2020 - Melinco Report English

MELINCO
MELINCO
Report:
Linguistic
mediation
for
development
cooperation
Universidade de Vigo Authored by
Vigo, 2020
Del-Pozo-Triviño, Maribel
ISBN: 978-84-8158-884-2
Pérez Freire, Silvia
Casado-Neira, David
Translated by: Fernandes-Fernandes, Leslie Martin
Oca González, Luzía
This report has been published with funding from the Xunta de Galicia
The MELINCO team is responsible for the contents in this report and they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Xunta of Galicia
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 3
2.1 Survey 4
2.1.1 Characteristics of participants in the survey of non-

governmental development organisations (NGDOs) working with 6
translators and interpreters
2.1.2 Characteristics of participants in the survey of translators and

interpreters working within the scope of NGDOs
11
2.2 Focus groups 14
3. Main results: comparative analysis 16
3.1 Current state of communications between NGDO staff and the

persons assisted
16
3.2 Training needs detected in professional linguistic mediation 27
4. Conclusions 35
5. Bibliography 39
1. Introduction
The "Linguistic mediation for development cooperation" (MELINCO: 2019-2020)
project is focussed on protecting linguistics rights in development cooperation through
quality linguistic mediation between non-governmental development cooperation
organisations (hereinafter referred to as NGDO) and users and recipients of their social
cooperation activities. MELINCO is funded by the Xunta de Galicia's Directorate-
General for External Relations and the European Union through its call for research in
development cooperation within the framework of the UN's 2030 Agenda. It is
coordinated by the University of Vigo (multidisciplinary academic research team:
translation and interpreting, sociology, anthropology and pedagogy), with participation
from the universities of A Coruña, Alicante, Granada, Jaume I (Castellón) and Trás-os-
Montes e Alto Douro (Portugal).
MELINCO firstly aims to identify any linguistic and cultural barriers that may exist
between the NGDO staff and the foreign migrant population they assist, by paying
special attention to standard practices and possible linguistic rights violation of the
persons assisted and thereafter identify the training needs in interpreter-mediated
1
professional linguistic mediation. The plan was to create the following resources after
the (oral and written) translation needs had been detected:
1) Specialised training in oral linguistic mediation (interpreting) for NGDO staff by

taking into account the research findings in this report;
2) A good practices guide for working with interpreters in the third sector, taking into
account previous experiences: research findings and experience in development of
relevant training; and
3) Culturally adapted translations of texts provided by participating NGDOs, mostly
used in their social projects to assist people.
This research project therefore has a clear applicability: the elimination of linguistic and
cultural barriers experienced (during NGDO assistance) by these most vulnerable
persons.
The report provides a comparative analysis of the results obtained after analysing the
activity carried out by the following two connected groups: NGDO technical staff, and
translators & interpreters. To this end, we proceeded as follows:
– Methodology (section 2): explanation of the methodological approach used and
its techniques. In this case, it involved two surveys and two focus groups. This
section describes the fieldwork and the sample selected: characteristics of
profile, level of participation, advantages and limitations.
– Main results (section 3): comparative analysis of the data obtained with the
techniques used. It involves establishing the differences and similarities of the
results obtained by applying two different tools to try and explain (and not just
describe) the subject matter studied (Ibáñez, 1986). As Durkheim (1965: 99)
points out: "comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology; it is
sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to
account for facts". Hence, it is a matter of providing a scientifically reasoned
assessment linked to research objectives, which in our case include: detection
of language barriers that exist between NGDO staff and the immigrant
population they assist, and identification of the training needs for professional
linguistic mediation through qualified interpreters.
– Conclusions (section 4).
2. Methodology
A
mixed methodology was used to address the two aspects analysed, i.e., on
the one hand, the nature of the work performed by NGDO staff working with
translators & interpreters, and the work performed by translators &
interpreters in such NGDOs, and, on the other hand, their assessments and
considerations.
These two aspects require us to use different techniques due to the nature of the
information sought. Thus, in the first case, we need to collect comprehensive and
systematic data on professional practices related to language use, for which a survey is
the most appropriate tool. The second case involves opinions and perceptions in
which some reasoned argumentation via professional practice and experiences is
required, and hence an approach to discourse content is needed. Therefore, the
qualitative technique selected is the focus group, since it fully agglutinates the
"common ground" of any sample used. Both approaches complement each other and
significant data and assessments have been obtained. A comparison between them
permits the possibility of verifying certain patterns and possible inferences, in order to
3 offer explanations that help us to better understand the subject matter studied.
A survey is an extensive social research technique and a systematic way of collecting

data on concepts derived from a previously constructed research subject. This data is
collected through a questionnaire containing a set of thematically distributed variables
to facilitate measurement within a sample. The survey was performed via the Internet
and telephone as applicable.
The use of the focus group technique, on the other hand, responds to the search for
the so-called conversational ideology, that is, to find an essentially social discourse. This
implies that, upon confrontation of ideas and assessments, people with more or less
homogeneous characteristics tend to agree on common grounds that arise as a result
of dialectical tension-relaxation in group communication. Therefore, an indispensable
requirement for inclusion in this focus group was that they practice the same
profession and have experienced potentially similar situations. Thus, a collective
discourse is established through language, making it a particularly useful technique for
obtaining a worldview on the subject matter.
The results of the implementation of these two techniques are presented below.
2.1 Survey
Geographic scope: Galicia

Target population: 1) NGDO staff working with translators & interpreters and 2)
translators & interpreters working with NGDOs.
Estimated initial sample: it represents the study population and corresponds to:
1) Non-governmental development cooperation organisations (the 99 entities listed in

the corresponding register of the Xunta de Galicia in December 2019) and
2) Translators and interpreters from the autonomous region (497 persons listed in the
official register of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation, as
4 well as those listed in other sources, mainly the Galician Association of Translation and
Interpreting Professionals (AGPTI)).
Field work: Personalised contact was made with each group in the mentioned official
list to verify that they complied with the requirements needed for inclusion in the
sample.
In the case of NGDOs, the profile sought was that they currently assist foreign migrants
who speak a language other than Spanish and Galician in our territory, Galicia. This was
the main reason why 43 of the 99 entities on the official list were excluded from the
sample. The excluded group contains NGDOs that were not active at the time of study
and also those that only operate abroad, that is, those that provide direct assistance to
the target population in their territory of origin and, hence, only carry out management
and awareness/fund raising actions and social projects in Galicia and/or Spain. Twenty-
two (n=22) of the remaining fifty-six NGDOs (n=56) participated in the survey. This
percentage (39.3 % of the study population) is lower than that initially defined, and we
needed to reach 87.5 % to obtain reasonable representativeness. The above was
probably due to several reasons: a) the survey was conducted online in a self-
administered manner (response rate is usually lower); b) the planned time was too
short for field work (barely 3 months in which holiday periods hindered follow-up);
and c) the simultaneous preparation of focus groups (all done by a single research
assistant hired 10 hours/week: limited human resources to carry out the planned tasks
on such scale).
Despite the important sample limitation, we consider the results as valuable since they
are uncharted and novel. They point to a possible trend and to situations that have been
substantiated by the focus groups; an instrument that effectively complemented the
project surveys.
Design: The questionnaire was divided into the following thematic blocks:
NGOs INTERPRETERS
TRANSLATORS
Basic data: type of programmes, staf and Basic data: type of training, experience and
languages used languages
5
Socio-demographic characteristics of the persons assisted
Translation considerations (written texts)
Interpreting considerations (oral exchanges)
Training Final considerations
2.1.1 Characteristics of participants in the survey of non-governmental
development organisations (NGDOs) working with translators and interpreters
Worth highlighting is the great variability that exists in implementation of programmes
that span several action fields, many of which involve communication activities with
potential participation of interpreters (e.g. socio-occupational integration, socio-
healthcare integration, legal advice…).
Figure 1. Number of participating and non-participating NGDO entities, as well as the main reasons
for (self) exclusion
16 Do not operate in Galicia
11 No linguistic/communication
7 problems
5 No contact
6 Participate, 22 Do not participate, 77
4
Do not assist foreigners
34 Not operational
Figure 2 shows the different types of programmes and the number of entities in each
programme. Programmes with the greatest weight are those related to social and
educational awareness (16 and 15 entities in these categories, respectively), followed
by the ones in socio-healthcare and socio-occupational integration (9 entities). The legal
advice, Spanish/Galician language teaching and dissemination programmes have a
lower weight in the sample (4, 4, and 3 entities, respectively). And lastly, there are seven
work areas in which only one entity is present.
Figure 2. Type of intervention programmes carried out by NGDOs and number of entities in each of
them
Habitat 1
Comprehensive reception of International… 1
Refugees 1
International cooperation 1
Female GV 1
Economic promotion projects 1
Development cooperation 1
Informative 3
Teaching Spanish/Galician as a foreign… 4
Legal advice 4
Socio-healthcare 9
Socio-occupational Integration 9
Educational 15
Social awareness 16
The second main characteristic is related to the distribution of NGDO staff in Galicia
(Figures 3 and 4). We observe that most entities have few staff working in the region
(most have just 1 staff member), except one, which reported 200 male and 350 female
staff. As regards the overall proportion of men and women in Galicia, the number of
female staff exceeds that of male staff (n= 404 women vs n=213 men). However, the
trend reverses in projects carried out abroad (Figures 5 and 6), where male staff numbers
[25] predominate over female staff [19]. The number of staff members working abroad
differs slightly, where in the case of women it stands at 2 workers, and it is 1 worker in
the case of men.
Figure 3. Number of women hired by NGDOs in Galicia vs number of entities reporting
350
10
NGDO Women hired by NGDOs in Galicia

