User:TeresaVarrialeGonzalez/sandbox

Challenges in Cross-Language Qualitative Research

Cross-language research refers to research involving two or more languages. Specifically, it can refer to: 1) researchers working with participants in a language that they are not fluent in, or; 2) researchers working with participants utilizing a language that is neither of their native languages, or;  3) translation of research or findings in another language, or;  4) researchers and participants speak the same language (not English). However, the research process and findings are directed to an English-speaking audience.

Cross-language issues are of growing concern in research of all methodological forms, but they raise concerns for qualitative research (QR). Since qualitative researchers seek to gather a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior, they use an inductive approach to investigate the meanings people attribute to their behavior, actions, and interactions with others. life experiences and give them meaning researchers to investigate the meanings people attribute to their behavior, actions, and interactions with others. In other words, qualitative researchers seek to gain life experiences insights by exploring the depth, richness, and complexity inherent to a phenomenon. To gather data, QR investigators use direct observation and immersion, interviews, open-ended surveys, focus groups, content analysis of visual and textual material, and oral histories. If we think about the characteristics and kinds of data in QR, we realize how complex it becomes when researchers are conducting their studies across languages and cultures. Cross language issues are particularly complex when researchers are investigating meanings, interpretations, symbols, and the processes and relations of social life.

Several scholars have dedicated their attention to this methodological topic stressing important points related to cross-language research (Squires, 2009). However, no methodological consensus has emerged from these studies. Moreover, as Edwards (1998) noticed, the inconsistent or inappropriate use of translators or interpreters can threaten the trustworthiness of cross-language QR and the applicability of the translated ﬁndings on participant populations. Thus, it is crucial to give attention to how researchers describe the use of translators and/or interpreters since it reflects their competence in addressing language as a method issue (Edwards, 1998). Researchers who fail to address the methodological issues translators/interpreters present in a cross-language QR can decrease the trustworthiness of the data as well as compromise the overall rigor of the study (Edwards, 1998; Mill & Ogilvie, 2003). Temple and Edwards (2002) for example, talk about the important role of translation in research. Language is not just a tool or technical label for conveying concepts; it incorporates values and beliefs and carries cultural, social, and political meanings (Temple et al., 2002). Language speaks of a particular social reality that may not have a conceptual equivalence in the language into which will be translated (Bassnet, 1994). The same words can mean different things in different cultures. As Temple et al. (2002) observe, the words we choose matter. This issue could affect interview protocol construction, extrapolation of meaning from those interviews and it could affect the ways we describe what we are seeing.

Headings

a. Historical discussion of cross-language issues and research.

b. Relationship between cross-language issues and qualitative research

c. Current state of affairs of cross-language in QR

d. Significant contributions to cross-language QR

e. Cross-language concerns in QR

Historical discussion of cross-language issues and QR

           Saville-Troike (1989) was one of the first to talk about successful communication across languages and cultures in QR. According to the author, to communicate successfully a person must have the appropriate linguistic knowledge, interaction skills, and cultural knowledge. In a cross-cultural context, one must be aware of differences in norms of interaction and interpretation, values and attitudes, as well as cognitive maps and schemata (1989). Regarding cross-cultural interviews, Stanton (1996) argues that in order to avoid misunderstandings, the interviewer should try to walk in the other person’s shoes. In other words, the interviewer needs to pay attention to the point of view of the interviewee. This is what Stanton (1996, p. 41) calls “connected knowing," which refers to a clear and undistorted understanding of the perspective of the interviewee.

Relationship between cross-language issues and QR

           As one of the methods for collecting rich and detailed information in QR, interview can raise some issues when conducted in cross-cultural linguistic contexts. The interview method allows insight into how individuals understand and narrate aspects of their lives. Challenges may arise when language barriers exist between researchers and participants. In multilingual contexts, the study of language differences is an essential part of QR. Van Ness et al. (2010) claim that language differences may have consequences on the research process and outcome, because concepts in one language may be understood differently in another language. For these authors, language is central in all phases of QR, ranging from data collection to analysis and representation of the textual data in publications.

In addition, as van Ness et al. (2010) observe, challenges of translation can be from the perspective that interpretation of meaning is the core of QR. Interpretation and representation of meaning may be challenging in any communicative act; however, they are more complicated in cross- cultural contexts where interlingual translation is necessary (van Ness et al. 2010). Interpretation and understanding of meanings are essential in QR not only for the interview phase, but also for the final phase when meaning will be transferred to the audience through text. Temple and Edwards (2002) claim that without this, QR cannot shed light on different perspectives. Rather, they risk shutting out a person who could enrich and challenge our understandings (2002).

