Involving interpreters in research studies

Abstract

It is important to include non English speakers in health services research to ensure not only the generalisability of findings but also to address health inequalities and promote social justice. One approach is to use interpreters but there is little guidance for working with an interpreter in interviews. Involving an interpreter presents challenges in the planning and conduct of research interviews which can be minimised by an awareness of various theoretical and practical implications and of potential pitfalls. Drawing both on our experiences of involving interpreters in research and on the literature, we raise some issues that researchers need to consider.

Motivational interviewing to explore culturally and linguistically diverse people's comorbidity medication self‐efficacy

“…Moreover, an interpreter introduces a third person into the motivational interviewing relationship, making it difficult to gain immediate, spontaneous and meaningful responses (Plumridge et al . ). In addition, the intervention nurse who only spoke English was unable to confirm non‐English conversations between the participant, family and interpreter.…”

“…Involving interpreters in research requires careful planning to overcome obstacles such as a loss of control and spontaneity in interviews, misunderstandings and a lack of trust between the parties necessary for effective communication (Plumridge et al . ).…”

Planning focus group interviews with asylum seekers: Factors related to the researcher, interpreter and asylum seekers

“…It also restricts the flow of conversation, as the interpreter has to interrupt the dialogue between the participants in order to interpret their exchanges (Pitchforth & Van Teijlingen, ). In the active method, the aim is to establish a trusting relationship between the three parties (Plumridge et al., ) in order to improve the flow of conversation between the participants and to make the interpretation less burdensome. However, in this method the interpreter can only summarise the conversation to the researcher, which may decrease the trustworthiness of the research as the interview is guided also by the interpreter, not exclusively by the researcher (Pitchforth & Van Teijlingen, ).…”

“…The role of the interpreter is essential for the trustworthiness of the research (Ogilvie et al, 2008;Pitchforth & Van Teijlingen, 2005;Plumridge et al, 2012;Squires, 2008Squires, , 2009Wallin & Ahlström, 2006) and for establishing a positive relationship between the parties of the interview (Ogilvie et al, 2008;Plumridge et al, 2012). However, these two aspects can be in conflict when the role of the interpreter is discussed based on the passive and active interpretation methods.…”

“…It also restricts the flow of conversation, as the interpreter has to interrupt the dialogue between the participants in order to interpret their exchanges (Pitchforth & Van Teijlingen, 2005). In the active method, the aim is to establish a trusting relationship between the three parties (Plumridge et al, 2012) in order to improve the flow of conversation between the participants and to make the interpretation less burdensome.…”