Analyzing Fallacies in Argumentation to Enhance Effectiveness of Educational Interventions: The Case of Care Providers' Arguments Against Using Professional Interpretation

Abstract

Introduction: Although research has shown that professional interpreters improve health care to patients who do not speak the same language as their care provider, care providers underuse professional interpretation services. To get more insight into the reasons of care providers to underuse professional interpreters, we studied fallacies in their arguments. Fallacies in reasoning may explain why care providers avoid changing their behavior even if they are aware of evidence in favor of such behavior.

Methods: We did a secondary analysis of interviews about immigrant patients with care providers collected in two studies on in-hospital pediatric care. Interviews (N = 37) were held in 2009, in the Netherlands. Interviews were analyzed using a contextual approach to fallacious argumentation: a method that can identify fallacies as "wrong" arguments compared with the context in they are made.

Results: We identified six main fallacies that care providers used to argue that they prefer not to use a professional interpreter while having free access to professional interpreters: 1) There are also some negative side effects to using professional interpreters, 2) there is no language problem, 3) it is such an enormous hassle to organize it, 4) I am a good doctor, 5) my medical information is not complex, and 6) patients do not want it.

Discussion: Familiarizing care providers with these fallacies can raise their awareness of the wrong arguments to defend their underuse of professional interpreters and can be made part of their training.