Translating the survey instrument

For translating questionnaires, McKay et al. (1996) recommend “conceptual translation”, which “uses terms or phrases in the target language that capture the implied associations, or connotative meaning, of the text used in the source language instrument” (p. 94). They argue that “literal translation” and reliance on dictionaries should be avoided. When producing my initial Japanese translation of the questionnaire, rather than consulting dictionaries, as far as possible I referred to relevant literature in Japanese (e.g. Minei, 2007; Mizuyama, 2010) looking for conceptual equivalents to the English. METI’s (2006) Declaration on

Citizenship Education (『シティズンシップ教育宣言』) was especially useful

as it provides a comprehensive list of values, knowledge and skills for citizenship in Japanese.

Nine native Japanese speakers were involved in preparing the final version of the questionnaire. Harkness and Schoua-Glusberg (1998) distinguish

between bilingual and monolingual feedback in the process of revising translated questionnaires. They argue that bilingual checks, where a bilingual reader has access to both the translated questionnaire and the original, are essential for identifying discrepancies between the two texts. However, they also recommend monolingual checks where the reader is working ideally in their native language and sees only the translated questionnaire. This can help to refine the language and produce what the authors call “covert translations”: that is, “texts which read/sound like questionnaires designed in the target language” (p.109). They argue that respondents may react differently to a questionnaire they perceive as a translation, so covert translations are always preferable.

Following these recommendations, the translation process for my questionnaire included both bilingual and monolingual checks. My initial translation was given to two Japanese teachers of English, one of whom teaches courses on global citizenship so was well acquainted with my research themes. Substantial revisions were made to the Japanese translation based on these first, bilingual checks. English and Japanese versions of the document were also shown to two other Japanese teachers, and further revisions made based on their comments (see below).

The bilingual checks helped produce a Japanese questionnaire that was considered good enough to pilot monolingually with a group of five JTEs. They were asked to complete the questionnaire, then comment on the format, the time it took to complete, and the clarity and naturalness of the Japanese. The

following highlights the main translation issues raised during the revision process.

Clearly, the translation of key terms such as “citizenship” and “citizenship education” was of the utmost importance. The English word

“citizen” has numerous equivalents in Japanese, each with its own connotations. As discussed in 2.5.1.1, Karaki (2007) points to “at least 4” (p. 46): kokumin (国 民), shimin (市民), and two terms which share the same pronunciation – koumin (公民) and koumin (皇民). Koumin (皇民), meaning “imperial subject”, is of historical importance, but otherwise not very relevant to discussions of Japanese citizenship today. Koumin (公民), literally, “public person”, is the name of the

civics component taught as part of social studies in Japanese high schools, but is seldom used in other contexts.

The two remaining terms highlighted by Karaki, kokumin and shimin, are in everyday use in Japan, and as discussed in Chapter 2, they suggest two very different perspectives on citizenship. Kokumin refers to a Japanese national.

Shimin is used more often to refer to citizens in the municipal context, and as

actors in civil society.

The Japanese character 性 (sei) means “nature” or “quality” and

functions in a similar way to the English suffix “-ship”. Two possible translations of “citizenship”, then, are kokuminsei (国民性) and shiminsei (市民性). The former, kokuminsei, has a clear focus on the national context, referring to

something like the presumed character traits of “the Japanese”. Shiminsei, on the other hand, is used when referring to citizens in a more general sense, without the overt national focus, and, indeed, the terms shimin kyouiku (市民教育) or

shiminsei kyouiku (市民性教育) are increasingly used to refer to citizenship

education. Nevertheless, shimin can have somewhat negative connotations (Ogawa, 2009), being associated with what Avenell (2010, p. 5) refers to as a “shimin versus establishment” narrative, originating in the post-war struggle of Japan’s left against the US-Japan Security Treaty (1959–60). These connotations were picked up by one of the first Japanese editors of the questionnaire who cautioned against the use of a shimin-related term. Item 5 in Section I of the questionnaire asked about the importance of citizens participating in “political activities other than voting”. In my first translation, this was rendered in