8
Figure 4. Number of men hired by NGDOs in Galicia vs number of entities reporting
200
NGDO Men hired by NGDOs in Galicia
Figure 5. Number of women hired by NGDOs abroad vs number of entities reporting
NGDO Women hired by NGDOs abroad
Figure 6. Number of men hired by NGDOs abroad vs number of entities reporting
9
3
NGDO Men hired by NGDOs abroad
Lastly, besides the official languages (Spanish and Galician), the languages most
frequently spoken by organisation staff are English (n=18), French (n=12), Portuguese
(n=10) and Arabic (n=6). Other languages spoken, with a frequency of 3 or less, include:
Italian, Russian, Tigrigna, Bulgarian, Nepali, Romanian, Swahili, Ukrainian and Wolof
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Languages spoken by NGDO staff (frequency)
1. English (18) 8. Bulgarian (1)
2. French (12) 9. Nepali (1)
3. Portuguese 10. Romanian (1)

(10)
11. Swahili (1)
4. Arabic (6)
12. Ukrainian (1)
5. Italian (3)
13. Wolof (1)
6. Russian (3)
7. Tigrigna (2)
Based on the information reported, the main profile of staff hired by NGDOs is that of
a (Figure 8): female who works in Galicia on social awareness projects and who speaks
English, in addition to the official languages.
10
Figure 8. Standard profile of staff hired by NGDOs
Sex: Female
Language: English
Workplace: Galicia
Project: Social awareness
2.1.2 Characteristics of participants in the survey of translators and interpreters
working within the scope of NGDOs
With regard to the profile of the translators and interpreters sample, it should be noted
that 10 of the 16 participants have a degree in Translation & Interpreting and, moreover,
two have postgraduate qualifications: Master's degree in Institutional Translation and
Master's degree in Translation (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Studies pursued by participants in the sample of translators and interpreters
Bachelor’s degree
in Translation and
Nursing
Interpretation + 1
Master's Degree; 2
1 Library management
1 Bachelor’s degree in Spanish Philology

Bachelor’s degree in Others; 6
/Master’s degree in International Trade
11 Translation and 1 Bilingual Primary Education Teacher
Interpretation; 8
2 Unknown/NA
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation grants the title of
Sworn Interpreter-Translator in Spain, and thus confers an official status to the
translations/interpretations done by sworn translators and interpreters. The sample
studied contained 11 persons who claimed to have this qualification.
In terms of practicing professional activity, there is a predominance of self-employed

activity (7) and >10 years of professional experience (Figure 10) in both translation (10)
and interpreting (9). However, most report <5 years of experience in the context of
NGDOs (11).
Figure 10. Cumulative professional experience of persons in relation to translation and interpreting in
the NGDO context
12 12
10 10
Frequency of responses
8 8
6 6 Interpretation
Translation
4 4 NGODs
2 2
0 0
Less than 5 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 15 to 19 More than 20
years years years years
English is the most frequent language both in translation (11) and interpreting (7). It is
12 followed by other languages in translation (5), and by French (3), Russian (3) and others
(3) in interpreting.
Figure 11. Languages translated and interpreted by the sample, sorted by frequency
1. English (11) 4. Russian (1)

Translation
2. Others (5) 5. Romanian (1)

3. Arabic (1) 6. Portuguese (1)
1. English (7) 5. Romanian (1)

Interpretation
2. French (3) 6. Portuguese (1)
3. Russian (3) 7. Arabic (1)
4. Others (3)
To sum up, the answers obtained indicate the following profile of the persons providing
translation and interpreting services: they are mainly professionals with a degree
in Translation and Interpreting and usually have the qualification of Sworn
Interpreter-Translator. They are self-employed and most have more than 10 years of
professional experience. The most translated and interpreted language is English.
Figure 12. Profile of translators and interpreters
Education: Bachelor's degree in Translation and Interpreting
Qualification: Sworn Interpreter-Translator
Work mode: Freelance
Professional experience: Over 10 years
Language: English
13
With regard to the frequency of translation/interpreting work, it should be noted that

only 5 of the 16 participants stated they had done translations (31.25 %) while only 4
stated they had done interpreting work (25 %) in the last year.
2.2 Focus groups
Geographic scope: Galicia.
Target population: NGDOs and translators & interpreters with professional experience
in the third sector field linked to development.
Initial estimated sample: 6-9 persons representing each target population. Given the
potential difficulty of holding face-to-face meetings, priority was given to the NGDOs
and translators & interpreters that confirmed the greatest availability and geographical
proximity.
Design: A focus group is aimed at creating a synergistic effect among participants to

produce not only opinions but also multiple response stimuli to reactions offered by
other group members. The focus group questions covered the following theme blocks:
– Presentation of entities/professionals and cases (profiles of persons assisted:

case studies).
14 – Communicative demands: situations and resources used (situations, solutions,
documents used and assessments).
– Difficulties and assessment of interpreting and translation work: type of
difficulties, positive highlights and needs identified.
– Proposals for improvement and expectations: contributions and future
prospects.
These questions were sent to the focus groups participants prior to the meeting, in
order to stimulate debate and, above all, foster mutual trust so that they would express
themselves freely and spontaneously.
Field work: Applying the same sample characteristics as in the survey, only those
persons located nearby and available were invited to be part of the groups. The session
was preceded by a project presentation, where not only the focus group participants
and the academic coordination team were present but also two students doing their
end-of-degree dissertation on the subject. A local NGO whose participation was not
initially planned also participated in the focus group because of its experience in the
subject matter.
Table 1. Profile of participants in focus groups
NGDOs Group (FG-O)1 Interpreters Group (FG-I)

Duration: 1h:13m:04s 76m:58s
Participants by 3 males and 6 females 2 males and 6 females
gender:
Nationalities: Spanish Syrian, Russian, Bulgarian,
Romanian, Lebanese, Ukrainian
and Spanish
Training: Social work, psychology and Translation or interpreting (2)
political sciences With and without higher education
in other areas
Language No language competence in Arabic, Russian, English, French,
competencies: foreign languages Bulgarian, Romanian and
Portuguese
Professional Employed by NGDO Self-employed and volunteers (1)
relationship:
Scope of action: Health and social services Judicial and police
Problems, cases: Applicants and beneficiaries Gender-based violence, human
of international protection trafficking, asylum-seeking, family
15 (refuge/asylum), human mediation (minors), psychological
trafficking and gender-based therapy
violence
Results of participation: The final composition of the focus groups sample is shown
below.
1 The transcripts provide reference to the groups: FG-O and FG-I followed by the participant's number.
3. Main results: Comparative
analysis
T
he main results obtained after analysing the survey responses and contents of
the focus groups, in relation to the study objectives, are shown below. The
current state of communications between NGDO staff and the foreign
immigrants assisted who do not speak Spanish/Galician is first described,
which is then followed by the description of the training needs identified in professional
linguistic mediation.
3.1 Current state of communications

between NGDO staff and the persons
assisted
16
The results show a great diversity of languages demanded by the NGDOs, but a limited
supply (mostly English), which can potentially hinder access to communication,
especially of those who speak less common languages in our environment.
The questionnaire replies received indicate that the most frequent countries of origin
of the persons assisted by NGDOs (Figure 13) are, firstly, Colombia (4), Morocco (4)
and Ukraine (4), followed by Russia (3), Senegal (3), Venezuela (3), Bolivia (2),
Nigeria (2), Peru (2) and Romania (2). Another 20 countries reported by a single
organisation need to be added to this list. There is therefore a high diversity in terms
of origin of persons assisted. The difficulties generated by this variable demand
are manifested in the NGDOs group, where special mention is made of the different
Arabic dialects:
FG-O82: em …em true, that is to say, e v e n impossible, because one

needs to speak at dialect level, because obviously classical Arabic as
2 The Spanish version of this report contains the original transcript in Spanish and Galician, and
translation is kept as faithful as possible to the original transcribed speech.
such is not a language used because there are the different dialects…
for example in Arabic, Moroccan and Algerian are more or less similar,
but Syrian is different. If a Moroccan person is not fluent in for example
Syrian, he/she will not understand many words… em… and hence it is
quite complex (...)
Figure 13. Country of origin of persons assisted by NGDOs
17
Country: Colombia (4), Morocco (4), Ukraine (4), Russia (3), Senegal (3), Venezuela (3), Bolivia (2), Nigeria (2), Peru (2),
Romania (2), Angola (1), Brazil (1), Bulgaria (1), Ivory Coast (1), El Salvador (1), Spain (1), Georgia (1), Guatemala (1),
Guinea-Bissau (1), Honduras (1), Mozambique (1), Nepal (1), Nicaragua (1), Palestine (1), Poland (1), Portugal (1), the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1), the Dominican Republic (1) and Syria (1).
With regard to interpreting services, the NGDO survey results indicate a predominance
of demand for face-to-face interpreting, in accordance with the responses of the
interpreters (Figure 14). Face-to-face interpreting is highlighted by the interpreters'
focus group as a facilitator of communication, as opposed to telephone interpreting.
With regard to translation of documentation, the NGDOs group stated that its use is
limited to documentation considered most relevant such as that necessary to carry out
administrative procedures.
Figure 14. Requests for interpretation by NGDOs and services provided by interpreters
7
Face-to-face
6 interpreting
4
Telephone
3 interpreting
0
Video-
conference
interpreting
NGODs INTRA
18 There appears to be a consensus on the higher demand for face-to-face interpreting (score: 5.5) between NGDOs
and the services provided by interpreters (score: 6.9), as against demand for telephone interpreting services (score
3.0 and 2.9 respectively) and videoconference (score 1.0 by both groups).
X: But at translation level for example of documentation

