The focus of this article is an examination of translation dilemmas in qualitative research. Specifically it explores three questions: whether methodologically it matters if the act of translation is identified or not; the epistemological implications of who does translation; and the consequences for the final product of how far the researcher chooses to involve a translator in research. Some of the ways in which researchers have tackled language difference are discussed. The medium of spoken and written language is itself critically challenged by considering the implications of similar ‘problems of method’ but in situations where the translation and interpretation issues are those associated with a visual spatial medium, in this case Sign Language. The authors argue that centring translation and how it is dealt with raises issues of representation that should be of concern to all researchers.

In this article, the authors examine the implications of extending calls for reflexivity in qualitative research generally to cross-language research with interpreters. Drawing on the concept of 'borders', they present two research projects to demonstrate the need to locate the interpreter as active in producing research accounts. They extend the concept of 'border crossing', relating this to identity politics and the benefits of making the interpreter visible in research.

Increasingly, researchers are undertaking studies involving people who do not speak the same language as they do. Sociologists have long argued that language constructs the social world at the same time as it describes it. However, the implications of this for cross-language research are rarely considered. Employing interpreters/translators and "cultural brokers" in research raises methodological issues around the meanings of concepts and how to convey difference. Using a project that employed two Asian mental health workers, the author teases out some of the implications for research of language difference. She focuses both on the value of a biographical approach and on the problems such an approach presents.

Increasingly, researchers are undertaking studies involving people who do not speak the same language as they do. Sociologists have long argued that language constructs the social world at the same time as it describes it. However, the implications of this for cross-language research are rarely considered. Employing interpreters/translators and "cultural brokers" in research raises methodological issues around the meanings of concepts and how to convey difference. Using a project that employed two Asian mental health workers, the author teases out some of the implications for research of language difference. She focuses both on the value of a biographical approach and on the problems such an approach presents.

No abstract

This article explores the experiences of people who need interpreters to gain access to and use of a range of services, drawing on semi-structured interviews with people from Chinese, Kurdish, Bangladeshi, Indian and Polish minority ethnic groups living in Manchester and London, UK. We describe our research methodology, and place the study in its political and community context. We look at the qualities the people we interviewed considered made for a good interpreter, and their experiences using both professional interpreters, and family and friends as interpreters. We show how personal character and trust are important in people’s understandings of good interpreting, leading them to prefer interpreters drawn from their own informal networks. We consider the implications of this for policy and practice.

This article examines how researchers address cross language narratives. Research and writing by migrants suggest that a change of language can lead to changes in both how people perceive themselves and how others perceive them. That is, changing language involves more than a simple change of words. However, researchers rarely consider the consequences of moving between languages in analysing and writing up narratives. This is particularly surprising for those who see narratives as contextually produced by researchers and participants and have an interest in the influence of the research process. Reflexivity is not extended to include the move across languages. I focus on some of the methodological and epistemological issues of analysing written texts produced by researchers in a language that participants did not use.

Across many disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, philosophy, cultural studies and sociolinguistics, writers and researchers are concerned with how language is used to construct representations of people in written and oral accounts. There is also increasing interest in cross-disciplinary approaches to language and representation in research. Within health, social care and housing research there is a rapidly growing volume of writing on, and sometimes with, people whose first language is not English. However, much empirical research in these fields remains at the level of 'findings' about groups of people with the issue of how they are represented remaining unexamined. In this article I discuss some of the different ways researchers have looked at issues of translation and representation across languages. As I show, some researchers have attempted to ignore or by-pass these issues in their research, some have given up the task as impossible and others have attempted the impossible. I argue that, although there can be no single 'correct' way for researchers to represent people who speak different languages, choices about how to do this have epistemological and ethical implications.