Incorporating translation in qualitative studies: Two case studies in education

Authors’ names:

Agustian Sutrisno, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Nga Thanh Nguyen, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Donna Tangen, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Correspondence datails: thanhnga.nguyen@student.qut.edu.au, Room 354 B Block, Kelvin

Grove campus, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract:

Cross-language qualitative research in education continues to increase. However, there has been

inadequate discussion in the literature concerning the translation process that ensures research

trustworthiness applicable for bilingual researchers. Informed by Squires’ (2009) evaluation criteria

for qualitative data translation, this paper compares two different procedures for incorporating

translation in education qualitative research to provide a clear depiction of the complexities involved

in translating qualitative data and the strengths and weaknesses of each procedure. To maintain the

trustworthiness of the qualitative research, it is necessary to minimise translation errors, provide

detailed accounts of the translation process, involve more than one translator, and remain open for

scrutiny from those seeking to access the translation process. Taking into account the resource

constraints often faced by novice bilingual researchers, this paper provides some strategies that can be

employed in similar contexts.

Introduction

As the world becomes more globalised, research often crosses national and linguistic borders (Guest,

Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). There are a growing number of researchers with research locus outside

their country of origin. Included in this category are a significant number of international research

students studying in countries where English is the dominant language and culture (UNESO Institute

for Statistics, 2011). In these situations, there are research areas that demand the use of more than one

language. For example, the research proposal may be written in English but the data were gathered in

another country such as Indonesia or Vietnam using the local language. Translation needs to be

employed in such research but the question then becomes: how efficiently is the translation of data

done so as not to compromise the research?

At the onset of this paper, it is necessary to introduce some key terms used. First, cross-language

research refers to research involving a translator at any stage during the research process (Temple,

2002). This cross-language research may be done by mono-lingual or bilingual researchers. Mono-

lingual researchers do not have working knowledge regarding one of the languages used in cross-

language research; whereas bilingual researchers are proficient in two languages used in the research

(Liamputtong, 2010). Another key term, linguistic equivalence refers to the similarity between

linguistic expressions in one language and their translation in another (Loos et al., 2004).

In general, satisfactory discussion about translation procedures employed in social science research is

quite limited (Douglas & Craig, 2007; Liamputtong, 2010). In particular, cross-language qualitative

studies are often not accompanied by sufficient explanation of the translation procedure employed to

demonstrate the trustworthiness of the research findings (Fryer et al., 2012; Larkin, de Casterlé, &

Schotsman 2007; Wong & Poon, 2010). Lincoln and Guba (1985) view trustworthiness as the degree

of rigour in qualitative studies. In cross-language qualitative studies, trustworthiness does not only

concern the research process and findings but also the translation procedures and the translation

results upon which the final research findings are based. Some studies utilise complex translation

processes and the involvement of numerous translators and translation reviewers, which are generally

beyond the resources available for research students (Chen & Boore, 2009; Regmi, Naidoo, &

Pilkington, 2010). It could be suggested that the reliance on such a complex and multi-partied

translation process, as described in the literature, is necessary because many of these studies were

written by mono-lingual researchers who depend on third-party translators to understand data

gathered in a language and cultural context foreign to them (Squires, 2009; Croot, Lees, & Grant,

2011). In contrast, there is limited literature that delves into the issues faced by bilingual qualitative

researchers.

In light of the complex issues mentioned above, this paper attempts to compare specific translation

procedures employed in two case studies and how the resource limitations in each study have been

addressed from the perspective of bilingual researchers. Lessons learned from these case studies may

be valuable for other bilingual researchers facing similar circumstances in clarifying their translation

procedures and demonstrating trustworthiness in cross-language research. The two case studies

described in this paper involve the translation from: 1) Indonesian to English, and 2) Vietnamese to

English and the focus is on written translation, rather than oral interpretation.

Translation equivalence

Appreciating how linguists have understood the different conceptualisations of equivalence is

informative for the two case studies in determining which equivalence conceptualisation to be pursued

in the translation process. Equivalence has been supported and rejected by different factions in

linguistics and translation studies (Kenny, 2009). Those who reject equivalence view that it is

irrelevant and blocks the progress and creativity in translation as it is difficult to determine what

constitutes equivalence between languages. Others view that without having some set criteria

regarding equivalence, it is impossible to decide which text is a translation and which one is not

(Brislin, 1970; Kenny, 2009). Baker (2011) contends that the concept of equivalence can be accepted

for the sake of convenience in discussing translation. While some sort of equivalence can be obtained,

there are so many language and culture-specific factors that obtaining absolute equivalence is

unattainable (Baker, 2011; Kenny, 2009).