FG-O7: it would have to be sworn translation, we mostly
demand sworn translations
FG-O2: yes
FG-O7: Something that obviously you, you couldn’t get involved in
translation of official documentation at a level of…of
FG-O4: legislation concerning…
FG-O7: Validation of high school diploma normally requested from
individuals
FG-O4: Not the Immigration legislation, for example
FG-O7: yes, yes, yes
FG-I3: Especially legal things. And other things [coughs] like,
for example, in Voze, you have two options, you can have em
telephone interpreting or you can have face-to-face, there are some
cases when you go and do telephone interpreting, and a lot of info is
lost
FG-I2: The emotion
FG-I3: The meaning, everything, everything is lost, and the person at
the other end of the line does not feel good either, she feels like there
is no one that understands her, who sees her
On the subject of problems detected when working with interpreters/NGDOs (Figure

15), the entities surveyed most frequently state: (1) lack of interpreters in certain
languages (score 5.8)3 as covered in the previous point; 2) interpreter converses with
the person assisted but does not translate later (score 3.8); 3) interpreter gets involved
by providing advice or counselling (score 3.0); 4) interpreter modifies message (score
2.8); and 5) interpreter lacks terminology (score 2.7). Interpreters (Figure 16) frequently
acknowledge that sometimes when interpreting: (1) they find it difficult to control
emotions (score 5.0); (2) find it difficult to reproduce the original message including
pauses or hesitations (score 4.6); 3) are unaware of the subject matter (score 4.0); 4)
adapt the message culturally (score 4.0); and 5) are unsure about the terminology used
(score 3.5). After comparing the responses from both groups, a discrepancy is observed
in the score for involvement through provision of advice or counselling, which is
perceived by the NGDOs as the second most frequent problem while it is barely
recognised as a problem by interpreters (score 1.0).
19
3 The score is a value that permits immediate display of bundling of frequencies, degrees of agreement,
importance... on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest value. It is calculated by assigning a reference
value to each of the five degrees on the Likert scale (in this case: 0; 2.5; 5; 7.5, and 10) from least to
most, divided by the number of responses obtained.
Figure 15. Problems working with interpreters (NGDOs)
Modifies the message
Gets involved (advises,

Converses with the person counsels)
Lack of interpreters in certain languages, and then does not
5,8 translate , 3,8 Unaware of terminology
Converses with the person and

then does not translate
Does not treat the person
correctly
20
Unavailable sometimes
Unavailable at all times, Does not maintain

3,3 Modifies the Unaware of confidentiality
message, 2,8 terminology, 2,7
Unavailable at all times
Lack of interpreters in certain

languages
Does not
treat the Does not
person maintain
Gets involved Unavailable correctly, confidentia
(advises, counsels), 3 sometimes, 1,8 1,3 lity, 1,3
21
The interpreters' focus group explained adaptation of message by stating that they
sometimes reformulate the content based, for example, on the person's
evasive responses. However, this can lead to mistrust as well as the NGDO staff
losing valuable information, since the evasive response itself offers relevant
information. It may also involve a loss of opportunity for the NGDO staff to adapt
their own language to the cultural and personal characteristics of the person
assisted, which is normal in any communicative act. Therefore, in these cases, the
interpreter would be taking on functions that go beyond interpreting and taking
responsibility for the intervention itself.
FG-I5: Me too, like what you just said (name of person ), em, I have had
to adapt it to the circumstances because, well, these are things that,
hmm, that maybe are dealt with during the open discussion later, but,
em, I have come across people, em, that is [a metallic object falls] when
working with (name of company), who, who are so traumatised, that is,
I have done many psychological sessions, right, with the psychologist
and there were [mobile tone] and there were [coughs] [unintelligible]
people present [mobile tone], whom you asked a direct, simple
question and the answer was evasion, evasion, evasion, evasion, that
is he/she never answered, then of course I was lowering the register of
English, right, I was lowering, lowering, until it was childish English, it
was almost, hmm, as if, that is, I am already, [clears throat] at the
minimum expression level, and, and they were not able, that is to say,
and they were not able, and then of course reached the point, of
lack of communication, and of course I had to tell the psychologist:
look, I no longer spoke in the first person, because what she was
saying, the person,
X: Yes
FG-I5: The one I was interpreting for, had no connection with the
question, that is, like we say in Spanish, well
X: Beat around the bush
FG-I5: Exactly, [clears throat] and has no idea, or tells a story that has
no relation to the question.
FG-O1: That intercultural base or of interpreting itself, not making
moral judgements, or even, many a time, you ask… you ask a question
and… and he/she will take five minutes
FG-O5: Yes
22 [Laughter 00:04:18]
FG-O1: Even if you do not understand the language, you know that…
FG-O1: Because in one of them the…the interpreter would make moral
judgements to the police: "that is a lie, that doesn't happen in my
country".
FG-O2: Yes, yes.
On the other hand, the lack of knowledge about the interpreter figure sometimes raises
expectations and demands from interpreter beyond the scope of interpreter's role:
FG-I3: Truly, on some occasions it does make life so much easier for
you, that you explain to the person, to the two of them, the two parties
you are interpreting for, and the NGO, for example, that they have to
follow some guidelines, and that's when you tell them, well, em, you
talk to them in the first person, tell him/her directly, em, everything
FG-I5: Yes
FG-I3: These things make life easier for you, so that you can only focus
on interpreting, right, right, ch, because sometimes it seems like, right
they are attacking you, but, tell him this, tell him that, speak to him
directly, leave me aside, that sometimes seems difficult for me
FG-I6: This happened to me during a court hearing, em I was, well,

[clears throat] but no, that one was not about gender-based violence,
it was a trial of, I think about violence but family violence, but between
men, no women involved, It was not sexist violence, and, and he was
asked how did this happen? And he began to tell stories, well,
from the time he was born until… and he spoke and spoke and
spoke, and I and the judge waited for me to translate what was being
said and I started translating, and he says to me: what does it have to
do with the question? I am just translating what is being said, but ask
him that, I reply, man, I have translated what was said, but then he
tells me what he, what he wants him to hear, all this is impossible
All this, coupled with the difficulty of managing emotions, can explain such over-
involvement:
FG-I6: In the end, what you say in the first person about the other
person, you feel it
FG-I5: True.
FG-I6: And it is very hard, and so, em, I was glad to read in
the proposals you sent us with the questions, I had included this, that
NGOs should hire, like tch, choose the same interpreter for the same
case.
X: Hmm
FG-I6: Because it is very difficult, it is not about me, since you are
23 going to pay me, or because, because perhaps, it is not voluntary,
but, but to have the same person
FG-I5: To, to continue with the story

FG-I6: When you have gained the confidence of, of both, the
two parties, it is a lot easier to get what you want, in a meeting
[dishes clattering] of this kind, right?
These situations also lead to a relationship with the persons assisted that goes
beyond the limits of professional environment:
FG-I4: Lawyer, and I am not her lawyer, I am no one's lawyer in those
circumstances, uh, and, uh, I made the mistake, for example, when
I started working with refugees, for young children at the time
X: Hmhm
FG-I4: I felt sorry, for a mother who says, she has no interpreter, is
unable to then explain to the doctor in case of an emergency at night
X: Hmhm
FG-I4: and she calls me, you can't do this
These situations also lead the interpreter to defend the position of one of the parties:
FG-I3 [woman with Arabic accent]: Well in my case, there were many
issues that were very important, that maybe I, I would fail at, for
example, not to take, em, ch, when you are in an interpretation perhaps
and you know the cultural situation and the situation of this person you
would take sides with the person who speaks your language, as you
want to defend him/her
X: Hmhm
FG-I3: And, encourage excuses [another speaker talking in the
background]
However, there are strategies to control these situations such as asking the service
provider to simplify discourse, because the person cannot understand the message:
FG-I6: And in family therapy I had the same experience, but also like
the (name of company) said, when you want to say something that is
not connected with the interpretation, you should say: this is the
interpreter speaking, and I said to her, please find another way to ask
the question, and the therapist understood and took some dolls, that
this represents the father, this the child, but that is the other
person, em, but it is true that you are in a situation in which you
want to do your best, but you cannot, until in, you in, ch, uh, you,
you get involved in, in the discussion so that the two can finally, em
understand each other.
There are also strategies to avoid meeting persons assisted outside the professional
environment:
24 FG-I8: Yes aia, and the NGO representative said to me, well tell him to
stop, please, we are here for a specific reason and it has to stop now,
because it was too much, and it is more like harassment than anything
else, and on top of that, I had to talk to the NGO, tell them look, em, I
can wait here if you do not mind, hm, for half an hour and then leave,
because I am travelling on foot since I do not have a car and em we
leave together, there is always contact, there is look, give me your
telephone, your phone number, where do you work, where do you live,
and it gets uncomfortable, that is what we are told in (name of
company), that we do not want [unintelligible].
Significant lack of funding is evident both in the case of NGDOs and the interpreting
services. This means that in the former, in the absence of funding for
translation/interpreting services, ineffective communication measures are taken such as
the use of Google Translate, as well as the abuse of volunteers (often without training
or those personally related to the assisted person or his/her situation).
FG-O7: with, with the system because we can be in other organisations

those of us who are not part of the asylum reception system right, there
is no possibility of having this service or funding it, and so we work with
migrants now, many of whom are from international protection but
they obligatorily, well, the huge Venezuelan community obligatorily
speaks Spanish.
FG-O4: Yes, but Brazilians
FG-O7: when we find situations in which there is a need for
translation interpreting , we just cannot afford them, directly.
FG-O4: Well, this week for example, I had an interview em… where a
friend of … of the person who did not speak Spanish came, it was a
Nigerian man who spoke English em… well sort of English…
[Laughter]
FG-O4: And…
FG-O2: Spoke in English
FG-O5: Well, then they bring their own translators em… and what
happens is that, it is always biased, there is a filter.
FG-O2: Hmm
FG-O4: Hence, I don't know if I am being told the entire story, I was
not being told the story, there are parts not fully transmitted, right. And
he was a person who got involved, he seemed honest to me, but, of
course, it is information
FG-O2: Uhum
FG-O4: A friend who has willingly come to translate.
FG-O2: Uhum
FG-O4: I don’t know if there is anything behind the scenes.
25 FG-O6: Right and, and it comes and comes from that part because
sometimes, and I understand that in the end, this is not, I mean, well it
depends, and then there are other professionals and I am even aware
of doctors who are there: "Well I downloaded this App because I see
you using Google Translator
FG-O2: Yes, it depends on who you have to deal with