Current state of affairs of cross-language in QR

According to Temple et al. (2002), there are a growing number of researches who are conducting studies in English language societies with people who speak little or no English. However, very few researchers talk about the influence of interpreters and translators in their studies. In addition, as Temple et al. (2002) notices, little attention is given to the involvement of interpreters in research interviews and even less attention  to language difference in focus group research with people who do not speak English (see Esposito, 2001, for an exception). There is some work on the role of interpreters and translators in relation to best practice and models of provision (e.g., Thomson, Rogers, Honey, & King, 1999). There is also a body of literature aimed at English speaking health and social welfare professionals on how to work with interpreters (e.g., Freed, 1988; Fuller & Toon, 1988; Karseras & Hopkins, 1987).

Also, Temple and Edwards (2002) point out the absence of technically focused literature on translation. However, the theoretically informed literature on this topic suggests that communication across languages involves more than just a literal transfer of information (Bhabha, 1994; Simon, 1996; Spivak, 1992; Temple, 1997). With this regard, Simon (1996) claims that the translator is not someone who simply discuss words. Rather, the translator is someone who negotiates meanings in relation to a specific context. These meanings cannot be found within the culture itself, but they are embedded in the negotiation process, which is part of their continual reactivation (1996). As Simon observes, the translator needs to make continuous decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries. Thus, the process of meaning transfer has more to do with reconstructing the value of a term, rather than its cultural inscription (1996).

Significant contributions to cross-language in QR

Many scholars recognize the challenges that arise in studies that involve people who speak multiple languages. The works of Derrida (1967a; 1967b; 1996; 1998a; 1998b) are considered one of the most significant contributions to the issue of language in qualitative social research. Temple (2002) used the term cross-language research to describe qualitative studies that use a translator or interpreter at any point during the research process. Now, scholars use this term regularly to describe this kind of research.

Today, the main contributions concerning issues of translation and interpretation come from the nursing field. In a globalized era, setting the criteria for QR that is linguistically and culturally representative of study participants is crucial for improving the quality of care provided by health care professionals (Esposito, 2001; Yach, 1992). Scholars like Squires (2008; 2009), for example, provides useful guidelines for evaluating cross-language research in order to address the methodological issues surrounding language barriers between researchers and participants more systematically.

Cross-language concerns in QR  

Squires (2009) defines cross-language as the process that occurs when a language barrier is present between the researcher and participants. This barrier is frequently mediated using a translator or interpreter. When the research involves two languages, interpretation issues might result in loss of meaning and thus loss of the validity of the qualitative study. (Al-Amer et al., 2016). As Oxley et al. (2017) point out that, in a multilingual setting interpretation challenges arise when researcher and participants speak the same non-English native language, but the results of the study are intended for an English-speaking audience. For instance, when interviews, observation, and other methods of gathering data are used in cross-cultural environments, the data collection and analysis processes become more complicated due to the inseparability of the human experience and the language spoken in a culture Oxley et al. (2017). Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to be clear on what they know and believe. In other words, they should clarify their position in the research process.

In this context, positionality refers to the ethical and relational issues the researchers face when choosing a language over another to communicate their findings. For example, in his study on Chinese international students in a Canadian university, Li (2011) considers the ethical and relational issues of language choice experienced when working with the Chinese and English language. In this case, it is important that the researcher offers a rationale behind his/her language choice. Thus, as Squires (2008) observes, language plays a significant role in cross-cultural studies; it helps participants represent their sense of self.

Similarly, qualitative interview involves a continuous reflection on language choices because they may impact the research process and outcome. In his work, Lee (2017) illustrates the central role that reflexivity plays in setting researcher’s priorities and his/her involvement in the translation process. Specifically, his study focuses on the dilemma that researchers speaking the same language of participants face when the findings are intended to an English-speaking audience only. Lee (2017) introduces the article by arguing that “Research conducted by English-speaking researchers about other language speaking subjects is essentially cross-cultural and often multilingual, particularly with QR that involves participants communicating in languages other than English” (p.53). Specifically, Lee addresses the problems that arise to understanding interview responses in Mandarin, prepare transcriptions of interviews and translate the Mandarin/Chinese data for an English-speaking/reading audience. Lee’s work then, demonstrates the importance of reflexivity in cross-language research since the researcher’s involvement in the language translation can impact the research process and outcome.

Therefore, in order to ensure  trustworthiness, which  is a measure of the rigor of the study, (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), Sustrino et al. (2014) argue that it is necessary to minimize translation errors, provide detail accounts of the translation, involve more than one translator, and remain open to inquiry from those seeking access to the translation process. For example, in research conducted in the educational context, Sustrino et al. (2014) recommend bilingual researchers the use of inquiry audit for establishing trustworthiness. Specifically, investigators can require an outside person to review and examine the translation process and the data analysis in order to ensure that the translation is accurate, and the findings are consistent.