The difficulties in achieving absolute equivalence can be seen upon examining the building blocks of

a language (Kirkpatrick & van Teijlingen, 2009; Larkin et al., 2007). Often, the most basic way of

determining equivalence is by examining the correspondent words in the source language and the

target language—lexical equivalence (Baker, 2011). For example, the word rice in English is

equivalent to the word padi in Indonesian or cơm in Vietnamese. However, rice can also be translated

as gabah, beras, and nasi or lúa, thóc, and gạo in Indonesian and Vietnamese respectively, depending

on the stage of its development as a plant and the degree of its preparation as a dish. A word in the

source language may have more than one equivalent in the target language and vice versa. There are

also cases of no equivalence (Larkin et al., 2007; Squires, 2008). Following the previous example of

nouns related to food, the Australian cake lamington does not have any proper equivalence in

Indonesian and Vietnamese. In addition, words do not make sense without the grammar that binds

them together into sentences. In this sense grammar is a ‘straitjacket’ that locks a language into a

particular way of thinking and of expressing ideas that in many cases do not translate into another

language (Baker, 2011). For instance, with tense-free languages such as Indonesian or Vietnamese,

translating accurately into English is a challenge. Unless there are explicit temporal adverbs, it is

impossible to tell whether an Indonesian or Vietnamese sentence is in the present, past or future tense.

As such, aspiring to develop some set criteria to evaluate equivalence and establish trustworthiness of

translation results based on the equivalence of words or sentences is a simplistic idea that does not

correspond to the complexity of language systems as observed by linguists (Liamputtong, 2010;

Temple & Young, 2004). For these and many other reasons, lexical equivalence has been abandoned

and conceptual equivalence has acquired more support in cross-language research (Larkin et al., 2007;

Squires, 2008).

Conceptual equivalence can be seen as the comparability of concepts or ideas between two languages,

rather than the exact similarity of lexical meanings across languages (Birbilli, 2000; Neuman, 2011).

For example, some nuances of meaning in the source language may be altered when conveyed in the

target language (Baker, 2011). Although conceptual equivalence is striven for, it is still necessary to

consider how information is structured in one particular language, how speakers of the language

maintain coherence of ideas and cohesion of statements, and how the language users manipulate

expressions and utterances to achieve humour, conceal feelings and assert opinions. Indeed, it is

impossible to list all the variables involved in the process of translating a text (Baker, 2011). Through

the notion of conceptual equivalence translators may subjectively determine the best translation result

they want as there is no absolute equivalence to pursue. However, this approach may yield translation

results that are unchecked and purely subjective, jeopardising the trustworthiness of the entire

research (Liamputtong, 2010).

Rather than pursuing lexical and conceptual equivalences, some linguists propose dynamic

equivalence as a more acceptable goal in translating a text (Constantinescu, 2010; Nida, 1969). The

emphasis on reproducing the message from the source language to the target language in the most

natural manner is called dynamic equivalence (Constantinescu, 2010; Nida, 1969). Arguably it has

been the most prominent way of understanding equivalence among translation theorists (Munday,

2008). Accuracy of the translation is then evaluated by virtue of examining the target language users’

ease of understanding and acceptance of the translation text (Constantinescu, 2010; Nida, 1969).

Dynamic equivalence seemingly puts many translation theorists in general agreement that the

trustworthiness of translation is not seen as universal and totally neutral. According to Baker (2011),

“It is in fact virtually impossible, except in extreme cases, to draw a line between what counts as a

good translation and what counts as a bad one. Every translation has points of strengths and points of

weakness, and every translation is open to improvement” (p. 6). Translation can be seen as a dialogue

between the original texts in the source language and the translated texts in the target language,

mediated by the translator, which results in a co-dependence between the two texts (Baker, 2011).

However, adherence to dynamic equivalence may shift the focus from the particular nuances

contained in the source language to what is deemed understandable in the target language (Croot,

Lees, & Grant, 2011). Hence this approach may not be preferred by researchers who want to

emphasise the perspective of the source language users.

From the above discussion, conceptual and dynamic equivalence have relevance for the two case

studies. For example, conceptual equivalence was deemed more acceptable for the first case study.

Provided it is combined with appropriate translation procedures, the subjectivity issue can be reduced.

Dynamic equivalence, used in the second case study can be useful when the research agenda is to

produce translation results that can be fully grasped by the target language users. For example, as

research students who need guidance for the data analysis process, there may be a need to provide the

English mono-lingual supervisory team translated data that can be fully grasped by English speakers.

Implementation of these two concepts in the case studies are explored further later in this paper. As

the more theoretical issues in translation have been discussed, the focus now turns to the practical

translation procedures.

Common translation procedures in qualitative studies

There are three common procedures of translation that can be employed in qualitative studies: single

translation, back translation and parallel translation (Liamputtong, 2010; Neuman, 2011). These

procedures are examined in light of the previous discussion on equivalence, to identify a procedure

suitable for the two studies and the translation limitations faced by the authors of this paper.