FG-O6: Because I want to try…" I mean, they are not the proper tools
but there seems to be an intention, right?
On the other hand, interpreters (mostly self-employed and on a service delivery basis)
are subject to temporary contracts and low remuneration that does not cover travel
allowance, waiting and/or preparation times for interpreting. This precariousness has
become evident ever since the service ceased to be one provided directly by the Xunta
and became a service subcontracted to companies. The situation makes interpreters
feel undervalued and creates an overload that sometimes makes them withdraw from
providing services.
FG-I4: And as soon as I started searching for (name of person), but

when I started to search, because of course, as soon as it appears
(company name) and then the invoice, send the rates and conditions
and waiting times, and whatever else, right, right, right.
FG-I6: Well, the difference between €90 that used to get paid directly
by the Xunta
FG-I4: True
FG-I6: and €12 or €14
FG-I3: €12
FG-I9: The rate is €12
FG-I4: Gross
FG-I6: It is, it is ruthless
FG-I4: And you also have VAT on top, meaning further deduction
FG-I6: But they didn't pay just €90, they also paid for travel expenses
FG-I6: And they work, but at the same time [background noise] they
are greatly devaluing us, in the way we get paid, in the way that, but
not the way they treat us because they treat us with respect [cough],
they should not treat us in any other way, but, somehow they always
seek an almost legal way to take advantage of you and get everything
they can from you, but without giving you what you deserve, because
I can expect to be asked tomorrow, or for example, are you available
now for a job? because there is a person in the emergency room, okay,
should I go to the hospital since I'm near?, no, no, no, no, you have to
wait silently beside the phone, sitting in a place, waiting until this
person calls you, then I am waiting, I'm fine, but, from 10 in the morning
when the person entered the hospital, to 1 am, only to get paid for 2
hours work, but I have already left my children unattended, I have left
26 everything, and am sitting by the phone waiting for them to call me
FG-I6: That was complicated, in fact, hm, I was sent, like you said, but
I chose to only travel to Pontevedra, Vigo and places nearer home, I
had very young children and, but then they stopped paying the waiting
time, em stopped paying what is the, the the travel allowance, it is no
longer worth my while, I also used to work, [clears throat] I had this and
I had children, I want to help, but I can't, it is then I decided not to go
to courts or to police stations [clears throat] unless [clears throat] it is
gender-based violence, that is, I myself have chosen only these cases
Moreover, female interpreters must deal with cultural discrimination by persons they
interpret for, when they are from a culture where hostile forms of sexism still remain.
This sometimes hinders interpreters from doing some of their work due to refusal to
interact with them.
FG-I3: That happened to me when I worked with (name of entity) that

we went to, em, we used to go to prisons, right, and in prison, of course
and as I'm a woman, that's the first thing, em, we were still, em they
were Moroccan men, I think that for them a woman coming to interpret
FG-I5: No [unintelligible] [laughter]
FG-I3: Well, I am superior, then they were attacking me and saying,
you work outside and we, I said to them look I am here to help you,
well, not them, I'm here to help you so that you can sign this paper and
leave, or not leave, well I am not going to speak to you, not to you, I
do not speak to a woman.
3.2 Training needs detected in professional

linguistic mediation
Although the questionnaire results of the interpreters and translators sample mostly
indicate degrees in Translation and Interpreting (62.5 %), we do need to take into
account the translation/interpreting services performed by persons without academic
training or professional experience (37.5%). This is also evident in the focus group with
interpreters and translators.
FG-I3: Well, my name is (name), I am an interpreter of Arabic and
em, as said before, I do not have real training, I mean that I don’t
have a degree or anything [...]
FG-I6: Em, I am (name), I am an interpreter of Romanian, em, [coughs]
no, I do not have a degree in Translation, in fact I have a degree in
27 Environmental Sciences [...]
FG-I8: I am (name), I am from Lebanon, em, I am an Arabic-Spanish
interpreter, I have lived here for 5 years, em, well, I studied journalism,
and I am doing a Master's degree in International Studies at the
university
FG-I9: Well, I am (name), I was born in Ukraine, but I was a professional
athlete [...]
In these cases, this is not a profession that was planned, but arose as a result of the
personal experience of migration, initially as a volunteer:
FG-I2: I speak English, Arabic, the, the dialects of Syria, those around
Syria, but in the end, I go to, to an NGO and you are then a volunteer
X: Hmhm
FG-I2: Work for free
FG-I3: When I worked with a friend, well, I worked as a volunteer, I had

a female medical doctor friend, who was working in a refugee camp in
Greece […]
FG-I4: And I had been with the Red Cross for two years, but I haven't
done it [volunteering] in many years
Such voluntary actions, performed by persons who had been assisted in NGDO
programs, are reflected in the following testimonies:
FG-O5: And then we sometimes, what we did, was to avail of people

who often have passed through our immigrant services and who then
have become volunteers and then do mediations […]
FG-O8: […] there we always support promotion of intercultural

mediators of
FG-O3: Sure
FG-O8: Different origins. We also have Ukrainians, for example, in
Coruña, a good number of them from Ukraine lately, from… and well,
we have one person from there, a girl, who is also well being trained
on the topic… and this allows us to, but… and… and… and allows
us to provide solutions because otherwise it is true, it is nonsensical
talk in the end […]
However, there is no agreement on the use of this practice. Risks associated with service
users, such as involvement in human trafficking networks or reinterpreting the message
by adapting it to their own beliefs are highlighted, thus distorting the reality that the
person seeking help intends to transmit:
28
FG-O6: But these are people one should be careful about, em
FG-O7: Yes, of course
FG-O5: But
FG-O2: I disagree
FG-O1: Establish illegal networks
FG-O2: Yes, I disagree
FG-O5: But
FG-O6: True
FG-O1: In no time
FG-O5: No, it depends, let me see
FG-O2: And they work from their mental maps and although they are
from the same culture, they do not have to actually follow the
FG-O6: Sure
FG-O2: Point of view and they will speak from their own beliefs
FG-O7: Em…
FG-O4: Yes, they are not aligned
Specialised training and professional supervision appear to be measures aimed at

integrating these agents into quality service provision:
FG-O5: And that…and that they receive training

FG-O8: Specialised
FG-O5: To do this kind of work
FG-O7: Oh OK. Training and professional supervision because FG-
O5: Sure
And, if this were not possible, it would be better to opt for partial communication based
on non-verbal language:
FG-O1: At times, it is best to sign with hands rather than

(unintelligible)
FG-O2: Yes, yes and several pictograms
FG-O1: Because pain, etc. is not verbal language
Training is also an important element from the interpreters' point of view. However, they
stated that they did not receive adequate training for the work they performed during
their volunteering experience. Several persons mentioned that their only formal training
was acquired through an 80-hour online introductory course offered by a
translation/interpreting company, that they had to pass to qualify for work, which they
valued positively:
FG-I9: […] and then, I now also work for (name of company), and as my
colleague here said before, we were given a training course that I
loved, which was very short so to say, just a few hours long, […]
29 right, so I loved that training course in (name of company), I felt that
none of the other companies are keen on offering one
FG-I3: [Voices overlap and only one participant is understood] One is

provided with many videos, many experiences, well, they are, just
imagine
X: Is, is it the only training you received?
FG-I3: Yes, very, very professional, it was the only one
FG-I6: Me, too, and I have been interpreting for years
Technical issues of interpreting such as use of the first person, triangular seating
arrangement, the initiation protocol where information is provided and rules of
interpreting are established, the warning about refraining from (over)involvement that
would impair objectivity, among others, are issues addressed in the mentioned training
and well appreciated by interpreters:
FG-I6: In my case, I didn't know where to sit at the table when

interpreting, I was always uncomfortable, I didn't know whether I
should put myself in the middle, on one side,
[…]
FG-I5: Triangle
FG-I6: Yes
FG-I5: You have to be in a,
FG-I6: I did not know then, I do now
FG-I5. In a sort of like neutral space
FG-I6: But I think I was being placed em, inside the triangle, and I had
the impression that it was good, but well I didn't, I did not know that
FG-I3: You know? I didn't know you can't do that. Then one thing em,
very important ch, they have an initiation protocol
X: Hmhm
FG-I3: Truly, on some occasions it does make life so much easier for
you, that you explain to the person, to the two of them, the two parties
you are interpreting for and the NGO, for example, that they have to
enforce some guidelines, and that's when you tell them, well, em, you
talk to them in the first person, speak to him/her directly, em, all of
them
FG-I4: I felt sorry, for a mother who says, she has no interpreter, is
unable to then explain to the doctor in case of an emergency at night
X: Hmhm
FG-I4: And she calls me, you can't do this
Moreover, the NGDOs focus group is keen on intercultural training for translators and
interpreters, even though it sometimes appears that this concept is referred to in a wider
sense, as reference is also made to the knowledge of the different violence contexts.
30 Such violence is often linked, but not necessarily, to migratory processes or vice-versa,
such as human trafficking, and is obviously not linked to the culture of any country but
is a result of global domination factors between rich and poor countries (north-south)
as well as specific factors such as abuse of economic-social and gender vulnerability.
FG-O1: Aside from interpreting, because we did have a case of a

