Bridging Cultures: Evaluating Evidence of Harm to Children Translating for Immigrant Parents

Background: Immigrant children often facilitate communication with their parents. Some researchers see this “language-brokering” as harmful for child and family, causing stress or disempowering parents (Nedeau and Measham, 2006; Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco, 2001). However, some research suggests language brokering may have a positive effect, providing cognitive and affective benefits (Valdes, 2003) as children help integrate families into the mainstream community (Dorner, Orellana, and Jimenez, 2008).

Purpose: This systematic review evaluates empirical evidence and investigates new avenues for research. A new literature review is warranted because 10 new studies have been published since the last survey (Morales and Hanson, 2005). Unlike previous literature reviews describing language brokering (Tse, 1995) and collecting evidence of its effect (Morales and Hanson, 2005), this study seeks evidence of parental agency in brokering.

Methods:

To be included in this review, an article needed to (1) be related to information mediation within the immigrant family or between it and the outside world, (2) present empirical research, and (3) be published in a peer-reviewed journal or edited book. Initial search of the Web of Science database used combinations of the terms “immigrant” with “broker”, “interpret”, “translate”, and “mediate”. Articles contained in edited volumes were obtained by scanning reference lists of the articles already collected, resulting in 27 articles.

Results:

The evidence reviewed shows that children of immigrants are unlikely to be harmed by interpreting. While brokering is associated with higher levels of emotional distress, these do not rise to clinically significant effects. Surprisingly, brokering associates with better family functioning. This is apparently due to three factors. First, far from promoting role reversal, parents consider children's brokering a culturally appropriate contribution to family well being. Second, clinical literature on role reversal suggests that children may take on adult roles within the family provided that their parents are able to manage this activity effectively. In contrast, negative effects are expected when the children's helpfulness is tied to their sense of identity and self-worth, as when their contribution is excessive, diffuse, and unrecognized. Third, a close examination of research findings suggests that brokering by children is just one part of a wider brokering network that immigrant parents develop in order to meet their linguistic needs. Professional interpreters can also be a part of this network, especially since there is clear evidence that children who interpret can make important errors when translating more technical transactions.

Conclusion:

This review suggests that service providers need to take a more nuanced view of brokering by children of immigrants. Brokering does not seem to be as damaging as it is typically portrayed. However, an overly positive view of this practice is also not warranted, as it could lead service providers to miss symptoms of harm. In effect, it is not brokering per se, but how parents handle brokering that is likely to result in harm to the children engaged in this practice. Researchers need to shift emphasis and begin to study parental agency in brokering.