Community interpreting in Germany: results of a nationwide cross-sectional study among interpreters

BACKGROUND: Community interpreters (CIPs) play a crucial role in various community services, including healthcare, when service providers and users do not share a common language. However, there is a lack of evidence-based data on this population globally. This explorative cross-sectional study aims to gain a better understanding of CIPs and their work in Germany.

METHODS: A nationwide online survey was conducted among CIPs in Germany to collect data on their qualification background, working conditions, mental health, interpreting-related psychosocial distress and sociodemographics. Participants were recruited through interpreting pools, training institutions and migrant organizations. Data were analyzed descriptively, dependent t-test, multiple logistic and hierarchical stepwise regression analyses were performed to predict participation in interpreting-specific training, interpreting competence and interpreting-related psychosocial distress.

RESULTS: Across all 16 federal states, N = 873 responses were used for analysis. Most participants are female (74%), born abroad (77%) and have a high level of education (69%). The vast majority interpret occasionally in their leisure time (44%) and are self-employed/freelance (51%). 34% interpret solely or additional on a voluntary basis (unpaid). The median hours of interpreting per month are 10 h, 75% do not exceed 30 h. On average interpreters work in four different settings. 69% attended any kind of interpreting training with a median of 25 h in total. Interpreting in more settings emerged as an associated factor with participation in training. Of those who have never attended any training, 69% consider themselves as rather/very competent in interpreting. Interpreting more frequently, having less severe anxiety symptoms, getting higher and more often paid and being less satisfied with the payment is associated with self-reported interpreting competence. In total, 36% reported moderate or severe psychosocial distress regarding interpreting. Higher general psychosocial distress and depressive symptoms, higher interpreting frequency and lower payment satisfaction were found to be associated with higher distress regarding interpreting. Additionally, factors such as precarious work conditions, lack of recognition and discrimination (e.g. racism and sexism) were reported as distressing.

CONCLUSION: This study provides a first comprehensive evidence-based national database on CIPs in Germany. The findings can be valuable for the development of qualifications, guidelines, policies and the process of professionalizing the field of CIPs.