Nigerian human trafficking victim who had a mobile phone and we had
to accompany her, said: "But she is not interested, she is speaking on
the mobile phone all the time". So we carried out a session of
intercultural insights, of our own free will with the healthcare staff, and
she… she felt bad, that doctor, because she was prejudging that
person because she had to answer the phone and of course and we
explained to her that many a time they have to answer because it is a
method of control of the… the… the human trafficking network, so
she said: "well then maybe" hence, many a time, besides
interpreting, there are intercultural insights missing on… on... on…
topics of… of migrations.
FG-O8: […] The…the cultural insights are also essential, aren't they? In
this sense, this is not just a mere… merely a translation process, but it
is also about working those cultural insights because there are times
when there are words that do not exist in the target language, right?
Those who participated in the translators & interpreters focus group opined that
NGDOs should be trained on how to work with interpreters, especially in relation to
knowledge of their work, limits of interpretation and good collaboration practices:
FG-I6: the NGO I contacted the previous day [noise of liquid] em to

have a, a, like to meet with the therapist so that the therapist also
understands, em, what the interpreter will be doing, because, em, as I
was saying, there are people with a poor level of education and
anything, that he/she asks, in the end you need to speak like to a little
child, because they do not understand you even when you speak
his/her language […] and the therapist understood me, and used the
dolls to, to make her understand […]
FG-I5: […] The NGOs do not know, what it is to be an interpreter, that
is, the requirements, of the interpreter
In addition to everything covered by the focus groups, the responses to the training
needs in the questionnaire (question 32 in NGDO questionnaire and question 35 in
interpreters & translators questionnaire) also throw light on the thematic areas that are
of interest to the NGDO and the translators and interpreters groups.
31
Thus, as shown in Figure 17, the NGDOs have placed most points discussed in the
"medium-very high" importance range, where the most valued aspect is professional
conduct, while the least valued aspects are knowledge of IT translation tools and
knowledge of development cooperation, which are also the only ones that obtained
"low" score categories. In the case of knowledge of development cooperation, the
importance given was "none". The specific aspect for this group, that is, knowledge in
the field of NGDOs, is mainly given "high" importance.
Figure 17. Level of importance of the different training aspects from the point of view of NGDOs
2 3
Specific terminology 3 9
11 2
3
Computer tools for translation 6
1
Cultural equivalences 5 5
6 5
Professional conduct None Low Medium High Very high
6 1
Interpretation techniques (e.g. 6
7 1
note taking, summarising, etc.)
Emotion management
2
4
10
Knowledge of development 7
4
cooperation 2 7
Knowledge of the NGDO field
7
9
32
Translators (Figure 18) gave more discrete overall assessments and awarded the
category of "very high" importance to 6 of the 9 training aspects [cultural equivalences
(4), specific terminology (3), professional conduct (3), emotion management (2),
interpreting techniques (1) and knowledge of development cooperation (1)]. All training
aspects are scored at the "high" level. The aspects most valued by this group are
cultural equivalences and professional conduct. Translators coincide with the NGDOs
in the score for professional conduct, as well as in the least score for computer tools,
which is the only one in this case in the "low-none" range. On the subject of specific
aspects for this group, specific training in translation and specific training in interpreting
mostly obtained a score of "medium" importance for translation: 4, and "high" for
interpreting: 4.
Figure 18. Level of importance of the different training aspects from the point of view of translators
Specific terminology 1
4 3 3
Computer tools 1
2 2
2
2
Cultural equivalences
3
2
Professional conduct
1
1 None Low Medium High Very high
4
Interpretation techniques (e.g.
note taking, summarising, etc.)
4 2 4
Emotion management 1
3
1 4
Knowledge of development 2
3 4 3
cooperation
Specific training in translation
33
Specific training in
interpretation
And lastly, with regard to the replies from the interpreters group (Figure 19), the overall
distribution of replies in the different categories is similar to that of the translators group.
Thus, the same training aspects are given a "very high" level score as those indicated
in the previous group, but with a different number of responses for each of them:
cultural equivalences (4), specific terminology (3), professional conduct (3), emotion
management (2), interpreting techniques (1) and knowledge of development
cooperation (1). Just like in the previous case, all training aspects are given "high" level
of importance. Computer tools are again the least valued aspect and the only one that
receives scores of "low" and "none" importance. In contrast, the most valued aspect is
specific terminology, which differentiates this group from the others. However, there is
agreement on the assessment of specific training in translation and interpreting where,
just like in the translation group, both receive a score of "medium" importance
(translation: 3) and "high" importance (interpretation: 3).
Figure 19. Level of importance of the different training aspects from the point of view of interpreters
Specific terminology 1
3 2
Computer tools 1
1 2 2 3
Cultural equivalences
2
Professional conduct
3 1 3
Interpretation techniques (e.g. 1 None Low Medium High Very high
note taking, summarising, etc.) 3
Emotion management 1
1
Knowledge of development
1 2 1 3
cooperation
Specific training in translation 3 1
2 2 2
Specific training in interpretation
34
Lastly, Figure 20 shows the overall importance of the various training aspects in the
three groups (NGDOs, translators and interpreters) according to the answers provided
in the questionnaire. To obtain these results, the weight of the responses was calculated
on a score of 10, where 10 is the highest value (degree of very high importance), 0 is
the lowest value (no importance) and 5 is the acceptance value. This index is an indicator
of the overall results and provides an immediate and general idea but does not replace
disaggregated values or the analysis focused on different weights and differences. It
only indicates a trend and facilitates comparison of the responses provided by the three
samples.
Figure 20. Level of importance of the different training aspects after cross-group comparison
10
KNGDO
1
KCD
EM
ITT
STT
CE
PC
ST
STI
IT
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
NGDOs TRANS INTERPRET
35 ST (Specific Terminology), ITT (IT Tools for Translation); CE (Cultural Equivalences); PC (Professional Conduct); IT
(Interpreting Techniques: note taking, summarising…); EM (Emotion Management); KCD (Knowledge of
Development Cooperation); KNGDO (Knowledge in the Field of Action of the NGDO); STT (Specific Training in
Translation); STI (specific training in interpreting).
As can be seen, most training aspects are given scores above 5 (acceptance value) by
the three groups, with the exception of the IT tools for translation, where there is
discrepancy between the NGDOs sample (score of 5.9) and the translators &
interpreters samples (scores of 4.1 and 4.3, respectively). Other aspects showing
discrete divergences are: specific terminology and knowledge of development
cooperation. In both cases, the NGDOs sample displays lower scores than the
translators and interpreters sample. Thus, the NGDOs score in specific terminology was
7.5 as against 8.2 and 9 for translators and interpreters, respectively. The NGDOs score
for knowledge of development cooperation was 5.9, while that of translators and
interpreters was 7.1 and 7.5 respectively. There is much coincidence in scores in the
remaining aspects but with slight discrepancies between samples. As mentioned earlier,
professional conduct is the most valued training aspect by the NGDOs (8.7), however,
the most valued aspects by the translators group are cultural equivalences and
professional conduct both with scores of 8.6, while that for the interpreters group is
specific terminology (9.0).
36
4. Conclusions
T
he following conclusions can be drawn after comparing results from the
surveys and focus groups held with NGDOs, translators, and interpreters from
Galicia who collaborated in the MELINCO project:
– The language needs of NGDOs are diverse and not adequately satisfied by the
translation/interpreting services available.
– Both NGDOs and interpreters highlight the advantages and suitability of face-
to-face interpreting as against telephone interpreting (too much information is
lost).
– Each sector perceives problems associated with professional practice differently:
while the NGDOs mention modification of message transmitted and inadequate
advice (trait not perceived by interpreters), the interpreters highlight difficulty in
controlling emotions during communication and complexity of messages.
NGDOs do not consider messages to be complex. This clearly indicates
37 interpreters' lack of knowledge about the role of social intervention in social
services, and NGDOs’ lack of knowledge about interpreter-mediated
communications.
– Job insecurity is evident in both sectors, making it quite difficult to provide
quality communication and to guarantee a comprehensive social intervention
(where confusion, improvisation, unjustified delays, etc. are common). The
widespread use of volunteers aggravates this situation and can violate the
inherent rights of the persons assisted.
– Both professional groups demand specialised training that would enable them
to offer a coordinated quality service to the persons assisted. This would firstly
involve receiving basic training about each other's professional fields (the basis
of social intervention and interpreter-mediated communication) and cover
appropriate professional conduct, emotion management, interpreting
techniques and their needs, in order to act responsibly with certain guarantees
(prior knowledge of subject matter would be one of them), as well as notions of
development cooperation. This would be followed by an introduction to the
sociocultural context of the countries of origin of the largest communities
assisted (intercultural insights) and, finally, the study of specific terminology
appropriate to the action to be carried out in the scheduled communication.
Receptivity and willingness of both groups to perform their work with professionalism
and rigour are the main assets for overcoming the language barriers and needs
detected. The MELINCO project has implemented a number of actions, including a
training course for NGDO staff on how to work effectively with interpreters, a good
practices guide and culturally adapted translation of materials widely used by NGDOs,
with a view to addressing these shortcomings.
38
5. Bibliography
– DURKHEIM, E. (1965). The rules of sociological method. Buenos Aires: Schapire,
1965.
– ÍBAÑEZ, J. (1986). Beyond sociology. Madrid: Twenty-first century.
39
Annexes
a. Tables showing results of the questionnaire addressed to NGDOs working with

translators and interpreters
b. Tables showing results of the questionnaire addressed to translators &
interpreters working for the NGDOs
c. Tables showing results of the focus groups: contents transferred
ANNEXES
a. Tables showing results of the questionnaire addressed to NGDOs working with translators
and interpreters
0. Survey participants
Total in Xunta list 99
Valid participants 22
Justification of non-participation TOTAL 43
(reason):
- Do not operate in/from Galicia 16
- No linguistic/communication problems 11
-No contact 7
- Do not assist foreigners 5
-Not operational 4
Unknown/NA 34
1. Type of programs carried out (choose ones that apply):