Single translation is perhaps the most straightforward procedure where the data is translated from the

source to the target language (Neuman, 2011). It is often the least complicated and the quickest

procedure in finalising the result. Due to its straightforward nature, the single translation procedure is

also perhaps the weakest in ensuring transparency and trustworthiness since single translation only

relies on the skills and interpretation of one translator, without any comparison process and input from

others (McGorry, 2000). To improve the trustworthiness of the single translation result, the dynamic

equivalence approach perhaps can be adopted by bilingual researchers undertaking single translation

procedure. This requires the bilingual researcher to corroborate the translation results with one or

more native speakers of the target language to produce results easily understood by the target

language users, hence reducing personal bias and increasing transparency in the translation process.

Back translation procedure is widely used in social science research because of its potential to

minimise inaccuracies in the translation with a result that strives for equivalence across languages

(Liamputtong, 2010; Lopez et al., 2008). In this procedure, two translators are employed. One

translates from the source to the target language. The other translator translates back the data from the

target to the source language without knowing the original source language version (the back

translation) (Brislin, 1970). The back-translation version is then compared with the original version in

the source language. The comparability between the back-translation version and the original version

is considered to indicate translation accuracy (Douglas & Craig, 2007). Compared to the single

translation procedure, back-translation provides more opportunities for filtering translation errors as

there is more than one translator involved. Another advantage is the researcher does not have to be a

bilingual to participate in examining the translation accuracy (Chen & Boore, 2009; Jones et al.,

2011). Nevertheless, the use of back-translation for a whole data set tends to be avoided given its

laborious and lengthy process (Chen & Boore, 2009; Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). In addition, as

stated earlier, a word-to-word equivalence between two languages does not always exist and

examining conceptual equivalence between the texts can be challenging. However, there are ways that

back translation can be used by bilingual researchers and this is described below.

First, the bilingual researchers can assign the translation to two third-party translators. The bilingual

researcher can then take the role as the evaluator of the back-translation results (Guest, Namey, &

Mitchell, 2013). This may give the researchers a sense of involvement in the translation process and

allow them to understand the complexities of the translation process. Evaluating the back-translation

results may also improve the accuracy, providing more pairs of eyes to re-check and triangulate the

results.

Alternatively, bilingual researchers can take part actively in the back-translation process as the first

translator. The back-translation can then be undertaken by a third-party translator and the back-

translation results can subsequently be compared with the original texts in the source language. If

there are inconsistencies, the bilingual researchers can revise the translation into the target language.

This scenario can be more financially viable compared to engaging two third-party translators.

More recently, researchers and theorists have proposed the use of parallel translation, also known as

the team or committee approach (Douglas & Craig, 2007; Lopez et al., 2008). Parallel translation is

done by involving two or more translators to translate from source to target language independently.

The different translation transcripts are then compared to come up with the best translation version

(McGorry, 2000; Neuman, 2011). Parallel translation is considered as one of the more effective

translation procedures as it minimises translation errors through extensive checking and evaluation

with a panel of translators and experts (Douglas & Craig, 2007). A comparison of several results in

the target language may increase the possibility of identifying the most appropriate translation version

(Liamputtong, 2010; Lopez et al., 2008). However, this procedure may be as costly and time

consuming as back-translation due to the number of people involved and the consultation process

(Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). In addition, the relatively similar cultural and educational

background of translators and experts may influence how they translate the data and understand the

social realities of the research participants, skewing the final translation result towards their own

interpretation, rather than the research participants’ original voice and opinion (McGorry, 2000).

Unlike the back-translation procedure which allows comparison between the original text in the

source language and the back-translated text, the parallel translation procedure only produces texts in

the target language so the results are mainly geared towards the comprehension of the target language

users, not the source language users. Ideally, at least one of those parallel translators is also a native

speaker of the target language so that dynamic equivalence can be attempted in an efficient manner.

Bilingual researchers can play several different roles in parallel translation, as translators, evaluators,

or even both, depending on their qualification and experience in translation.

To improve the trustworthiness and transparency of cross-language research, Squires (2009)

introduced evaluation criteria that incorporate aspects of the translation process and the qualitative

research methodology. These evaluation criteria are examined in the next section, paying particular

attention to how the criteria relate to the issue of equivalence and the roles of bilingual researchers.

Translation evaluation criteria for qualitative data

Having reviewed the existing literature of cross-language research methods, Squires (2009) proposed

several criteria that can be used as a consensus to evaluate trustworthiness of cross-language

qualitative studies. These criteria include conceptual equivalence and various aspects of the

translator’s role and credentials, such as language proficiency in both languages used. As Squires’

(2009) criteria have been evaluated in great extent from the perspective of mono-lingual researchers

(Croot, Lees, & Grant, 2011), the discussion in this section selectively address some criteria pertinent

to bilingual researchers.

There are several strengths of Squires’ criteria for bilingual researchers. For instance, Squires suggests

a need for clarification of the language proficiency of the researcher and qualification of the

translator. Being bilingual does not always correspond with having the required skills to undertake

translation of rich qualitative data (Squires, 2009). Bilingual researchers need to evaluate their own

qualifications and experience in translation before taking part in the translation process. Squires also

emphasises employing a third-party to validate the translation. In the absence of reliable evaluation

criteria and consensus on what constitutes trustworthy qualitative data translation, Squires’ criteria

can be useful as a sensitising device to assist choosing the appropriate translation process and to

improve its transparency (Croot, Lees, & Grant, 2011). However, these criteria cannot be taken as a

universal consensus that applies to all qualitative studies given the multiple worldviews and diverse

research aspirations that qualitative studies embody (Croot, Lees, & Grant, 2011).

