Designing Language Access

August 20, 2020

Critiquing Language Access in the Puget Sound

One of the main goals of the Designing Language Access group is to come together to surface the most pressing issues surrounding language access in the Puget Sound that can be solved through design. To get that work started, we (Alison Cardinal and Emma Rose) facilitated a Future Workshop, an approach that has a long tradition in participatory design and user experience design. The goal of this workshop was to start the human-centered design process by first exploring broadly issues of language access in the community by co-building and sharing knowledge. This approach provides a broad view of the experience of communities who speak other languages as we work towards pinpointing the experiences of these communities that can be addressed through design. From our different areas of expertise, life experiences, cultural backgrounds, and community-engaged work, we came together to create a holistic understanding of the problem of language access in the region. Using a virtual white board with sticky notes, we wrote down critiques and then clustered them by themes. In UX, this approach is called “affinity diagramming.”

During the first phase of the workshop, we worked on collecting critiques of language access in the Puget Sound region on a virtual white board.

What are the specific barriers, critiques, and problems in the region regarding language access?

Barrier 1: White Supremacy

To think about improving language access for marginalized communities, it’s important to begin with a fundamental question that often is overlooked in discussions of language access: Whose languages have been marginalized and why?

To begin answering this question, it’s important to first acknowledge which language is at the center: White, middle-class English. This is not just a chance of history: English’s centrality in civic life is a result of a history of colonialism and racism against communities of color and is a key piece helping to maintain structural inequality. Intentionally erasing a communities’ language is a colonial tactic to violently strip communities of their culture. Erasing a community’s language also takes away the power to voice their dissent and advocate for themselves. As a result, speaking English and white supremacy are intertwined.

Consider the following:

  • The U.S. does not have an official language.
  • Being American is tied to speaking English. For instance, one slur against B/I/POC is to “speak American.”
  • You’re not seen as truly American if you are not white and speak English
  • B/I/POC fear speaking their language in public for fear of violence
  • When English is centered as the default language, so too are the histories and cultures of white people. English-only is an act of erasure.
  • When English is the assumed default, white people are the assumed default deserving of goods, services, education and resources

As a result of white supremacy and the centrality of English,  communities who speak other languages in the Puget Sound are not only burdened to fight for language access. They must fight against the erasure of their culture, history, and language. In this environment, maintaining one’s language is an act of resistance. Because non-European cultures are not recognized as worthy of celebration, communities of color in the Puget Sound must spend immense energy even to be recognized as a part of the community.

When language is seen as the barrier, the system is blaming B/I/POC for their own oppression.

Barrier 2: Misunderstanding Language Access

It’s Not Just Translation

One of the biggest barriers to language access is the misunderstanding of what it actually looks like and the work it requires. In most government contexts, translation and interpretation alone are seen as the solution to access to information. Agencies and departments often hand over finished documents and policies to translators and assume that their work is done. Sometimes the translations are evaluated for flaws, accuracy, and correctness, but the true flaws lie in the assumption that what has been created is useful to the community in the first place.

  •  Were communities who speak other languages involved in the design of the policies and/or documents or is their involvement in the process perfunctory?
  • Who actually translated the materials? Were they members of the community?
  • Are the policies even translatable? Was translation the most effective strategy to reach communities? These questions usually go unasked. “Language access” is usually seen as merely “checking a box” and just meeting a federal requirement and is often based on false assumptions about communities who speak other languages. To design for language access, institutions need to first critically examine their assumptions about what equitable access to information looks like and why those barriers exist in the first place.

Barrier 3: Lack of Representation 

As a result of white supremacy, most government positions are held by white, monolingual people. Because being communities who speak other languages is not part of their experience, many in leadership positions in the government neither have the community connections nor the personal experience to understand what it’s like to need an interpreter, be an interpreter, engage in translation, or use translated documents. Relying on translations alone does not replace the community engagement needed to communicate effectively with communities that speak languages other than English.   

Without community engagement with communities that speak other languages, the government makes assumptions about these communities and does not see them in a nuanced way. While white communities are often seen as nuanced and communication is tailored to different audiences in English, B/I/POC communities are not seen with the same nuance. For instance, different age groups within communities need different messaging. It should not be surprising that this lack of engagement leads to a lack of trust in the government.

When communities who speak other languages communities are not the center of the design and are merely an afterthought, so too are the designs that emerge. Without deep, meaningful connections with communities, language access is bound to fail when it relies solely on ad-hoc interpretation and translation.

Barrier 4: Lack of Resources and Inefficient Use of Resources

First, budgets for language access are never enough, which shows that reaching these communities is not a priority. Limited language access budgets are one way white supremacy is upheld within  government.

The funds that are available are also inefficiently used. Because of a misunderstanding of effective language access and lack of robust community connections, money is wasted on expensive translations that don’t effectively reach the community. A lack of community engagement also creates a black box around language access efforts. Do they reach the community? Do they effectively help communities who speak other languages communities, for instance, understand the mask mandate or help keep themselves safe against COVID-19? There is a lack of evidence, for instance, whether translations and social media outreach are effective. As a result, there is also a lack of success stories that show what strategies work and humanize the work of language access. This makes it difficult for the government to learn from communities and create a holistic strategy for reaching them.

Another challenge is the sheer number of languages in the region and how many communities need to be engaged. With over 170 languages spoken in the region, usually only the top languages are translated. Without a comprehensive strategy implemented across agencies to reach not just the dominant members within each of the communities but all members of all communities, those who are in charge of language access often are forced operate in crisis mode when vital information is handed down to be quickly communicated in times of public health matters or similar emergencies.

Looking Forward

The next step for the Designing Language Access group is to imagine a future not just of language access, but of language equity. What would an ideal future of dismantled white supremacy look like? How would the government understand language access, engage the community, and plan holistically to communicate with BIPOC communities who speak other languages? How can the government not just focus on language access but language vitality? How are communities who speak other languages equitably engaged in designing communication and communities who speak other languages user experiences? By imagining a future together, we set the groundwork for creating processes, experiences, and designs that create language equity.