Social awareness 16
Educational 15
Socio-occupational Integration 9
Socio-healthcare 9
Legal advice 4
Teaching Spanish/Galician as a foreign language 4
Informative 3
Development cooperation 1
Economic promotion projects 1
Female GBV 1
International cooperation 1
Refugees 1
Comprehensive reception of international protection applicants and 1
beneficiaries
Habitat 1
ANNEXES
and interpreters
2. How many staff members do you have working in Galicia and in projects abroad managed
from Galicia?
Number of women in Galicia Cases
350 1
10 1
7 3
4 3
3 1
2 1
1 6
2. How many staff members do you have working in Galicia and in projects managed abroad
from Galicia?
Number of women in projects abroad Cases
4 2
3 1
2 4
2. How many staff members do you have working in Galicia and in projects managed abroad
from Galicia?
Number of men in Galicia Cases
200 1
4 1
2 2
1 5
2. How many staff members do you have working in Galicia and projects managed abroad
from Galicia?
Number of men in projects abroad Cases
8 1
7 1
3 1
2 2
1 3
ANNEXES
and interpreters
3. What languages do your NGDO staff speak? (besides official languages)

English 18
French 12
Portuguese 10
Arabic 6
Italian 3
Russian 3
Tigrigna 2
Bulgarian 1
Nepali 1
Romanian 1
Swahili 1
Ukrainian 1
Wolof 1
ANNEXES
and interpreters
4. Countries of origin:
Angola 1
Bolivia 2
Brazil 1
Bulgaria 1
Central America 1
Colombia 4
Ivory Coast 1
El Salvador 1
Spain 1
Georgia 1
Guatemala 5
Guinea-Bissau 2
Honduras 1
Latin America 3
Morocco 4
Mozambique 1
Nepal 1
Nicaragua 1
Nigeria 2
Palestine 1
Peru 2
Poland 1
Portugal 1
The Democratic Republic of Congo 1
Dominican Republic 1
Romania 2
Russia 3
Senegal 3
Syria 1
Ukraine 4
Others 3
Venezuela 3
5. Gender:
More men than women 1
Equal number of men and women 6
More women than men 14
ANNEXES
and interpreters
6. Age:
0 to 12 years old 14
50 years and older 7
7. Mother tongues spoken by persons assisted:

Awajún 1
Arabic dialect 7
Standard Arabic 8
Aymara 1
Berber 3
Creole 2
Spanish 2
Farsi 3
French 1
Fulupe 1
Georgian 1
Guarani 1
Hindi 4
Mayan languages: Man, K'iche', Ixil, Q’eqchi’ 2
Quetchi
English 1
K'iche' 1
Mongolian 1
Nepali 1
Other 3
Portuguese 1
Quechua 4
Rohingya 1
Russian 7
Shangaan 1
Turkish 1
Ukrainian 6
ANNEXES
and interpreters
Umbundu 1
Urdu 4
Vietnamese 1
Wolof 8
3-7. Languages spoken by NGDO staff (besides official languages) and mother tongues
of persons assisted:
English; French; Portuguese; Italian Wolof; Quechua; Guarani
French Other
English Quechua; Awajún; Mayan languages
Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect; Berber;
English; French; Portuguese; Arabic;
Hindi; Urdu; Ukrainian; Russian; Wolof;
Italian; Swahili; Wolof
Portuguese, English; French; others
English Arabic dialect; Berber; Russian; Wolof
English; Portuguese; Galician Umbundu; Others
Portuguese Creole
English; Nepali Hindi; Nepali
English; Portuguese Shangaan
English; French; Portuguese Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect
Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect; Berber;
English; French Hindi; Urdu; Ukrainian; Russian; Wolof; Farsi
English; French; Portuguese Wolof; Quechua
French Standard Arabic; Wolof
French —
English; French; Arabic; Italian K'iche'; Rohingya
Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect;
English; Arabic Ukrainian; Russian
– Quechua; Aymara, Spanish
English Standard Arabic; Ukrainian; Russian; Wolof
Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect; Hindi;
English; French; Portuguese; Arabic; Urdu; Ukrainian; Russian; Wolof; Farsi;
Russian; Bulgarian Georgian; Turkish; Vietnamese; Mongolian;
Others
English; French; Portuguese; Arabic; Standard Arabic; Arabic dialect; Urdu;
Russian; Romanian; Tigrigna; Ukrainian; Russian; Farsi;
Ukrainian
English; French; Portuguese; Arabic; Russian; —
Tigrigna
English; French; Portuguese —
ANNEXES
and interpreters
8. Other languages known to the persons assisted:

French 13
English 8
Portuguese 8
Spanish 2
9. Source language most translated into Spanish/Galician for NGDO users this year (2019):
German 1
Arabic 4
French 4
Georgian 1
English 1
Italian 1
K'iche' 1
None (Mayan languages have no written tradition) 1
Polish 1
Portuguese 5
Rohingya 1
Romanian 1
Russian 3
Ukrainian 3
Wolof 1
Yoruba 1
10. Target languages most translated from Spanish/Galician for NGDO users this
year (2019):
Arabic 3
French 6
Georgian 1
English 4
Italian 1
K'iche' 1
Portuguese 4
Rohingya 1
Russian 2
Ukrainian 1
ANNEXES
and interpreters
11. If a text is unavailable in Spanish or Galician, who translates it?
Almost Sometimes Almost

Always always never Never Index
NGDO staff 3 12 2 0 0 7.6
Acquaintances / relatives of person
0 4 4 4 0 5.0
assisted
Persons known by NGDO 1 3 3 1 1 5.6
Translation professionals 1 3 2 4 0 5.3

With multilingual software (e.g.:
1 3 6 1 2 5.0
Google Translate)
12. Kindly specify any other translator used:

Volunteers (1); Acquaintances of staff who speak the language (1); Programme allows only
professionals to translate these documents. Other documents are read and used by NGO
staff without translating them (1)
13. Is there a protocol to request assistance from translators?

YES 4
NO 17
14. If there is a protocol, indicate which one:

We have hired a national level company with which we have a translation request and
evaluation procedure in place (1); the translator's telephone (1); the translation expense must
conform to the funding agency's expense eligibility requirements; internal (1)
15. If there is a protocol, is it easy to follow?
Always Almost always Sometimes Almost never Never Index
2 1 1 0 0 8.1
16. Please indicate HOW OFTEN you need translations:

Always Almost always Sometimes Almost never Never Index
Sworn 1 2 5 3 3 4.1
translations
Non-sworn 1 4 8 2 2 5.0
translations
ANNEXES
and interpreters
17. How OFTEN do you translate the following documents?
Always Almost Always Almost Never Index

always never
Administrative documents (e.g.:

criminal record certificates, birth 2 3 4 4 5 4.0
certificates, etc.).
Legal documents (e.g.: power of
attorney, divorce certificates, 0 3 6 5 4 3.6
etc.)
Documentary evidence (e.g.: 0 1 7 5 5 3.1
WhatsApp, press releases, etc.)
Health documents (e.g.:
injury reports, vaccine record 1 0 4 7 6 2.6
book, etc.)
Internal NGDO documents for
6 3 3 3 3 5.8
assisting persons
NGDO information documents
on rights or other ones handed 5 4 3 5 2 5.7
to persons
18. Please indicate other documents that you frequently translate:

Architectural projects and estimates (1); Certificates and academic degrees (2); Educational
material (2); Projects (1); Documentary transcripts (1); Guides for municipalities and schools
(1); Agreements, calls for projects, official letters, web pages (1); Programme rules (1);
Projects to promote other NGOs (1)
19. Please indicate your OPINION regarding working with translators:

Very high High Medium Low None Index
Implies high cost 3 10 3 0 0 7.5

Better to have someone from within the 5 6 2 4 0 6.8
NGDO
Lack of translation professionals in certain 7 1 5 2 1 6.7
languages
Lack of cultural adaptation of translations 4 3 6 3 0 6.3
Need specific training in the NGDOs field of 3 5 3 5 0 5.9

action
20. Source language/s you most interpreted this year (2019) when assisting NGDO users:
Arabic 4
French 1
English 3
K'iche' 1
Portuguese 3
Rohingya 1
Russian 2
ANNEXES
and interpreters
Ukrainian 1
Umbundu 1
Wolof 1
21. WHO does the interpreting when communication is not in Spanish or Galician?
Always Almost Sometimes

Almost Never Index
always
never
NGDO staff 0 13 3 0 0 7.0

Acquaintances / relatives of person
assisted 0 4 5 4 2 4.3
Persons known by NGDO

1 3 5 3 1 5.0
With multilingual software (e.g.:

Google Translate) 0 3 4 1 5 3.5
22. If other person is involved, kindly specify:

Professional interpreter (1); Telephone interpreter (1); Partner entity's staff member (1)
23. Is there a protocol to request assistance from interpreters?

Yes 3
No 14

We have hired a national level company with which we have a request and evaluation
procedure in place (1); the translator's telephone (1); Initial formal interviews with content
that is relevant to the insertion itinerary of the person. Interviews with psychologists and
lawyers (1); Internal (1)
25. If Yes, is it easy to follow?