To be more practically informative, Squires’ criteria may need to be broadened to address specific

concerns of novice bilingual research. For example, Squires does not specifically mention the role of

researchers in the translation process. The criteria ask for clarification on the researchers’ language

proficiency and role of the translator in the research, but they stop short of including the role that

researchers may want to undertake during the translation process. This is particularly important for

bilingual researchers who can play many roles during the translation process as outlined above.

Second, the criteria do not explicitly acknowledge resource limitations that need to be taken into

account in the translation process. For instance, emphasising on validating the translation results with

qualified experts in translation may be difficult for languages that are less- or under-studied (Guest,

Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). Moreover, services from these experts can be financially burdensome.

Time limitation in the research project may also hamper a meaningful validation process. Mapping

out the resource limitations, such as time, funding, and expertise in translation should be carefully

observed. Finally, Squires’ focus on conceptual equivalence may not apply to researchers seeking

dynamic equivalence. Some researchers may not want to emphasise the participants’ voices, but they

want to improve the target language users’ comprehension of the translation. These issues along with

Squires’ existing criteria are considered by the two case studies described in the following section.

Two translation case studies

Heeding the discussion outlined in the previous sections, the main concern in incorporating translation

in qualitative research is to explicitly articulate the rationale behind the translation procedure

employed, the roles played by the translator and bilingual researcher, and the mitigation of issues that

may influence the trustworthiness of the research findings (Croot, Lees, & Grant, 2011; Squires,

2009). Therefore, the reasons for selecting a particular translation procedure and the overall stages

undertaken for the two case studies are elucidated in this section with the express aim of improving

transparency and trustworthiness in both studies. In the first case study, a back-translation procedure

was used with an emphasis on conceptual equivalence, whereas in the second case study, a

combination of single translation and partial parallel translation was used with the emphasis on

dynamic equivalence.

Case study 1: Indonesian – English

The first case study concerns knowledge transfer between Indonesian and Australian universities

through joint transnational higher education programs and was conducted in English and Indonesian

for the first author’s dissertation submitted to an Australian university. This case study involves

collecting data in two Indonesian universities and one Australian university, with an emphasis on the

perspectives of managers and lecturers from the Indonesian universities. As these programs were

delivered in English, it was initially envisaged that all the interviews would be conducted in English,

to align with the interviews in the Australian university that would be done in English.

However, during the validation of the interview questions with some Indonesian lecturers, it was

suggested that the interview questions be made available in Indonesian as a precaution that not all the

intended participants would be willing to be interviewed in English. Consequently, the first author,

who is an Indonesian and English bilingual and was a professional translator in his earlier career,

translated the questions into Indonesian. This would prove to be valuable as not all the Indonesian

participants were willing to speak in English during the data collection in Indonesia. In total, there

were thirteen out of twenty participants from the Indonesian universities, who were interviewed in

Indonesian.

After the interviews were completed, they were transcribed by an independent transcriber with the

researcher re-checking the transcripts to rectify errors and ensure compliance with transcription

convention. Once completed, the transcripts were sent to the interviewees to ask for their input and to

ascertain that the transcripts represented what they actually talked about in the interviews. There were

nine participants whose input and feedback to the transcripts were incorporated into the final

transcripts, and subsequently the transcripts were sent to a translator.

As recommended by Squires (2009), it is necessary to explain the credentials of the translator and

clarify the translation process. The translator chosen for the project was a certified translator who was

also a lecturer in translation studies at a leading Indonesian university. Given her credentials and her

knowledge about the operation of an Indonesian university, it was expected that she would provide an

accurate translation. Although the researcher could have undertaken the translation himself, engaging

a third-party translator was done to minimise any subjectivity. After the translator finished the

translation, the researcher re-examined the translated transcripts. There were two purposes for re-

examining the transcripts at this stage. First, the researcher sought for errors in translation. This might

have arisen due to unclear punctuation in the original Indonesian transcripts that could blur the

meaning of the utterance. To screen for errors, the researcher re-listened to some of the recording to

clarify what was uttered by the interviewee and how it was transcribed and translated. This process

also sought to eliminate possible sentences that were mistranslated because the translator did not fully

understand the context of the utterances. Second, the researcher identified sentences and words which

he did not fully agree with in the translator’s interpretation and made these corrections.

