distinction between the concepts of bilingual or bicultural. We have addressed this in greater detail elsewhere (Smart & Smart, 1992a, 1992b). She correctly points out that an individual may be bilingual or bicultural or both, but failed to mention other combinations of monolingualism and monoculturalism with bilingualism and biculturalism.

A broader issue which she raises is the need to be sensitive to the most appropriate role that each bilingual and/or bicultural staff member can play within an organization and to use each staff member in the most effective manner. We certainly support the same goal and call for organizational sensitivity to this issue.

Cultural Adaptations

Our greatest difference with Leal-Idrogo is that while she considers the use of family and friends as interpreters to be a beneficial "cultural adaptation," we sound strong cautions regarding this practice. While it is possible for family and friends to serve as linguistic facilitators and be supportive allies to those who do not speak the dominant language, they can also diminish effective communication for the various reasons which we listed in our article. The cultural adaptation of using friends and family members as interpreters is probably widespread and may be the only alternative available to many rehabilitation clients who seek services at rehabilitation agencies where interpreters are not available.

Nevertheless, we believe it is particularly important that extreme caution be exercised when children are put in the role of interpreter. We believe that our position is further bolstered by reference to the Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations (American Psychological Associations, 1990). Guidelines 6a is relevant and reads as follows:

Problems may arise when linguistic skills of the psychologist do not match the language of the client. In such a case, psychologists refer the client to a mental health professional who is competent to interact in the language of the client. If this is not possible, psychologists offer the client a translator (sic) with cultural knowledge and appropriate professional background. When no translator (sic) is available, then a trained paraprofessional from the client's culture is used as a translator/culture broken (p. 3)

Guideline 6b, which specifically cautions against dual relationships, reads as follows:

If translation (sic) is necessary, psychologists do not retain the services of translators (sic)/paraprofessionals that may have a dual role with the client to avoid jeopardizing the validity of evaluation or the effectiveness of intervention. (p. 3)

We believe that the guidelines adopted by psychologists represent a thoughtful and reasoned stance and form a framework for service delivery that addresses agency and client needs. While use of family and friends as interpreters may be convenient and may provide the client some support, the danger exists that it may introduce the negative influences with which such dual relationships are fraught. Leal-Idrogo makes reference to the organization of Bilingual Rehabilitation Associates (OBRA), an organization of which we had no knowledge. By her account, OBRA has developed a language proficiency examination appropriate for use in rehabilitation settings. We are greatly encouraged by this development and urge the OBRA organization to make the proficiency scale available for wider use in rehabilitation. It is through the development and use of such scales that progress can be made in meeting the language needs of people with disabilities. However, she failed to note which language(s) OBRA's proficiency examination covers. Incidentally, we like the acronym OBRA since it is the Spanish word for work, task, or labor!

Research Agenda

We agree with her strong appeal for additional research at both national and local levels. We also strongly encourage research with all linguistic minorities and their subgroups (Smart, 1993). Research which is undertaken to understand the role and function of translators and interpreters in rehabilitation settings must incorporate research philosophy and techniques which are sensitive to the issues of empowerment, collaboration, and cultural anchoring (Serrano-Garcia, 1990; Sausao & Sue, 1993). The viewpoints and feelings of linguistic minorities should be fully incorporated in any such research.

Another important and immediately useful research agenda would be the accumulation of data regarding the number and use of bilingual/bicultural rehabilitation professionals and the roles they can and do fill. Surveys of state/federal agencies regarding their use of these valuable bilingual/bicultural human resources would be an appropriate place to begin.

Cultural Pluralism and "English-Only" Laws

We agree that "English-only" laws will have a big impact on Latinos (and other linguistic minorities). These laws will continue to be an issue as they are tested in the courts and as American society continues to balance the needs of the dominant culture with various linguistic minorities. Leal-Idrogo emphasizes the challenges which rehabilitation workers face in helping linguistic minorities in a society where English is the predominant language. It will be important for rehabilitation professionals to influence the creation and interpretation of these laws. Again, we agree and offer our article as a pathway by which rehabilitation can more effectively help.

References

Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs. (1990). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sausao, T., & Sue, S., (1993). Toward a culturally anchored ecological framework of research in ethnic-cultural communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 705-727.

Serrano-Garcia, I. (1990). Implementing research: Putting our values to work. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & J. Leonard (Eds.), Research community psychology (pp. 171-182)

Smart, J.F. (1993). Level of acculturation of Mexican Americans with disabilities and acceptance of disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36, 199-211.

Smart, J.F., & Smart, D.W. (1992a). Acculturation, biculturalism, and the rehabilitation of Mexican Americans. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 24, 46-51.

Smart, J.F., & Smart, D.W. (1992b). Curriculum changes in multicultural education. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 105-122.

Julie F. Smart, Ph.D., CRC, NCC, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-2865.