Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence

Abstract

In this paper, we problematize the way translation has been treated in international business (IB) research. We start by conducting an interpretive content analysis of both qualitative and quantitative cross-language studies published in four core IB journals over the course of a decade. Our analysis shows the dominance of a technicist view of translation associated with the equivalence paradigm. In contrast, we advocate a shift to a more contextualized approach informed by theoretical developments in translation studies. More specifically, we focus on two theoretical perspectives -skopos theory and cultural politics -which offer related but distinct approaches to rethinking equivalence. We conclude by advocating that the translation process be reframed as a process of intercultural interaction, rather than a lexical transfer of meaning. This reconceptualization would, we argue, open up what is currently a 'black box' in most IB studies. The contextualized approach that we offer has the potential not just to enrich the findings of studies, but also provide insights that are of multidisciplinary relevance.

Language in International Business: A Review and Agenda for Future Research

“…Analyzing the difficulty of translating Western management terms such as ''knowledge sharing'' into Russian, Holden and Michailova (2014) caution against simplistic attempts to replace terms from one tongue with those of another. Following their call, international business researchers have begun to understand translation as a process of interaction across cultures (Brannen and Mughan 2016;Chidlow et al 2014), where meaning may be found in the space between cultures.…”

“…The latter are hitherto underrepresented, as the current research focuses on Finland, Germany, the UK, and the US. This may be one reason why many international business scholars have understood translation as the mere search for ''equivalence'' rather than a process of interaction across cultures (Chidlow et al 2014).…”

“…Along these lines, Welch and Piekkari (2006) illustrate the difficulties of reaching shared understanding with interviewees when using foreign languages in qualitative interviewing. Chidlow et al (2014) provide helpful guidance how international business researchers can responsibly account for their translation decisions when managing multilingual datasets.…”

Beyond categorization: New directions for theory development about entrepreneurial internationalization

“…As an example, the granting of favors varies substantially among the Brazilian jeitinho, the Chinese quanxi and the Russian blat, and it is therefore important to examine the similarities and differences in how these ''favors trading'' practices are embedded in opportunity-related processes. In order to do so, scholars will need to design studies and research teams that take into account contextualized sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences in underlying theoretical constructs (e.g., Chidlow, Plakoyiannaki, & Welch, 2014;Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2014).…”

Miners, politics and institutional caryatids: Accounting for the transfer of HRM practices in the Brazilian multinational enterprise

“…First, the material was reviewed in its original language. At this point we desisted from translating the materials into one language given the problems associated with such 'translations' and the fallacy of achieving some form of exact equivalence (Chidlow, Plakoyiannaki & Welch, 2014;Xian, 2008). No computer-aided software was used; instead a qualitative form of content analysis was conducted (Krippendorff, 2004;Welch et al, 2011), in which the basic unit of analysis was the sentence related by key words grouped as categories to produce a 'cluster'.…”