Module 6: Translation Strategies and How to Avoid Pitfalls

Collecting high-quality qualitative, cross-cultural, and cross-language data comes with unique logistic and analytic challenges.  Concepts of health and illness are socially constructed,(1) and although the interpreter and the researcher can communicate in the same language, there may be vast cultural differences that lead to different understandings of the same concept or interaction.  Employing interpreters as "cultural brokers" in research raises methodological issues around the meaning of concepts which may ultimately impact the quality of results. Below is an outline of several pitfalls that may occur during an interview as well as proactive strategies to avoid them.

• Pitfall: An interpreter takes issue with interviewee responses to questions. If the interviewee feels that he or she is being judged, he or she may be less willing to answer questions in an open and honest manner.(2)

  • Solution: It is important that the researcher and the interpreter work together to ensure that this does not occur.(3) It is recommended to ‘match’ interpreters and participants with respect to ethnicity, gender, age and other characteristics that can otherwise interfere with the aim and content of the interview.(4) A decision about matching should be guided by the purpose of the interview and by the interviewees’ wishes.

• Pitfall: Interpreters often introduce their own beliefs and personal agendas into the interaction. This may occur entirely unintentionally, but it is important to avoid wherever possible as it may influence the course of an interview and affect the participant’s responses(5). Alternatively, paraphrasing may result in omissions or erroneous substitutions of terms as interpreters must constantly make decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries, and evaluate the degree to which two different words are "the same”.

  • Solution: Meet with the interpreter prior to carrying out interviews in order to discuss the aim of the interview and the interpreter’s role.(6) An evaluation of the interview process after the interview is also encouraged.(7)

• Pitfall: The interview devolves into conversation between the interpreter and interviewee instead of between the interviewer and the subject.

  • Solution: If possible, position the interpreter so that he or she is sitting beside the subject, facing the interviewer. Maintain eye contact with the subject (if culturally appropriate) and be careful to address the subject, not the interpreter. For example, look at the subject and ask, "Have you had any fever?" instead of asking the interpreter, "Has she had any fever?" Also, ask the interpreter to speak in first person when speaking for the interviewer or interviewee (“What prevented you from getting eye care"). Statements in the third person ("She asked what prevented you from getting eye care.") can create a barrier between interviewer and interviewee. “When both parties talk directly to each other, the interpreter has the opportunity to melt into the background and unobtrusively become the voice of each party”.(8)

• Pitfall: The interviews take longer than expected and subjects become distracted.

  • Solution: Because English is relatively direct compared with other languages, interpretation might take longer than you expect. Consequently, you should allow for extra time. When interacting with patients, keep your sentences brief and pause often to allow time for interpreting. “Avoid highly technical medical jargon and idiomatic expressions that may be difficult for the interpreter to convey and the patient to comprehend”. (9)

• Pitfall: Oftentimes, the subject may answer questions in the way that he/she wishes to be perceived. This is called the “social desirability bias” and it may lead to subjects who “agree” with statements because they wish to please. Alternatively, the interpreter may be selective in their translations as they may feel the need to protect the community member from potential harm.(10) They may even give answers to the interviewer’s questions without asking the interviewee.(11)

  • Solution: While some researchers recommend that the interpreter should be someone with well-established links to the ethnic group involved in the study(12) ,this may be a hindrance as it may make the subject more likely to answer in a socially acceptable way.(13) The use of an unknown interpreter is advisable, but in certain situations the interviewee might not feel able to trust a stranger. The decision to use a community member should be made upon consideration of the nature of the interview. If the interview contains highly personal subject matter, an unknown interpreter is advisable.

    “In general, when working with an interpreter one should pay attention to (1) the interpreter’s role in the research process; (2) the importance of describing the interpreter’s competence, the style of interpreting, and the seating arrangement; and (3) the interpreter’s impact on the findings”.(14)

On-Site Translator Training

If you wish to use a non-professional interpreter for your research, there are several important training points to convey:

• The interpreter should know the aim of the research.

• The interpreter should be made aware that he/she must treat all information learned during the interpretation as confidential. (15) Obtain verbal consent regarding confidentiality from the interpreter by asking if he/she:

  • Will respect the confidentiality of the patient/provider interaction outside of the interview setting;

  • Will refrain from saying anything that the interviewee does not wish to be interpreted;

  • Will refrain from conveying any information about the patient gained in a community context without the patient’s full approval (this could happen if the interpreter is a community member).

The interpreter should know his or her role. The "appropriate role" for the interpreter is the least invasive role that will assure effective communication.  Three basic roles that an interpreter may fulfill include serving as a conduit, a clarifier, and a cultural broker.(16)

• Conduit: “This is the most basic of the roles and involves rendering in one language literally what has been said in the other: no additions, no omissions, no editing or polishing, This is the ‘default’ role of the interpreter, which one should adopt unless they perceive a clear potential for misunderstanding.”(17)

• Clarifier: “In this role, the interpreter adjusts or explains terms that have no linguistic equivalent (or whose linguistic equivalent will not be understood by the patient) and checks for understanding.”(18) The interpreter should take this role when they believe it is necessary to facilitate understanding.

• Culture Broker: In this role, the interpreter will provide a necessary cultural framework for understanding the message being interpreted. “The interpreter should take this role when cultural differences may lead to a misunderstanding on the part of either interviewer or interviewee”.(19)

Footnotes

(1) Pitchforth, E. and van Teijlingen, E. (2005) “International Public Health Research Involving Interpreters: A Case Study From Bangladesh” BMC Public Health, Vol. 5, No. 71.

(2) Baker P., Hussain Z. & Saunders J. (1991) Interpreters in Public Services: Policy and Training. Venture Press, London.

(3) Pitchforth, E. and van Teijlingen, E. (2005) “International Public Health Research Involving Interpreters: A Case Study From Bangladesh” BMC Public Health, Vol. 5, No. 71.

(4) Freed A.O. (1988) Interviewing through an interpreter. Social Work July/August, 315–319.

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

(6) Phelan M. & Parkman S. (1995) How to do it: work with an interpreter. BMJ. 311, 555–557.

(7) Freed A.O. (1988) Interviewing through an interpreter. Social Work. July/August, 315–319.

(8) Herndon E, Joyce L. (2004)Getting the Most From Language Interpreters: Guidelines for Using Trained On-Site Interpreters. Family Practice Management 11(6).

(9) Ibid.

(10) Murray C.D. & Wynne J. (2001) Researching community, work and family with an interpreter. Community, Work and Family. 4(2), 151–171.

(11) Jentsch B. (1998) The ‘‘interpreter effect’’: rendering interpreters visible in cross-cultural research and methodology. Journal of Social Policy. 8(4), 275–289.

(12) Hennings J., Williams J. & Haque B.N. (1996) Exploring the health needs in Bangladeshi women: a case study in using qualitative research methods. Health Education Journal. 55, 11–23.

(13) Pernice R. (1994) Methodological issues in research with refugees and immigrants. Professional Psychology Research. 25(3), 207– 213.

(14) Wallin AM, Ahlström G. (2006) Cross-cultural interview studies using interpreters: systematic literature review. J Adv Nursing. 55(6):723–35.

(15) National Council on Interpreting in Health Care. (2005) “National Standards of Practice for Interpreters in Health Care”.

(16)  Roat, Cindy. (2003) Adapted from "Bridging the Gap", Interpreter Training Program Courtesy of Cross-Cultural Health Care Program DiversityRx.

(17) Ibid.

(18) Ibid.

(19) Ibid.