To corroborate the translated transcripts, a back-translation procedure was utilised. Back-translation

was preferred over parallel translation in this study as the study’s focus was exploring the Indonesian

participants’ perspectives and experience. By undertaking back-translation, it was possible to assess

whether or not the Indonesian to English translation was well understood by another Indonesian

speaker, who in this case was the back-translator. The back-translated transcripts were also compared

with the original Indonesian transcripts to examine whether or not the conveyed perspectives were

comparable to what the interviewers articulated initially. In adopting this approach it was possible to

consider the back-translator as a qualified third party in validating the Indonesian to English

translation results (Squires, 2009). If the back-translator can understand and re-articulate the

information back into Indonesian, the translation can be viewed as trustworthy.

Once the researcher finished re-checking the translation from Indonesian into English, the translated

transcripts were sent to another translator who was asked to translate the English version into

Indonesian. This back-translator was also an Indonesian certified translator, fluent in both English and

Indonesian. After the back-translation transcripts were returned to the researcher, they were examined

and compared simultaneously with the original Indonesian transcripts and the English transcripts.

Sections that differed markedly were highlighted and the researcher suggested changes to the English

version.

Following the back-translation procedure, the researcher compared the back-translated transcripts

with the original Indonesian transcripts. In line with the notion of conceptual equivalence, a

comparison was done at the sentence level with the results yielding a 94.69% correspondence. Given

the high level of similarity and the added timing constraint for the research, it was decided that the

translation procedure would not incorporate convening a panel of translation experts. As Indonesian is

not widely studied compared to some of the major world languages, experts in Indonesian-English

translation were rather limited and were not located in a geographical area that would allow the first

author and the translators to come together to have a meaningful discussion. Once the back-translation

process was completed, the translation of the data into English was finalised. This final translation

result was used for analysis, along with the data gathered in English from the Australian university.

Overall the process took six months to complete, starting from the transcription process until the

finalisation of translation. Figure 1 illustrates the translation procedure in this study.

Figure 1: Translating Indonesian to English

Role of Translator and Transcriber

Procedures Role of Researcher

Formulate and Validate the Questions

Interview Questions in English

Translate into IndonesianInterview Questions in Indonesian

Conduct the InterviewInterviews in Indonesian

Transcriber A: Transcribe in Indonesian

Check the Transcription

Transcription in IndonesianTranslator A: Translate into English

Check the Translation Result

Translation in EnglishTranslator B: Back-translate into Indonesian

Check the Back-translation Result

Back-translation in Indonesian

Compare the Original Indonesian and Back-translation Versions

Final Version in EnglishAnalyse the Data in English

Findings in EnglishWrite the Report in English

Report in English

Conceptual equivalence and back-translation were combined effectively in this first case study. Back-

translation for the entire data set ensured that the data were treated with equal level of scrutiny and the

errors were minimised. The researcher firstly examined the similarity between the original

(Indonesian) transcripts and the translated (English) transcripts by paying more attention to the

similarity of ideas rather than linguistic units at word and phrase levels. The final comparison of the

original transcripts and the back-translated transcripts was also done in accordance with the

conceptual equivalence principles, as it was at a sentence level, rather than word-by-word

correspondence. Hence, the final translated transcripts were minimal in errors, yet still retained the

Indonesian speakers’ perspectives.

Case study 2: Vietnamese – English

The second case study was the second author’s dissertation for her doctor of philosophy of education

at an Australian university. The study explored learner autonomy in Vietnamese higher education, a

relatively new concept, particularly for English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching and learning.

Grounded in the social cognitive theory, this exploratory study investigated the extent to which

Vietnamese lecturers understood the concept and how their beliefs about learner autonomy were

applied in teaching EFL. The stimulated-recall interview (SRI) technique was employed in this study

to explore the association between teachers’ beliefs and their behaviour to gain unique insights into

why teachers choose to act in certain ways from various options (Dempsey, 2010). Four Vietnamese

lecturers were interviewed using the SRI technique. There were a total of twenty interviews from four

cases, which included four initial interviews, twelve stimulated recall interviews, and four follow-up

in-depth interviews. In the following paragraphs, the constraints that the researcher encountered in

translating data from Vietnamese to English and the justifications in including both a single and

partial parallel translation procedures are presented.

As in the first case study, prior to the data collection, validation of the interview questions was

conducted. The second author asked the four participants if they wished to be interviewed in English

or Vietnamese and all of them preferred to be interviewed in Vietnamese. Subsequently, the interview

questions, originally in English, were translated into Vietnamese by the researcher who has both

linguistic and cultural mastery in Vietnamese and English contexts. Given the researcher’s

background as a former English lecturer at a Vietnamese university and her prolonged stay in

Australia as a research student, she understood the participants’ cultural and social backgrounds and

fully comprehended both English and Vietnamese. Hence, the researcher was deemed the best person

to translate the interview questions (Liamputtong, 2010), thus, meeting the first criterion proposed by

Squires (2009) in relation to establishing the translator’s credentials.

The researcher then undertook transcription of all the interviews in Vietnamese. The transcription

process involved listening to the interview tapes several times during which notes were taken about

the tones of voice used by participants when describing their experiences, pauses in conversation, and

emphases on certain points which were important to the participants. These notes were taken as future

reference points during the analysis process. On completion of the transcription, the main issue was

deciding the subsequent process: translating the transcription into English or analysing the data in

Vietnamese?

