12,782
edits
RECOUP/Transcription and translation: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
RECOUP/Transcription and translation (view source)
Revision as of 11:17, 5 February 2015
, 11 years ago36 revisions: Import from manual.recoup.educ.cam.ac.uk
m (36 revisions: Import from manual.recoup.educ.cam.ac.uk) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
''Author’s Abstract:'' | ''Author’s Abstract:'' | ||
The focus of this article is an examination of translation dilemmas in qualitative research. Specifically it explores three questions: whether methodologically it matters if the act of translation is identified or not; the epistemological implications of who does translation; and the consequences for the final product of how far the researcher chooses to involve a translator in research. Some of the ways in which researchers have tackled language difference are discussed. The medium of spoken and written language is itself critically challenged by considering the implications of similar ‘problems of method’ but in situations where the translation and interpretation issues are those associated with a visual spatial medium, in this case Sign Language. The authors argue that centring translation and how it is dealt with raises issues of representation that should be of concern to all researchers. | The focus of this article is an examination of translation dilemmas in qualitative research. Specifically it explores three questions: whether methodologically it matters if the act of translation is identified or not; the epistemological implications of who does translation; and the consequences for the final product of how far the researcher chooses to involve a translator in research. Some of the ways in which researchers have tackled language difference are discussed. The medium of spoken and written language is itself critically challenged by considering the implications of similar ‘problems of method’ but in situations where the translation and interpretation issues are those associated with a visual spatial medium, in this case Sign Language. The authors argue that centring translation and how it is dealt with raises issues of representation that should be of concern to all researchers. | ||
* Kamler B & Threadgold T (2003) 'Translating Difference: questions of representation in cross-cultural research encounters' ''Journal of Intercultural Studies'' Vol.24, No. 2 pp. 137-151 | |||
'''Abstract:''' | |||
This paper addresses questions of cross-cultural communication and represen tation as they arose in a longitudinal research project which sought to learn about the lives and concerns of older women. It focuses on the translations and mistranslations that occurred in narrative workshops where Australian researchers, who did not speak Vietnamese, worked with Australian Vietnamese women aged 55-74 and a translator to produce video diaries of the older women's everyday life. A number of workshop interactions around storytelling are examined to document the complexities that can arise when communities meet and interact across cultures. The aim is to 'come clean' about the problems of trying to conduct research without a common language and to suggest just how difficult translations and representations of culture really are and how easily preconceptions and cultural positionings interfere with the process of communication that is actually occurring. | |||
<noinclude>{{RECOUP_footer|Transcription_&_translation}}</noinclude><noinclude>[[Category:RECOUP]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{RECOUP_footer|Transcription_&_translation}}</noinclude><noinclude>[[Category:RECOUP]]</noinclude> | ||
