Making ends meet: a communication matrix for multilingual service encounters

Social services and public services are facing a remarkable diversity of clients today. Existing tools for communication do not always work or are not used efficiently. To better bridge the communication gap between service providers and multilingual immigrant clients, Kruispunt Migratie-Integratie, an independent organization, recognized and subsidized by the Flemish government to develop expertise on migration, integration and ethno-cultural diversity set up a joint exploratory research with Ghent University and Kind & Gezin (K&G), the organization that monitors childcare for the Flemish authorities in Belgium. Closely collaborating with practitioners and policymakers, Ghent University researchers analyzed 74 video recorded conversations between K &G service providers and immigrant mothers, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The project was financed by Kruispunt Migratie-Integratie, the data collection was done by Kind & Gezin, the filmed excerpts were coded, analyzed and systematically incorporated into Nvivo10 by Ghent University researchers. In cooperation with the language policy coordinator of Kruispunt Migratie-Integratie (Pascal Rillof), Ghent University researchers developed a communication matrix listing the communication tools which are, can and should ideally be used in a service context so that more cost-efficient and effective service can be provided without sacrificing service quality. The matrix serves as a benchmark against which public service encounters with new speakers of Dutch may be measured in the future. The results have been delivered to Kind & Gezin for further follow up and training of the organization’s staff. Tying in with the colloquium’s thematic concern of the tension between institutional deontology and practices of language use, we will juxtapose the findings of our research to the new policies on migration and integration in Belgium, focusing on four principal questions: first, why is proficiency in a single ‘national’, ’legitimate’ language invoked as the touchstone of social cohesion and integration?; Secondly, what do the language requirements enshrined in these policies entail for the day to day practices of service providers working with multilingual immigrants?; Thirdly, are the policies workable?; And, finally, can a communication matrix which builds on emic concerns of clients and service providers, add to delegitimizing the use of the ‘national’, ‘legitimate’ language in public service encounters with multilingual immigrants