While Squires (2009) recommended that the analysis should begin in the source language, the

researcher decided to translate the transcripts into English. Conducting the analysis in the source

language then applying back translation to translate the study’s findings may alleviate the time and

financial constraints and maintain the trustworthiness of the qualitative study (Chen, & Boore, 2009).

However, the researcher decided not to use this procedure for three main reasons. First, the researcher

in this study was a PhD student who needed guidance from her supervising team who were mono-

lingual English speakers. They would not have been able to provide guidance for the data analysis if

the data had been in Vietnamese. Second, it was complicated to obtain the equivalence for the term

learner autonomy in Vietnamese. The term can be translated differently into Vietnamese and each

version reveals the translator’s connotation and perspective, which would have had influence on the

interviewees’ perspectives and understanding. For example, learner autonomy is equivalent to tính

chủ động của người học which takes learners’ ability or capacity into account, based on the

psychological perspective (Benson, 1997). Learner autonomy can also be translated as sự chủ động

của người học – the technical perspective (Benson, 1997). This perspective views learner autonomy

as a “situational” where learners are completely responsible for the performance of their learning

activities (Chang, 2007; Smith, 2008). Therefore, in order to avoid such complication, the researcher

decided to keep this key term in the target language during her interviews. Moreover, during the

interviews, the participants sometimes used English to express some phrases or terms. Consequently,

the transcripts contained a mixture of English and Vietnamese phrases. This was another factor that

led to the decision of translating all interviews into the target language before analysing the data using

NVivo—a qualitative data analysis software, because NVivo cannot effectively run in two different

languages simultaneously. Therefore, the researcher decided to first translate the interviews from

Vietnamese into English using the single translation procedure, include some parallel translation after

the initial single translation, and then analyse the data.

However, mindful of trustworthiness and equivalence issues, a third-party translator and a native

English proof-reader were involved in this study, thus, introducing a parallel translation procedure.

After the researcher translated all interview transcripts from Vietnamese into English, a certified

Vietnamese-English professional translator (Vietnamese) was employed to translate three pieces of

the interviews into English (i.e. one initial interview, one stimulated recall interview, and one follow-

up in-depth interview). The next step was comparing these two versions of translated transcripts in

order to minimise errors in the translation completed by the researcher. The comparison was also done

at the sentence level with the results yielding a 93.01% correspondence. Subsequently, lessons drawn

from the initial comparisons were expanded to review the other transcripts. Finally, in line with the

idea of dynamic equivalence, to gain the final version which most native speakers would understand,

an English-speaking proof-reader was employed to examine all the translated transcripts and provide

input and corrections. Thus, with the translation procedures used in the second case study, the bias in

the research was minimised and its trustworthiness was sustained. The entire data transcription and

translation process took two months. Figure 2 below is an illustration of the translation method used

for this study.

Figure 2: Translating Vietnamese to English

Role of Translator and Proof-reader

Procedures Role of Researcher

Formulate and Validate the Questions

Interview Questions in English

Translate into Vietnamese

Interview Questions in Vietnamese

Conduct the InterviewsInterviews in Vietnamese

Transcribe the InterviewsTranscription in Vietnamese

Transcribe and CheckTranslation in English

Translator A: Translate Three Interviews into English

Parallel Translation in EnglishConsult the Translator and Consolidate Inputs

English Version to be proof-read

Proof-reader A: Provide Corrections and Inputs

Consult the Proof-reader and Finalise

Final Version in EnglishAnalyse the data in English

Findings in EnglishWrite the Report in English

Report in English

This second study adhered to the notion of dynamic equivalence and incorporated single and partial

parallel translation procedures in an efficient manner. The bilingual researcher single-handedly

translated the entire data set and assigned a third-party translator to undertake translation of a smaller

data set. A smaller scale comparison was done between the transcripts translated by the researcher and

the other translator with the intention to determine the accuracy of the researcher’s translation and

extend lessons learned from the comparison to the remaining data set. This was done to overcome

resource limitations without sacrificing the pursuit of high-quality translation results. The dynamic

equivalence was achieved by consulting a native English proof reader who ensured that the linguistic

expressions were easily comprehended by the target language users (i.e. English). Consequently, the

researcher produced translation results easily accessible for her research supervision team and other

English readers. Hence the overall study was more transparent and open for guidance and

improvement from more experienced researchers.

While the two case studies differed in many ways, the underlying principles that the researchers used

have some similarities. In both case studies, the planning, decisions, and final reporting were

conducted, and monitored by the bilingual researchers to ensure that the translation procedures had

been conducted in the most rigorous manner (Kirkpatrick & van Teijlingen, 2008; Squires, 2008). As

a bilingual, the researcher is the one that has the greatest potential to understand the research

intentions and the linguistic complexity and, therefore, responsibility of rigor rests with the researcher

(Liamputtong, 2010). Nevertheless, the inclusion of the third parties lent more pairs of eyes to

increase the accuracy of the translation and reduce personal bias in the single translation procedure.