Japanese as 市民運動など投票以外の政治的な活動を参画すること: “taking part in political activities other than voting, for example in citizens’ movements.” The Japanese editor interpreted the term shimin undou (市民運動, citizens’ movements) negatively, as an aggressive kind of Nimbyism:

it somehow gives negative impressions. … The first thing I thought [of] was the resistance involving local residents, activists, and students in constructing Narita Airport that went on for more than 15 years starting from the early 1960s, which included violence. (personal communication, June 7, 2011)

In his book Making Japanese Citizens, Avenell (2010) explores “how the shimin idea and civic activism evolved from a stance of resolute antiestablishmentism in the late 1950s to symbols for self-responsible, noncontentious, participatory citizenship in the Japanese nation by the 1990s” (p. 6). But as the Japanese teacher’s comment demonstrates, the term shimin still has negative connotations for some. For this reason, it was used sparingly in the final Japanese version of the questionnaire.

The main term used for “citizenship” in the questionnaire was the Japanese loan word based on the English: shitizunshippu (シティズンシップ). Karaki (2007) argues that to understand the meaning of shitizunshippu, it is necessary for Japanese to bear in mind all four notions of “citizen” – 国民, 市民, 公民 and 皇民 – which makes shitizunshippu a convenient umbrella term when discussing the nature of citizenship in Japan. This appears to have been the view taken by METI (2006) in opting to use the loan word shitizunshippu in the title of its Declaration on Citizenship Education.

At the piloting stage, two Japanese teachers said they thought some participants might not fully understand the term shitizunshippu kyouiku (シティ ズンシップ教育, citizenship education) and suggested using the “indigenous”

Japanese term 市民教育 (shimin kyouiku) instead. However, I decided to retain

shitizunshippu here. For the reasons given above, it seemed the best general term

for the broad range of citizenship attributes covered in the questionnaire.

Moreover, as explained earlier, Section I of the questionnaire was itself intended to familiarize participants with the nature and scope of citizenship education.

Another translation issue raised during the piloting stage concerned the best way to render “critical thinking” in Japanese. In my original English questionnaire, one item in Section I asked about the importance of citizens “viewing things critically, and questioning ideas”, which I translated as “ものご とを批判的に見て、考えに疑いの念をもつこと” (literally, “seeing things in a critical way, and having feelings of doubt towards ideas”). One of the Japanese editors suggested removing the second half of this item (“questioning ideas”) which she felt was unclear (“whose ideas?”, she asked). The intention behind the two-part formulation was to emphasize that “critical” was meant in the positive sense of evaluating new information rather than the negative sense of finding

fault. Like the English word “critical”, the Japanese hihanteki (批判的) carries both positive and negative meanings – a point raised by another teacher who helped pilot the questionnaire. An item asking only whether citizens needed to “view things critically” was open to this kind of negative interpretation. Given doubts about the clarity of the statement with “questioning ideas”, however, I wrote a new item based on a suggestion from one of the Japanese editors. In the final version of the questionnaire, the item reads “ものごとを批判的に、そし て多角的にとらえる” – “viewing things critically and seeing them from multiple perspectives”.

3.6.4 Conducting the questionnaire survey

Participants could choose to complete the questionnaire online using a link to the SurveyMonkey site, or as a hard copy which they could return to me using the stamped-addressed envelope provided. SurveyMonkey is an online survey tool that many researchers have recommended for the flexibility it offers in question design and its ease of use for respondents, which helps ensure a high completion rate (Rosenbaum & Lidz, 2007; Waclawski, 2012). At the time, while a basic account with SurveyMonkey allowed construction of an online survey with up to 10 sections free of charge, the number of separate items that could be included within a section was limited to 20. My questionnaire included more items than this (for example, Section I had 30 “citizen attribute” items, while Section II had 25 “teaching objective” items). Rather than compromise on the questionnaire format, I bought a £200 one-year subscription to SurveyMonkey giving me access to enhanced features. This allowed me to create an online survey with an unlimited number of sections/items.

Apart from the method used to fill in answers (mouse clicks and keyboard, as opposed to pencil and paper) and mode of submission (online as opposed to through the post), the online and hard-copy versions of the

questionnaire were identical. Research suggests that varying the mode of administration in this way has no significant effect on people’s responses

(Bryman, 2008).I assumed the majority of teachers would be used to operating a computer and have Internet access, and hoped the convenience of the online