Ficha de observación a los niños del primer grado de educación básica de la unidad educativa Riobamba.

LANGUAGE RESEARCH

Conducting qualitative research in languages other than the researcher’s primary language is challenging, and the process is particularly difficult if the

118 investigator’s culture is different from the participants’. Standard guidelines for

data collection, analysis and reporting of qualitative data exists (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Willis, Jost, & Nilakanta, 2007), and many researchers have discussed best practices for conducting qualitative research in cross-language and cross-cultural contexts (e.g., Berman & Tyyskä, 2011; Cleary, 2013; Liamputtong, 2010; Squires, 2008; Wallin & Ahlström, 2006). However, crucial components of this type of research, such as the role of the interpreter, “remain blurry” and are rarely described in detail (Harris et al., 2013, p. 1409). Or, researchers are concerned primarily with processes that “control the translator/interpreter” (Berman & Tyyskä, 2011) such as regulating the

credentials of the translator or seating arrangements (Edwards, 1998; Esposito, 2001; Squires, 2009), and eliminating errors (Shklarov, 2007). There is a

particular lack of discussion on the issues that arise when working with

unqualified community interpreters and translators (Temple, 2002). In a review of 40 qualitative cross-language studies, Squires (2009) found that authors rarely even acknowledged the limitations caused by cultural and language barriers on the analysis and interpretation of their data (Squires, 2009). Yet, conducting qualitative research through cross-cultural and cross-language methods introduces many methodological issues such as interpreter bias and the possibility of misinterpretation or missing information of participant source material. Esposito (2001) argues that the process of translating meaning from researcher to participant and vice versa is one of the biggest challenges faced by cross-language and cross-cultural researchers (Esposito, 2001).

119 Research with translators or interpreters is sometimes viewed through an

epistemological framework that perceives translators as deliverers of “neutral messages”, assuming that there is one true version of an account (Temple, 2002). In their review of cross-cultural interview studies with interpreters, Wallin and Ahlström (2006) found that researchers of nearly all reviewed studies attempted to render interpreters ‘invisible’ in the research process. Berman and Tyyskä (2011) suggest that this approach treats the interpreter as a “potentially problematic” part of the research procedure. On the other hand, another view that has been highlighted by researchers suggests that interpreters are active

producers of research, data, and thus knowledge (e.g., Murray & Wynne, 2001; Temple, 2002). This latter perception encourages collaboration between

researchers and interpreters thereby making interpreters more visible in the research process overall (Edwards, 1998; Jentsch, 1998; Murray & Wynne, 2001; Temple, 2002; Wong & Poon, 2010) and prompting them as ‘co-researchers’ (Larkin, Dierckx de Casterlé, & Schotsmans, 2007). Wong and Poon (2010) argue that when this approach is embraced, researchers can more effectively “tap into the richness of the research data through multiple layers of interpretation and meaning construction within and across culture” (Wong & Poon, 2010, p. 152). This section of the thesis explores these views within the specific context of working with CLs in particular, who are not formally qualified, as interpreters and research partners in a cross-language and cross-cultural landscape.

120 3.3.1 Studies 1 and 2 in a Cross-Language and Cross-Cultural Landscape

Both Studies 1 and 2 are comparative in nature and aimed to understand how old and new PA behaviours were similar or different, how Karen refugees perceived opportunities to participate in sport and PA in Australia, and how various

concepts changed over time in Australia. This understanding is important in improving the practices of researchers or service providers who aim to facilitate or support refugees becoming physically active in Australia. To conduct these in- depth interviews, I opted to work with CLs who were not NAATI (National

Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters) accredited, based on several considerations, and the nature of the project (Table 3.2). As mentioned above, I collaborated with two CLs; one was a female who had been living in Australia for 13 years. The other leader was a male who had been living in Australia for 7 years, and volunteered to be involved through word of mouth from local Karen networks. Both CLs were registered with a local community

interpreting agency and engaged in occasional interpreting services for

community workshops, doctor and hospital visits and various other contracted tasks. Together we worked on the content, format and the structure of the interviews and schedules, and they provided input on research design,

disseminated information throughout local networks, organised interview times with participants and provided interpreting services.

121

Table 3.2 Justification for engaging bilingual community leaders as interpreters

Considerations Description

Pre-existing relationship

I already had a pre-existing strong working relationship with key community-leaders in the Karen community through my previous employment as a community development officer

Cultural expectations and comfort of participants

In the specific municipalities, Karen communities are still considered as reasonably new settlers (approx. average of 5 years), thus engaging a bilingual community-leader who is well known and respected in the community would provide a more comfortable interview environment for participants, particularly for the newly arrived group. Consulting with and respecting community-leaders are culturally favourable methods of engagement with the Karen Limited qualified

Karen interpreters

There are limited organisations that have access to professional Karen interpreters, due to the uncommon language and reasonably recent arrival of the Karen. The Karen language is currently not a NAATI accredited (qualified) language and interpreters or

translators can only receive an acknowledgement for language comprehension

Collaborative partnership

Engaging community-leaders as co-researchers presented an opportunity to work collaboratively and closely with them throughout all phases of the project life cycle and develop a sustainable partnership

Funding restraints

My PhD funding limited access to professional Karen interpreters – through previous experiences with the Karen language, it was estimated that one double sided A4 sized document would cost approximately $350 AUD to translate, a professional interpreter would cost approximately $125 AUD per hour and a 40min interview (only Karen audio transcribed) would cost approximately $500 AUD to transcribe. Thus, this would have been too costly to undertake as part of a PhD project

The interview schedules for Studies 1 and 2 aimed to obtain detailed descriptions of Karen participants’ experiences of sport and PA participation at home (Burma) compared to Australia, and how it related to their sense of health and wellbeing. Interviews were conducted in the Karen language and audio recorded. Six interviews were back-translated (Study 1 only) through an external interpreting

122 and translating organisation (Victorian Interpreting and Translating Service,

VITS). At the end of each interview, there was a short debriefing session with the CLs to encourage open dialogue and reflections on the interview process. This also provided a chance to understand more about the CLs and their individual ways of knowing, and perhaps how they may be impacted by their social worlds (Wong & Poon, 2010). According to Temple and Edwards (2008), in order for English speaking researchers to conduct meaningful research with individuals who do not speak English, they “need to talk to the interpreters and translators they are working with about their perspectives on the issues being discussed” (Temple & Edwards, 2008, p. 2). Thus, as others have done and suggested (e.g., Björk Brämberg & Dahlberg, 2013; Temple, Edwards, & Alexander, 2006), a formal interview with both CLs was conducted after Study 1 to discuss their views on the interview process and themes arising from the comparisons of transcripts, through open dialogue. This was not conducted for Study 2 as this study followed on from Study 1, and discussed specific themes in more detail, over a longer period of time. However, the CL did continue to engage in reflective dialogue on their perspectives after each interview.