Discussion

The two case studies described above were checked against Squires’ (2009) key recommendations.

Regarding the conceptual equivalence criteria, both studies have provided rationales for utilising

English as the language for data analysis and to ensure trustworthiness and equivalence in the

translation. For example, it has been argued that because of the authors’ dissertations were written in

English, it was necessary to use English as the language for data analysis and reporting. The

translation results in the first case study were scrutinised mainly by means of back-translation by

third-party translators. The researcher as a bilingual and former professional translator evaluated the

translation results using the conceptual equivalence notion to determine the level of similarity

between the original and the back-translated transcripts. In the second case study, the notion of

dynamic equivalence was more prioritised than conceptual equivalence as the study sought to ensure

that the mono-lingual supervision team could fully understand the content of the data. While the

researcher acted as the main translator, a third party translator and English native speaker proof-reader

were employed, hence complying the translation results with the notion of dynamic equivalence,

reducing personal bias, and minimising translation errors.

Concerning the credentials of the translators, their qualifications, suitability and capacity to undertake

the translation have been argued for. In addition, both bilingual researchers have had experience in

translation procedures in the earlier parts of their career. Hence, the language competence of the

people involved in the two translation procedures bears up to scrutiny.

In relation to the translator role criteria, the two studies have attempted to follow Squires’ (2009)

recommendations to clarify the research stages when translators are involved and the number of

participating translators. In case study one, the researcher mainly considered the role of translators as

his aides in ensuring that a high quality of translation had been achieved. At the request and

supervision of the researcher, the translators were tasked with translating and back-translating the

data. The use of back-translation in the first study was seen as a way to ensure that the translation did

not stray from the participants’ perspectives. In the translation process, the translators were not

involved in a discussion with the researcher as this is not normally required in the back-translation

procedure (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013). Following Squires’ recommendation, only one

translator was involved in translating the data from Indonesian into English, and only one translator

was involved in the back-translation. This could be more time consuming compared to employing

several translators simultaneously, but it was valuable as the two translators involved became highly

familiar with the entire data set and provided consistent terminology and linguistic expressions in all

the translated transcripts, hence increasing the trustworthiness of the translation results. In the second

study the researcher was the main translator for translating the whole data set from Vietnamese into

English. A certified translator was used for translating three out of twenty interviews, and a native

English proof reader was used in reading the translated transcripts of the three interviews. This

translation procedure was considered efficient as less time-consuming and costly to the researcher.

Rather than adding complications, as postulated by Squires, the involvement of two translators for the

Vietnamese-English translation was deemed necessary to minimise personal bias in the second

study’s translation procedure. Unlike the first study, there was also more discussion between the

researcher, the independent translator and the proof reader. These third parties were seen as

collaborators by the researcher (Berman & Tyyskä, 2011).

In agreement with Croot, Lees, & Grant’s (2011) assessment, Squire’s (2009) criteria’s main value for

bilingual qualitative research is to increase the researchers’ awareness of complexities in translation.

Further reflection on the criteria in these two case studies has lead the authors to consider their

appropriate roles as bilinguals in the translation process, factor in potential resource limitations, plan

alternative actions when Squires’ recommendations could not be implemented, and incorporate the

notions of both conceptual and dynamic equivalence.

In comparing the translation procedures in the two case studies, there are some potentially informative

lessons for other bilingual researchers. First, researchers should be aware of the time, the financial,

and the translation expertise limitations involved with translation procedures. In the first study,

employing back-translation was time consuming and financially demanding. As a result, there was no

adequate opportunity for the researcher to engage in meaningful discussion with the translator and

back-translator to improve the translation quality. The study also could not employ a panel of experts

to evaluate the translation given the limited nature of expertise in Indonesian-English translation.

The first author, nevertheless, believes that conducting back-translation for all transcripts and

personally double-checking the translation results increased the trustworthiness of the translation.

There were extensive checks done by the translators and the researcher himself as a bilingual. This

process was aimed at improving the accuracy of translation but was also used to give the researcher a

sense of ownership of the entire research endeavour (Temple & Young, 2004). As noted above, the

researcher found errors in the translated and back-translated transcripts. Hence, although the

translators were qualified as Squires (2009) recommends, bilingual researchers are still responsible for

re-checking the transcripts.

In reference to the second study, the second author undertook the single translation procedure single-

handedly (Liamputtong, 2010). Given time and financial limitations, the second author used a partial

parallel translation procedure. The comparison between her translation version and the independent

translator’s translation version helped to improve the quality of the translation as lessons obtained

from comparing the two translation versions from the smaller data set was extended to the other data.

In this way, time and financial constraints were minimised.

