Translation in cross-language research

As an example of cross-language research, my study involved the collection of data in one language and their translation into another (Temple, 2002). As Squires (2009) observes, such research is fraught with methodological

challenges. According to Temple and Young (2004), researchers often ignore issues of translation when reporting studies where data were gathered from speakers of other languages. They argue that this is to misrepresent the data as “a collection of facts” (p. 164) constituting new knowledge about informants, whilst ignoring the central role of the translator in the production of these “facts”. Scholars who have taken up these methodological issues (e.g. Fersch, 2013; Piazzoli, 2015; Temple & Young, 2004) urge transparency in reporting cross- language research. In order to interpret findings, the reader needs information about the translation process, including who the translators were, translation methods, and when translation occurred.

The bilingual researcher has clear advantages in conducting cross- language studies (Temple & Young, 2004). Researchers who do not speak the language of their participants must rely on third-party translators, but bilingual researchers can be involved directly with the translation of research instruments and data. This translation process is itself a form of data analysis and may yield important insights (Piazzoli, 2015). Nevertheless, while enjoying certain

advantages, the bilingual researcher is unlikely to qualify for insider status, so it is essential that they reflect on their role in the collection and analysis of cross- language data (Fersch, 2013).

I am aware of the advantages I have in conducting cross-language

research in Japan, and also my limitations. I have worked as a teacher of English in Japan for almost 30 years. In 1988-89, as an ALT I taught with Japanese teachers in both junior and senior high schools. Since 1996 I have been teaching at a Japanese university, but had frequent opportunities to interact with high- school JTEs, as an instructor on teacher-training courses. In 1996, I completed a Master’s degree in Japanese, which included a substantial amount of Japanese- to-English translation. In the same year, I passed Level 2 of the Japanese-

Language Proficiency Test (JLPT). This is roughly equivalent to the N2 level of the new JLPT, which reflects, “The ability to understand Japanese used in everyday situations, and in a variety of circumstances to a certain degree” (The Japan Foundation, 2012, my emphasis). However, while I am confident of my ability to converse meaningfully on educational topics in Japanese, as a non- native speaker, there are limits to what I can comprehend, and to how clearly I can express myself. These limitations had important implications for the way I conducted the study.

Where possible, I wanted to give teachers the opportunity to provide information in their first language, believing this would allow them to express themselves more freely, and also encourage more teachers to participate. In a study about current issues in high-school teaching, Browne and Wada (1998) sent an English-language questionnaire to some 1,200 JTEs. Although piloting had suggested it did not require translation, they report that the overall return rate was “a dismal 18.6%” (p. 99), and speculate that a Japanese survey instrument would have encouraged more teachers to respond.

The questionnaire used in my study was entirely in Japanese. I first wrote the questions in English, then translated them myself. My initial translation was then put through two stages of bilingual and monolingual checks by nine native speakers of Japanese (see 3.6.3.2).

Analysis of the survey responses was straightforward from a cross- language point of view. Most of the survey comprised closed items that could be analysed numerically, and although almost all the written responses to the open- ended item were in Japanese, these were typically short and easy for me to translate, with only occasional assistance from native speakers of Japanese.

For the interviews, however, there were more practical difficulties to consider. Questions could be prepared in Japanese beforehand, and since I intended to record each interview, anything I did not understand could be checked later with native Japanese speakers. Nevertheless, I was concerned that if interviews were conducted solely in Japanese, any comprehension problems might limit my ability to probe teachers for more detail and ask follow-up questions. I also knew that transcribing a Japanese interview would take me considerably longer than transcribing an English one, and, even with native- speaker checking, be more prone to errors. I did not have the resources to hire professional interpreters or translators, and although I had access to native Japanese speakers who assisted with translation on a voluntary basis, I needed to rely on my own Japanese abilities to conduct and transcribe interviews.

In light of these concerns, and since participating teachers all had a good command of English, I decided to adopt a bilingual approach to the interviews. The interview guide was bilingual, allowing me to ask questions in either English or Japanese. Teachers were invited to speak whichever language they preferred, and to switch between languages whenever they wished. To encourage teachers to speak Japanese if they wanted to, I began each interview and asked many of the questions in Japanese. Two of the 14 interviews were conducted mainly in Japanese, but the majority combined English and Japanese with regular

switching between the two languages. (This has important implications for the way teachers’ voices are represented in the thesis. 3.9 outlines my approach to quoting JTEs.)

Cross-language researchers need to exercise caution where participants are speaking in what for them is a foreign language. Piazzoli (2015) describes

how, for a doctoral thesis written in English on the use of drama in second language acquisition, she conducted interviews in Italian with international students who were learning the language. The interviews were “often slow and fragmented, with varying degrees of communication breakdowns, requests for rephrasing and clarifying. Answers were peppered with lexical, syntactical and grammatical inaccuracies, mispronunciations and native language interferences” (p.88). When Piazzoli analysed her interview transcripts, she realized the extent to which she, as the interviewer, had shaped the conversation. In her efforts to make questions clear to students and elicit intelligible answers, she had often asked what amounted to leading questions, and had to discard most of the interviews from her analysis.

My teacher-participants had a good command of English, and while some of our exchanges included code switching, re-phrasing and requests for

clarification, there were no obvious breakdowns in communication. When analysing interview transcripts, I was very conscious of my own role in the conversation (K. Richards, 2003), and screened out any responses to what, on reflection, appeared to be leading questions (see 3.7.5).