Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences pp 1639-1652 | Cite as
Finding Meaning: A Cross-Language Mixed-Methods Research Strategy
The literature devoted to methodological issues arising from working through an interpreter is surprisingly sparse. References that exist tend to be dated anthropological works or tend to focus on interviews in social work and medicine. The older literature tends to focus on the mechanics of translation and how to conduct an interview with an interpreter, while more recent works start to address the issues of whether the interpreter should be “invisible” or whether the changing dynamics of the interview with an interpreter present merits the rigorous treatment of the role and influence of the interpreter with respect to power and subjectivity. Interpreters are fundamental to the research process when a foreign researcher is conducting research with an indigenous culture, and when the researcher is not fluent in the local language. In this chapter, an experientially developed cross-language research strategy is discussed, including choosing and assessing the linguistic skill of interpreters, the influence of interpreter social position and subjectivity on transcript data, and the challenges encountered when translating and conducting a household survey, including questions about self-reported illness. The chapter ends with a summary of the components needed for a successful cross-language strategy, including the need to acknowledge the limitations introduced as a result of working through an interpreter, and the need to make the role, credentials, social position, and subjectivity of the interpreter explicit in published results.
KeywordsLanguage interpretation Translation Social position Subjectivity Cross-language research
- Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
- Chilisa B. Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2012.Google Scholar
- Dowling R. Power, subjectivity, and ethics in qualitative research. In: Hay I, editor. Qualitative research methods in human geography. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 19–29.Google Scholar
- Freed AO. Interviewing through an interpreter. Soc Work. 1988;33:315–9.Google Scholar
- Goldberg TL, Paige S, Chapman CA. The Kibale EcoHealth project: exploring connections among human health, animal health, and landscape dynamics in western Uganda. In: Aguirre AA, Ostfeld RS, Daszak P, editors. New directions in conservation medicine: applied cases of ecological health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 452–65.Google Scholar
- Gondwe N, Marcotty T, Vanwambeke SO, De Pus C, Mulumba M, Van de Bossche P. Distribution and density of tsetse flies (Glossinidae: Diptera) at the game/people/livestock interface of the Nkhotakota game reserve human sleeping sickness focus in Malawi. EcoHealth. 2009;6(2): 260–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mukama R. Theory and practice in language policy: the case of Uganda. Kiswahili. 2009;72(1). online.Google Scholar
- Valentine G. People like us: negotiating sameness and difference in the research process. In: Moss P, editor. Feminist geography in practice: research and methods. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002. p. 116–26.Google Scholar
- Werner O, Campbell DT. Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In: Naroll R, Cohen R, editors. A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. Irvington-on-Hudson: Columbia University Press; 1973. p. 398–420.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization. Uganda: non-communicable disease (NCD) country profiles. http://www.who.int/nmh/countries/uga_en.pdf?ua=1. (2014). Accessed 2 Aug 2016.
- World Health Organization. World malaria report 2015: Uganda. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/country-profiles/profile_uga_en.pdf?ua=1. (2015). Accessed 10 Aug 2016.