Finally, the selection between conceptual or dynamic equivalence needs to consider the research

agenda and complements the selected translation procedure. The first author used conceptual

equivalence in combination with back-translation procedure to produce translation results that adhere

to the perspectives of source language users. The second author used dynamic equivalence in

conjunction with single and partial parallel translation procedures to allow her research supervisory

team greater access and comprehension of her data. As such, there was clear justification for opting

one equivalence notion over the other.

Conclusion

This paper has described two different translation procedures for cross-language research. In

particular, it has looked at the concept of equivalence in relation to a chosen translation procedure. It

is clear that for novice researchers with resource limitations, their roles in the translation process

needs to be carefully considered to maintain the trustworthiness of the data translation. By ensuring

that the procedure aligns with up-to-date quality standards of cross-language qualitative studies, the

two case studies outlined in this paper have demonstrated the need for transparency to improve

trustworthiness in cross-language qualitative research.

Whilst striving for trustworthy research, there are limitations that cannot be avoided in the two case

studies. For example, the final result of the translation to a certain extent depends on the judgment

made by the researchers. Those interested in emulating the translation procedures outlined here need

to consider how these procedures fit with their own research goals. In other words, there is not a one-

size-fits-all procedure of translating qualitative data. Nevertheless, following some of the

recommendations promulgated in this paper and paying attention to the recent positions of translation

experts and qualitative methodology theorists, the procedures for translation of data described for the

two case studies may be useful for bilingual researchers who are engaged in qualitative cross-

language research and who may face similar limitations acknowledged here.

References

Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.),

Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). New York: Longman.

Berman, R. C., & Tyyskä, V. (2011). A critical reflection on the use of translators/interpreters in a

qualitative cross-language research project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

10(1), 178-190.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301

Chang, L.Y. (2007). The influences of group processes on learners’ autonomous beliefs and

behaviors. System, 35, 322-337. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.03.001.

Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. (2009). Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing reseach:

Methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(1-2), 234-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2702.2009.02896.x

Croot, E.J., Lees, J., & Grant, G. (2011). Evaluating standards in cross-language research: A critique

of Squires’ criteria. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48 (8), 1002-1011.

Constantinescu, A. (2010). Nida's theory of dynamic equivalence. Linguistic and Philosophical

Investigations, 9, 284-289.

Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in Ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 349-

367. doi: 10.1007/s11133-010-9157-x.

Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach

to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30-43.

Fryer, C., Mackintosh, S., Stanley, M., & Crichton, J. (2012). Qualitative studies using in-depth

interviews with older people from multiple language groups: Methodological systematic

review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), 22-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05719.x

Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for

applied research. Los Angeles: Sage.

Jones, P. S., Lee, J. W., Philips, L. R., Zhang, X. E., & Jaceldo, K. B. (2011). An adaptation of

Brislin's translation model for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 50(5), 300-304.

Kenny, D. (2009). Equivalence. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of

translation studies (pp. 96-99). London: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, P., & van Teijlingen, E. (2009). Lost in translation: Reflecting on a model to reduce

translation and interpretation bias. The Open Nursing Journal, 3(1), 25-32. doi:

10.2174/1874434600903010025

Larkin, P. J., de Casterlé, B. D., & Schotsmans, P. (2007). Multilingual translation issues in

qualitative research: Reflections on a metaphorical process. Qualitative Health Research,

17(4), 468-476. doi: 10.1177/1049732307299258

Liamputtong, P. (2010). Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

Loos, E. E., Anderson, S., Day, D., Jordan, P., & Wingate, J. (2004). Glossary of linguistic terms Vol.

29. Retrieved from http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/Index.htm

Lopez, G. I., Figueroa, M., Connor, S. E., & Maliski, S. L. (2008). Translation barriers in conducting

qualitative research with Spanish speakers. Qualitative Health Research, 18(12), 1729-1737.

doi: 10.1177/1049732308325857

McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translation issues.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74-81. doi:

10.1108/13522750010322070

Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). London:

Routledge.

Neuman, W.L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nida, E. A. (1969). Science of translation. Language, 45(3), 483-498.

Regmi, K., Naidoo, J., & Pilkington, P. (2010). Understanding the processes of translation and

transliteration in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 16-

26.

Smith, R. (2008). Learner autonomy. Key concepts in ELT, 62(4), 395-397. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccno38.

Squires, A. (2008). Language barriers and qualitative nursing research: Methodological

considerations. International Nursing Review, 55(3), 265-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-

7657.2008.00652.x

Squires, A. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research

review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(2), 277-287. doi:

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006

Temple, B. (2002). Crossed wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-language

research. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 844–854. doi: 10.1177/104973230201200610

Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative

Research, 4(2), 161-178. doi: 10.1177/1468794104044430

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2011). Global education digest 2011: Comparing education

statistics across the world. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Wong, J. P.-H., & Poon, M. K.-L. (2010). Bringing translation out of the shadows: Translation as an

issue of methodological significance in cross-cultural qualitative research. Journal of

Transcultural Nursing, 21(2), 151-158. doi: 10.1177/1043659609357637