Always Almost always Sometimes Almost never Never
1 3 0 0 0
ANNEXES
and interpreters
26. Kindly indicate frequency and type of interpretation used:
Always Almost Sometimes Almost Never Index

always never
Face-to-face 2 4 5 5 0 5.5
Telephone interpreting 2 1 1 6 6 3.0
Video-conference interpreting 0 1 0 3 11 1.0
27. HOW is the role/function of the interpreter conveyed to the persons assisted?
Always Never Index
always never
Through pamphlets translated in 0 0 1 4 6 1.4
many languages
Simple language and body 0 5 0 3 2 4.5
language
Help from person who interprets 4 3 2 4 2 5.5
Apps/Software 0 1 2 2 6 2.0
Drawings/pictograms 0 1 3 3 5 2.5
28. How OFTEN do you need to sight translate the following documents?

Brochures 0 1 10 2 6 3.3
Informed consents 3 2 5 4 4 4.4
Forms 1 3 8 1 4 4.4
Contracts 3 3 7 2 3 5.1
29. Please indicate other documents that you often need to translate orally:
Projects and estimates (1); Teaching materials, PowerPoint presentations, Internet
information (1); Programme norms, explanation of public services (school, health), visit to
doctors (1); Administrative notifications (1)
ANNEXES
and interpreters
30. Did you experience the following PROBLEMS when working with interpreters?
Always Almost Sometimes Almost
always never Never Index
Modifies message 0 1 3 8 3 2.8
Gets involved (advises, counsels) 0 1 4 6 3 3.0
Unaware of terminology 0 1 2 7 3 2.7
Converses with person and then 0 2 5 5 2 3.8
does not translate
Does not treat the person 0 0 0 7 7 1.3
correctly
Unavailable at all times 0 0 2 6 6 1.8
Does not maintain confidentiality 0 0 1 5 8 1.3
Lack of interpreter availability in
certain time slots 0 2 2 6 2 3.3
Lack of interpreters in certain
2 4 2 4 0 5.8
languages
31. Please indicate LEVEL OF AGREEMENT regarding working with interpreters:

Very High Medium Low None Index
high
Implies high cost 1 7 3 1 0 6.7
He/she is professional 0 7 3 2 0 6.0
An outsider who distracts 2 1 6 3 0 5.4
His/her work improves attention 1 3 3 5 0 5.0

Lacks specific training 0 3 3 6 0 4.4
Better to have someone from within the 2 5 2 3 0 6.3
NGDO
Better to have someone from the
community of the person assisted 2 3 4 3 0 5.8
Users do not trust interpreter 1 0 3 7 1 3.5
31b. Do you consider it important for interpreters to be trained in NGDO scope of action?
Very important Important Moderately Slightly Not important Index

important important
5 6 5 0 0 7.5
ANNEXES
and interpreters
32. How IMPORTANT are the following aspects in training persons who translate and interpret
for NGDOs?
Specific terminology 3 11 3 0 0 7.5
IT tools for translation 2 6 5 4 0 5.9
Cultural equivalences 5 10 1 0 0 8.1

Professional conduct 9 7 1 0 0 8.7
Interpreting techniques (e.g.: note- 2 7 7 0 0 6.7
taking, summarising, etc.)
Emotion management 6 7 4 0 0 7.8
Knowledge of development cooperation 3 5 6 1 2 5.9
Knowledge of NGDOs 2 9 6 0 0 6.9
33. What other elements should be included in the training of persons who translate and/or
interpret for NGDOs?
Confidentiality (2); Closeness (1); Empathy (2); Knowledge of the Spanish administration (1);
Human rights and gender (1)
34. Please add other information you consider relevant to translation/interpreting in NGDOs or
to the questionnaire:
Our work in target countries is performed through NGO partner entities. They are the ones
that directly assist people who speak other local languages. Staff in these organisations must
know the local language in order to work there. Many a time, they are locals and although
both understand Spanish, they can get closer to project recipients by speaking to them in
their own language (Quechua, Awajún in Peru, or K'iche' in Guatemala) (1).
Our NGO has never used a professional translator (1).

When the same interpreter comes repeatedly, this either creates a link with the person
he/she translates for or the user may feel that the interpreter knows too many things about
his/her personal life (1).
The questionnaire does not fit our reality because the Galician office does not work directly
with persons of different origin, but with local social organisations (decentralised cooperation
model). What we find most useful and what we use most is the translation of educational
materials such as manuals or guidelines (1).
All responses are related to refugee or immigration projects in Galicia. The reality in the field
is radically different (1).
It is best to have staff within the NGO and partner entities to do this type of work (1).
ANNEXES
b. Tables showing results of the questionnaire addressed to translators & interpreters working for
the NGODs
1. Type of training, do you have formal training in TRANSLATION?
Yes 11
No 3
1. Type of training, do you have formal training in INTERPRETING?

Yes 13
No 3
1. Degree in translation/interpreting
Translation Interpreting Specific number
Yes YES 10
NO YES 2
YES NO 0
NO NO 3
2. What degree do you have?

Bachelor's degree in Translation and 8
Interpreting
Bachelor's degree in T&I + Master's degree in 1
Institutional Translation
Bachelor's degree in T&I + Master's degree in 1
Translation
Nursing 1
Library studies 1
Bachelor's degree in Spanish Philology 1
/Master's degree in International Trade
Bilingual Primary Education Teacher 1
Unknown/NA 2
3. Are you a Sworn Translator/Interpreter?

Yes 11
No 5
4. Do you have another related accreditation?

Yes 2
No 12
5. If yes, which one?
Official license 1
Sworn translator in Spain, Poland and New 1
Zealand
ANNEXES
the NGODs
6. Do you work as:

A freelancer 7
An employee 5
Both 3
7. How many years of TRANSLATION experience do you have?

<5 1
5-9 1
10-14 4
15-19 3
>20 3
7. How many years of INTERPRETING experience do you have?

<5 3
5-9 1
10-14 6
15-19 1
>20 2
8. What languages do you interpret or translate? TRANSLATE

English 11
French 0
Portuguese 1
Arabic 1
Russian 1
Romanian 1
Urdu 0
Bulgarian 0
Other 5
ANNEXES
the NGODs
8. What languages do you interpret or translate? INTERPRET

English 7
French 3
Portuguese 1
Arabic 1
Russian 3
Romanian 1
Urdu 0
Bulgarian 0
Other 3
9. How many years of experience do you have in the field of translation/interpreting with
NGDOs?
<5 11
5-9 1
10-14 2
15-19 0
>20 0
10. How many NGDOs have you worked for in your years of experience?
<5 12
5-9 1
10-14 2
15-19 0
>20 0
11. How often have you done translation work IN THE LAST MONTH?
In the last month 5
In the last 6 months (including above) 2
ANNEXES
the NGODs
11. How often have you interpreted IN THE LAST MONTH?

In the last month 4
12. Have you done any specific training courses in translation/interpreting during the last 12
months?
Yes 4
No 11
13. If yes, indicate the topic:

Voze Course on Interpreting (2), ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL TRANSLATION (1), Legal
Translation and Interpreting (new Spanish regulations) (1)
14. Countries of origin:

Russia (3), Ukraine (2), Georgia (1), Kazakhstan (1), Tajikistan (1), Syria (2), Morocco (2),
Ghana (1), Senegal (2), South Asia (1), Africa (2), Algeria (1), Spain (1)
15. Gender:
More men than women 3
Equal number of men and women 4
More women than men 3
16. Age:
0-12 years 3
13-17 years 2
18-30 years 7
31-50 years 10
>50 years 1
ANNEXES
the NGODs
17. Mother tongues spoken by persons assisted by NGDOs with whom you work or
collaborate:
Arabic dialect (2), Standard Arabic (1), French (1), English (1), Georgian (1), Kazakh (1),
Russian (3), Tajik (1), Ukrainian (1), Wolof (1); Others (2)
18. Languages known to the persons assisted:

Arabic (1), French (6), English (7), Georgian (1), Kazakh (1), Portuguese (1), Russian (1),
Tajik (1), Ukrainian (1), Other
19. Source language(s) you translated most for NGDO users this year (2019):
Arabic (2); Spanish (1), French (3), English (4), Russian (2)
20. Target language(s) you translated most for NGDO users this year (2019):
Arabic (2); Spanish (5), French (1), Russian (1)
21. With regard to translations for NGDOs, how OFTEN:

Almost Some- Almost
Always always times never Never Index
Are the people you assist informed

about your role or your functions as 2 3 2 2 0 6.4
an interpreter?
Do NGDOs request cultural
adaptation of translations? 2 3 0 1 3 5.0
Do NGDOs provide you with specific

terminology? 2 2 0 0 4 4.4
22. Do NGDOs have a protocol in place to use assistance of translators?

Almost
Always always Sometimes Almost Never Index
never
Yes, there is a protocol 1 1 0 2 4 2.8

If yes, is it easy to apply? 1 0 1 0 2 3.8

Phone call and then a WhatsApp message with indications, which is followed by a more
specific email containing all data and terminology for interpreting (1)
ANNEXES
the NGODs
24. How OFTEN do you translate the following documents?

Almost Almost
Always Sometimes Never Index
always never
Administrative documents (e.g.:
criminal record certificates, birth 3 3 2 2 1 6.1
certificates, etc.)
Legal documents (e.g.: power of 1 2 3 1 3 4.3
attorney, divorce certificates, etc.)
Documentary evidence (e.g.: 0 0 2 2 6 1.5
WhatsApp, press releases, etc.)
25. Please indicate other documents that you frequently translate:

Travel permits for minors, supporting training certificates, school records (1)
26. Do you use any specific software to do translations?

Yes 2
No 8
27. If yes, which one?

Trados Studio 2019 2
ABBYY 1
28. Source language/s you interpreted most this year (2019) when assisting NGDO users:
Arabic (2), French (1), English (1), Russian (3), Ukrainian (1)
29. Do NGDOs have a protocol in place to use assistance of interpreters?

