In this article, we introduce a complex world of working with qualitative data in multiple languages, modalities and media. We share some of the theoretical considerations that influenced our decisions about when to translate, what and how. We also report some of the multiple possibilities available to the researcher when analysing data in a visual language – in this case, British Sign Language – sharing considerations in choosing one method over another in differing circumstances. Through these discussions we draw attention to how translation issues are both similar and different from working solely with spoken language audio recordings. We then offer suggestions on the reporting and dissemination of results when more than one language is involved and when translation is at the heart of the research. While grounded in empirical Deaf Studies research, the methodological, cultural and theoretical issues raised here concerning translation, representation and ‘voice’ are applicable across social science disciplines, and particularly where minority communities and unwritten languages are at the heart of research activities.
AdamRCartyBStoneC (2011) Ghostwriting: deaf translators within the Deaf community. Babel57(4): 375–393.
2.
BernardHRKillworthPKronenefeldD. (1984) The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology13: 495–517.
CatfordJC (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
5.
EdwardsR (1998) A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies24: 197–208.
GilbertN (2001) Research, theory and method. In: GilbertN (ed.) Researching Social Life. London: Sage, 14–27.
8.
GoncalvesJ (2009) The linguistic and cultural challenge within Deaf schools in the South of Brazil: Deaf and hearing working together and the birth of cultural pedagogies. Unpublished PhD, University of Bristol, Bristol.
9.
GreenJFranquizMDixonC (1997) The myth of the objective transcript: transcribing as situated act. TESOL Quarterly31(1): 172–176.
10.
GulliverMG (2009) DEAF space, a history: the production of DEAF spaces emergent, autonomous, located and disabled in 18th and 19th century France. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol.
11.
GuttE-A (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
12.
GuttE-A (1998) Pragmatic aspects of translation: some relevance-theory observations. In: HickeyL (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 41–53.
13.
HammersleyMAtkinsonP (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
14.
HatimB (2001) Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow: Longman.
HoleR (2007) Working between languages and cultures: issues of representation, voice, and authority intensified. Qualitative Inquiry13(5): 696–710.
17.
JouisonP (1989) Analysis and linear transcription of sign language discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research, 26–29 July, Hamburg.
18.
KyleJGWollB (1985) Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and their Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
LaddP (2003) In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
20.
LaneH (2005) Ethnicity, ethics and the Deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education10(3): 291–310.
21.
MehrezS (1992) Translation and the postcolonial experience: The francophone north African text. In VenutiL. (Ed.), Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge, 120–138.
22.
MillerC (1994) A note on notation. Signpost7(3): 191–202.
NilssonA-L (2005) False friends and their influence on sign language interpreting. In: Roy CynthiaB (ed.) Advance in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 170–186.
25.
OngW (1982) Orality and Literacy – Technologising the Word. London: Routledge.
26.
PrattML (1991) Arts of the contact zone. Profession91: 33–40.
27.
PrillwitzSLevenRZienertH. (1989) HamNoSys Version 2.0 Hamburg Notation System for Sign Language an Introductory Guide. Hamburg: Signum.
28.
RapleyTJ (2001) The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research1(3): 303–323.
29.
RothmanBK (1996) Bearing witness: representing women’s experiences of prenatal diagnosis. In: WilkinsonSKitzingerC (eds) Representing the Other: A Feminism & Psychology Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 50–52.
30.
SperberDWilsonD (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
SperberDWilsonD (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
32.
SpindlerGSpindlerL (1992) Cultural process and ethnography: an anthropological perspective. In: LeCompteMD (ed.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. London: Academic Press, 53–92.
33.
SpradleyJP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
34.
StokoeWCCasterlineDCCronebergCG (1976) A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
35.
StoneC (2005) Towards a Deaf translation norm. Inaugural PhD lecture, ASLI conference, 14–15 May 2005, London.
36.
StraussACorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
37.
Sutton-SpenceRWollB (1999) The Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
TannenD (1989) Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TempleB (2002) Crossed wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-language research. Qualitative Health Research12(6): 844–854.
40.
TempleBYoungA (2004) Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research4(2): 161–178.
41.
Tirkkonen-ConditS (1989) Theory and methodology in translation research. In: Tirkkonen-ConditSConditS (eds) Empirical Studies in Translation and Linguistics. Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Arts, 3–18.
42.
Van GilsGVan den BogaerdeBDe LangeR (2010) The use of modern information and communication systems and technology and experienced stress at work in mixed Deaf-hearing teams. Sign Language Studies10(2): 231–257.
43.
VenutiL (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge.
44.
VermeerHJ (1989) Skopos and commission in translational action (ChestermanA, trans.). In: VenutiL (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 221–232.
45.
WestD (2002) ‘Here forever’: The importance of ethnographic research in the search for an understanding of Deaf children’s identity development. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Bristol, Bristol.
46.
YoungA (1995) Family adjustment to a deaf child in a bilingual, bicultural framework. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol.
47.
YoungAMAckermanJ (2001) Reflections on validity and epistemology in a study of working relations between Deaf and hearing professionals. Qualitative Health Research11(2): 179–189.
