The (un-) ethical interpreting researcher: ethics, voice and discretionary power in interpreting research

Abstract

This article discusses different aspects of research ethics, the researcher's voice and discretionary power in interpreting studies. Research ethics is laid down in international conventions, which in turn are reflected in national regulations and ethical vetting. Discretionary power is understood as the leeway for making conscientious decisions within the rules and regulations governing a certain field. Although research ethics in interpreting has as yet received little scholarly attention, it is important that the field discusses aspects such as informed consent and the collection, analysis and reporting of data. This article uses three case studies to discuss how researchers can handle such ethical issues. Interpreting researchers often are or have been active interpreters, and this is yet another potential challenge for the field. Such duality potentially means that the researcher needs to navigate two ethical systems, that of the interpreter and that of the researchersystems that may come into conflict with each other. It may also entail the risk of the researcher's voice taking over the participants' narrative.

Positionality in Public Service Interpreting Research

“…This trust is paramount since access to a specific community will ultimately result in the researchers not only knowing the participants but also being part of their professional and/or private communities. Tiselius (2019) identifies the dual role that interpreting researchers occupy in this regard and illustrates how potentially competing ethical systems related to professional and research communities complicate the researcher's ability to navigate their positionality.…”

“…Consider, for instance, the case raised by Tiselius (2019) in that interpreting studies researchers may belong to the same professional community as the participants or respondents in a study. 5 In this situation, both parties may ascribe to a specific code of ethics of professional code of conduct that aims to regulate certain behaviors or practices.…”

“…Here, a distinction needs to be made regarding the focus of this situation. WhereasTiselius (2019) is focused largely on the position of the researcher being a member of two communities, thereby leading the researcher needing to make decisions vis-à-vis discretionary power, the present focus is on that of the observed participant or respondent to questions.6 A full review of this body of scholarship lies outside the scope of the present article; and impression management is but one line of scholarship grounds the current discussion of differentiated sources of bias. For an overview of additional factors that can influence these data and a historical overview of this scholarship, seeBlasius and Thiessen (2012).…”

Informed Consent

“…In experimental studies, as I have touched upon earlier (Tiselius, 2019), results may come out which could potentially be counterintuitive to participants' understanding of themselves (an understanding which may have been the driving force for participation in the study in the first place). As an example, an experienced translator may choose to participate in a study on reading patterns during translation, convinced that experienced translators have more efficient reading patterns during translation than novice translators or the general public.…”

“…As different aspects of research ethics gain ground in human sciences in general and also in interpreting studies (Mellinger, 2020), the issue of informed consent becomes more pertinent. I have previously discussed the issue of the interpreter as a researcher and its possible implications on research ethics (Tiselius, 2019). In that article I discussed informed consent briefly, without going into details.…”