Almost Sometimes Almost Never Index
Always always never
Yes, there is a protocol 0 1 1 1 3 2.5
If yes, is it easy to apply? 0 1 1 0 1 4.2

At the start: good morning/good afternoon, I am…, interpreter of…, I will translate all
information in a faithful, neutral and confidential manner (1)
ANNEXES
the NGODs
31. Please indicate HOW OFTEN you provide:
Always Almost Sometimes Almost Never Index

always never
Face-to-face interpreting 4 1 1 1 1 6.9
Telephone interpreting 0 1 2 0 3 2.9
Video-conference interpreting 0 0 1 0 4 1.0
32. HOW OFTEN do you read and sight translate the following documents?

Brochures 0 4 0 0 3 4.3
Informed consents 0 2 4 0 3 3.9
Forms 0 3 1 0 3 3.9
Contracts 0 2 1 1 3 3.2
33. Please indicate other documents that you often translate orally:
Rental contracts (1), legislation concerning administrative procedures (1)
34. When interpreting how OFTEN do/are you

Almost Almost
Always always Sometimes never Never Index
Soften original message? 1 0 1 1 3 2.9

Advise, counsel…? 0 0 0 2 3 1.0
Unaware of subject matter? 0 0 3 2 0 4.0
Find terminology used is not clear? 0 0 2 3 0 3.5
Culturally adapt the message? 0 1 2 1 1 4.0

Find it difficult to reproduce the
original message (reproduce 0 1 4 0 1 4.6
hesitations, pauses…)?
Find it difficult to control emotions? 0 1 3 1 0 5.0
Asked to do things like: identify

accents or age, if the person lies…? 0 0 0 1 4 0.5
ANNEXES
the NGODs
35.A. How IMPORTANT are the following to train as a professional NGDO translator or
interpreter?
high
IT tools 0 2 3 3 1 4.2
Interpreting techniques (e.g: note taking, 1 3 2 0 0 7.1
summarising, etc.)
Specific training in translation 0 3 4 0 0 6.1

Specific training in interpreting 0 5 2 0 0 6.8
35.B. How IMPORTANT are the following to train as a professional NGDO translator or
interpreter?

high
IT tools 0 2 2 3 1 4.1
Interpreting techniques (e.g.: note taking, 1 3 2 0 0 7.1
summarising, etc.)

ANNEXES
the NGODs
35.C. How IMPORTANT are the following to train as a professional NGDO translator or
interpreter?

IT tools 0 2 2 2 1 4.3
Interpreting techniques (e.g.: note taking, 1 2 1 0 0 7.5
summarising, etc.)
35.D. How IMPORTANT are the following issues to train as a

professional NGDO translator or interpreter? Comparison
TOTAL TRANS INTERP
Specific terminology 8.2 8.2 9.0

IT tools 4.2 4.1 4.3
Cultural equivalences 8.1 8.6 7.9
Professional conduct 8.1 8.6 7.9
Interpreting techniques (e.g.: note taking, summarising, etc.) 7.1 7.1 7.5
Emotion management 7.9 7.9 7.5

Knowledge of development cooperation 7.1 7.1 7.5
Specific training in translation 6.1 6.1 6.0
Specific training in interpreting 6.8 6.7 6.9
ANNEXES
the NGODs
36. Please indicate overall RATING regarding working for NGDOs:

Works well 2 5 1 1 0 7.2
Rates are appropriate 0 3 0 4 0 4.6
Actual interpreting work does not 0 3 1 2 1 4.6
conform to that contracted
Shortage of time and urgency 2 1 0 3 2 4.4
Inadequate premises 0 1 2 1 4 2.5
Do not treat user correctly 0 0 1 1 5 1.1
Speak very fast and/or do not pause 0 1 0 2 5 1.6

Do not speak in the first person 0 2 0 0 5 2.1
37. What was the level of satisfaction with the NGDOs you worked for?
Translation 2 4 0 0 0 8.3
Interpreting 1 7 1 0 0 7.5
ANNEXES
Summary of the most relevant aspects addressed in focus groups

FG-1 NGDOs Group FG-2 Interpreters group
1. Profile and cases
1.1. NGDO intervention with vulnerable 1.1. The profession arises as a
populations in general (migrants professional opportunity/niche (no
technical training: any available
and/or refugees): international (n=5),
training is valued positively).
national (n=3) and local (n=1).
1.2. Human rights commitment and 1.2. Fragmented collective image as a

difficulty to put into practice (guarantee result of job insecurity: defined by
them). Cases where little information exploitation and undervaluation by
on a situation leads to inappropriate contractors (NGDOs) and social
social intervention. commitment towards those assisted.
2. Communicative demands: Situations and resources used
2.1. Economic crisis has stagnated 2.1. Impartiality and confidentiality are at
unaddressed structural problems: stake.
absence of translators and interpreters
in the social team.
2.2. Interpreters hired only in complex 2.2. Difficulties to refrain from emotional
cases. involvement (development of
ineffective strategies): speaks in first
person.
2.3. Persons accompanying service users 2.3. Childish language used: use other
are generally the ones that translate ways to ask.
(resource).
2.4. Non-professional communications 2.4. There is a need to revise the initial
makes performance of social work introduction protocol.
impossible (improvisation and
unjustified delays).
3. Difficulties and assessments of work done
3.1. Biases and ethical problems as a 3.1. Isolation and misunderstandings due
result of using non-professional to lack of intercultural experience
interpreters: friends and (internal diversity of the Arab world
acquaintances, people from the same and linguistic and geopolitical
nationality, family members, etc. differences not taken into account).
3.2. Impossibility to provide quality 3.2. Exploitation of volunteers as a free
comprehensive intervention, follow- and non-professional linguistic
up or referral during assistance. resource.
3.3. Undesired consequences of
"professional burnout syndrome" of 3.3. Bad practices arising from
NGDO technicians (self-learning widespread use of dubious quality
based on trial and errors during mechanisms (Google Translate).
intervention: violation of user rights). Thereby violating rights to defence
and generating helplessness. Poor
assessment of telephone translation
system.
ANNEXES
4. Proposals for improvement and expectations

4.1. With regard to working conditions: duty of 4.1. With regard to working conditions:
the Public Administration to cater to the increase hourly rates, include travel
needs for translation and interpreting allowance and payment of "waiting
services. time", besides establishing appropriate
availability parameters.
4.2. With regard to case handling: ensure 4.2. With regard to case handling: provide
viability of interventions and rights of the relevant background information
immigrants and/or refugees. (objective, specific vocabulary and
geopolitical context), attend previous
sessions and provide continuity to
interpretations carried out, as well as
breaks during interpretations.
4.3. With regard to the profession: creation of a 4.3. With regard to the profession: creation of
register of translators and interpreters to a translators and interpreters bank and
provide information in a direct and effective register specialised in the third sector
manner. Consider offering internships to and with direct employment
interpreting students (also, in relationship to the sector. Training
interculturalism). on interpreting targeted to
interpreters, NGDOs and professionals
4.4. Prospects: precariousness of social 4.4. Volatile prospects: uncertain
services, excessive bureaucracy. professional future.

2020 - Melinco Report English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 - Melinco Report English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 - Melinco Report English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MELINCO

2.1.1 Characteristics of participants in the survey of non-

2.1.2 Characteristics of participants in the survey of translators and

2.2 Focus groups 14

3. Main results: comparative analysis 16

3.1 Current state of communications between NGDO staff and the

3.2 Training needs detected in professional linguistic mediation 27

1) Specialised training in oral linguistic mediation (interpreting) for NGDO staff by

– Conclusions (section 4).

A survey is an extensive social research technique and a systematic way of collecting

Geographic scope: Galicia

1) Non-governmental development cooperation organisations (the 99 entities listed in

Translation considerations (written texts)

Interpreting considerations (oral exchanges)

Training Final considerations

16 Do not operate in Galicia

NGDO Women hired by NGDOs in Galicia

Figure 4. Number of men hired by NGDOs in Galicia vs number of entities reporting

NGDO Men hired by NGDOs in Galicia

NGDO Women hired by NGDOs abroad

Figure 6. Number of men hired by NGDOs abroad vs number of entities reporting

NGDO Men hired by NGDOs abroad

1. English (18) 8. Bulgarian (1)

2. French (12) 9. Nepali (1)

3. Portuguese 10. Romanian (1)

Figure 8. Standard profile of staff hired by NGDOs

Project: Social awareness

Figure 9. Studies pursued by participants in the sample of translators and interpreters

1 Bachelor’s degree in Spanish Philology

In terms of practicing professional activity, there is a predominance of self-employed

1. English (11) 4. Russian (1)

2. Others (5) 5. Romanian (1)

1. English (7) 5. Romanian (1)

2. French (3) 6. Portuguese (1)

3. Russian (3) 7. Arabic (1)

Figure 12. Profile of translators and interpreters

Education: Bachelor's degree in Translation and Interpreting

Qualification: Sworn Interpreter-Translator

Work mode: Freelance

Professional experience: Over 10 years

With regard to the frequency of translation/interpreting work, it should be noted that

Geographic scope: Galicia.

Design: A focus group is aimed at creating a synergistic effect among participants to

– Presentation of entities/professionals and cases (profiles of persons assisted:

NGDOs Group (FG-O)1 Interpreters Group (FG-I)

3.1 Current state of communications

FG-O82: em …em true, that is to say, e v e n impossible, because one

Figure 13. Country of origin of persons assisted by NGDOs

X: But at translation level for example of documentation

On the subject of problems detected when working with interpreters/NGDOs (Figure

Modifies the message

Gets involved (advises,

Converses with the person and

Unavailable at all times, Does not maintain

Lack of interpreters in certain

FG-I6: This happened to me during a court hearing, em I was, well,

FG-I5: To, to continue with the story

FG-O7: with, with the system because we can be in other organisations

FG-O2: Yes, it depends on who you have to deal with