MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590940283 · doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0329-1

‘How would you call this in English?’: Being reflective about translations in international, cross-cultural qualitative research

2017· article· en· W2590940283 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Helmich, Sayra Cristancho, Laura L. Diachun, Lorelei Lingard

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityQualitative researchMetaphorGrammarNegotiationLinguisticsPsychologyComputer scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Medical education researchers increasingly collaborate in international teams, collecting data in different languages and from different parts of the world, and then disseminating them in English-language journals. Although this requires an ever-present need to translate, it often occurs uncritically. With this paper we aim to enhance researchers' awareness and reflexivity regarding translations in qualitative research. METHODS: In an international study, we carried out interviews in both Dutch and English. To enable joint data analysis, we translated Dutch data into English, making choices regarding when and how to translate. In an iterative process, we contextualized our experiences, building on the social sciences and general health literature about cross-language/cross-cultural research. RESULTS: We identified three specific translation challenges: attending to grammar or syntax differences, grappling with metaphor, and capturing semantic or sociolinguistic nuances. Literature findings informed our decisions regarding the validity of translations, translating in different stages of the research process, coding in different languages, and providing 'ugly' translations in published research reports. DISCUSSION: The lessons learnt were threefold. First, most researchers, including ourselves, do not consciously attend to translations taking place in international qualitative research. Second, translation challenges arise not only from differences in language, but also from cultural or societal differences. Third, by being reflective about translations, we found meaningful differences, even between settings with many cultural and societal similarities. This conscious process of negotiating translations was enriching. We recommend researchers to be more conscious and transparent about their translation strategies, to enhance the trustworthiness and quality of their work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.320
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.376
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3200.376
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0230.060
Scholarly communication0.0260.030
Open science0.0070.022
Research integrity0.0100.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.339
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207