References

Al-Amer, R., Ramjan, L., Glew, P., Darwish, M., & Salamonson, Y. (2016). Language

translation challenges with Arabic speakers participating in qualitative research studies.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 150. https://doi-

org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.04.010

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Derrida, J. (1967a). Marges de la philosophie [Margins of philosophy]. Paris: Galilée.

Derrida, J. (1967b). Écriture et différence [Writing and difference]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Derrida, J. (1985). Des tours de Babel [Towers of Babel]. In Joseph F. Graham

(Ed.), Difference in translation (pp.209–248). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Derrida, J. (1996). Le monolinguisme de l'autre ou la prothèse de

l'origine [Monolingualism of the other or The prosthesis of origin]. Paris: Galilée.

Derrida, J. (1998a). Monolingualism of the other or The prosthesis of origin. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Derrida, J. (1998b). The secret art of Antonin Artaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Edwards, R. (1998). A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research

process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 24, 197–208.

Esposito, N. (2001). From meaning to meaning: On non-English focus group research.

Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 568–579. http://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119217

Freed, A. O. (1988, July/August). Interviewing through an interpreter. Social Work, 315-319. Fuller, J. H. S. & Toon, P. D. (1988). Medical practice in a multicultural society. Oxford:

Heinemann Medical.

Karseras, P., & Hopkins, E. (1987). British Asians’ health in the community. Chichester, UK:

John Wiley & Sons.

Lee, S. (2017). The Bilingual Researcher’s Dilemmas: Reflective Approaches to Translation

Issues. Waikato Journal of Education, 22(2), 53–62.

Li, Y. (2011). Translating Interviews, Translating Lives: Ethical Considerations in Cross-

Language Narrative Inquiry. TESL Canada Journal, 28(5), 16–30.

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, New York

Mill, J. E., Ogilvie, L. D. (2003) Establishing methodological rigor in international qualitative

research: A case study from Ghana. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 80–88.

Oxley, J., Günhan, E., Kaniamattam, M., & Damico, J. (2017). Multilingual issues in qualitative

research. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 31(7–9), 612–630. https://doi-

org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02699206.2017.1302512

Rings, L. (2006). The Oral Interview and Cross-Cultural Understanding in the Foreign Language Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 39(1), 43–53. https://doi-org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02248.x

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). New

York: Basil Blackweli.

Simon, S. (1996). Gender in translation: Cultural identity and the politics of transmission.

London: Routledge.

Spivak, G. C. (1992). The politics of translation. In M. Barrett & A. Phillips (Eds.), Destabilising

theory: Contemporary feminist debates (pp. 177-200). Cambridge: Polity Press

Squires, A. (2008). Language barriers and qualitative nursing research: methodological

considerations. International Nursing Review, 55(3), 265–273. https://doi-

org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00652.x

Squires, A. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research

review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(2), 277–287. https://doi-

org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006

Stanton, A. (1996). Reconfiguring teaching and knowing in the college classroom. In Goldberger, N.R., Tarule,J.M., Clinchy, B.M., & Beienky, M.F. (Eds). Knowledge, difference,

and power (pp, 25-56). New York: BasicBooks

Sutrisno, A., Nguyen, N. T., & Tangen, D. (2014). Incorporating Translation in Qualitative

Studies: Two Case Studies in Education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education (QSE), 27(10), 1337–1353.

Temple B. (2002). Crossed wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-

language research. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (6), 844–54.

Temple, B. (1997). Issues in translation and cross-cultural research. Sociology, 31 (3), 607-618.

Temple, B., & Edwards, R. (2002). Interpreters/translators and cross-language research:

Reflexivity and border crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1–

12. https://doi-org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/160940690200100201

Thomson, A.M., Rogers, A., Honey, S., & King, L. (1999). If the interpreter doesn’t come there

is no communication: A study of bilingual support services in the North West of England.

Manchester: School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, University of

Manchester.

van Nes F., Abma T., Jonsson H., & Deeg D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative

research: is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 313–316. https://doi-org.umasslowell.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10433-010-0168-y

Yach D. (1992). The use and value of qualitative methods in health research in developing

countries. Social Science & Medicine, 35 (4), 603–612.

Winkler, M. (2010). Beckett ≠ Beckett. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.

Retrieved from: http://othes.univie.ac.at/8119/1/2010-01-11_0305678.pdf

= Bibliography =